U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–587 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–10

SW FOREST HEALTH ACT; BENTONITE MINING

IN WYOMING; PUEBLOS OF SANTA CLARA;

AND MT. NAOMI WILDERNESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 32 S. 246

S. 203 S. 278

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JON KYL, Arizona

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Chief Counsel

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman

CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairmaa

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JON KYL, Arizona

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri

RON WYDEN, Oregon

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................ 3

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 4

Covington, Dr. W. Wallace, Regents’ Professor and Director of the Ecological

Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University ......................................... 25

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1

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

Gonzales, John, Governor, San Ildefonso Pueblo, Santa Fe, NM ........................ 10

Gutierrez, Denny, Governor, Santa Clara Pueblo, Espanola, NM ...................... 5

Hughes, Jim, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 16

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona ............................................................ 24

Reaves, Jim, Director, Vegetation Management and Protection Research, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture .............................................................. 21

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 3

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 43

APPENDIX II

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 45

(1)

SW FOREST HEALTH ACT; BENTONITE MINING IN WYOMING; PUEBLOS OF SANTA

CLARA; AND MT. NAOMI WILDERNESS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room SD–

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig presiding.

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

SENATOR FROM IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee on

Public Lands and Forests of the full Energy and Natural Resources

Committee will be convened.

I want to thank each of and all of you for coming to the hearing

today. As Senator Bingaman comes in, our ranking member; and

as the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, comes in, I

will certainly recognize them. They are hoping to attend.

I know that Senator Domenici is delayed at another meeting. We

expect Senator Ron Wyden also to be here, who is my ranking on

the subcommittee. We have worked closely together over the years

on forestry issues and other public land resource issues and he has

shown his intent to be here today.

This afternoon, we will receive testimony on a number of important bills. And I want to thank each of you for coming to testify

today, especially those who traveled from out of their States here

to your Nation’s capitol.

I will be asking the chairman and the ranking member to give

their statements as they come, and Senator Wyden, if he is able

to make it.

Due to our late start—and there is the ranking member now—

and the travel schedule of the governors, I want to ask each of you

to keep your statements as short as possible. Governor Gutierrez

of the Santa Clara Pueblo in New Mexico and Governor Gonzales

of the San Ildefonso Pueblo in New Mexico are here to testify on

S. 246, Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici’s bill to provide

that certain Bureau of Land Management lands will be held in

trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso

in the State of New Mexico. Certainly, welcome to both of you.

2

I also want to recognize Dr. Wally Covington of Northern Arizona

University, who is here today to testify on S. 32, Senator Kyl’s bill

to establish institutes to conduct research on the preservation and

restoration of fire dependent forests and woodlands in the interior

West.

We will also be examining two other important legislative proposals, including S. 203, Senator Enzi’s bill to open certain withdrawn lands in the Big—in Big Horn County, Wyoming to—yes,

there we go—to locatable mineral development for Bentonite Mining in S. 278.

Senator Bennett’s bill to make adjustments to the boundaries of

Mount Naomi Wilderness area. I have Senator Bennett’s statement

for the record. He, I believe, will be unable to attend. We will be

accepting a certain—a number of statements on these bills that we

will include in the record of other members.

Finally, it is good to see Jim Hughes, the Deputy Director at the

Bureau of Land Management, and Jim Reaves, Director of Education Management and Protection Research, the U.S. Forest Service, are here today to provide our subcommittee with testimony on

these bills on behalf of the administration. So welcome to all of you.

After opening statements, we will ask all of you to come to the

table. I understand that some of the governors will need to leave

early to catch flights, so we will attempt to expedite it so you do

not miss those flights. We all understand how important that is,

so, again welcome to all of you.

And before we open up for testimony and invite you to the table,

let me turn to our ranking member, Senator Bingaman, for any

opening comments he would have.

[The prepared statements of Senators Domenici, Smith, and Bennett follow:]

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

FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator Craig, Thank you for allowing me to make this statement, I will limit my

comments to S. 246.

I want to welcome both Governor Denny Gutierez, of the Santa Clara Pueblo, as

well as Governor John Gonzales, of the San Ildefonso Pueblo. Thank you both for

making the long trip to Washington, DC.

S. 246 is a bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall

be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in

the State of New Mexico.

In 1988 the Bureau of Land Management declared approximately 4,484 acres located in the eastern foothills of the Jemez Mountains, including a portion of Garcia

Canyon, to be ‘‘disposal property.’’

The Garcia Canyon surplus lands qualify for disposal partially because the track

is an isolated piece of land almost inaccessible to the public.

It is bordered on three sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the

Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and by U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. The

only road access consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblo’s reservations.

I understand that currently there are no resource permits, leases, patents or

claims affecting these lands; nor is it likely that any significant minerals exist within the Garcia Canyon transfer lands.

The Garcia Canyon surplus lands constitute an important part of the ancestral

homelands of the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso.

Based upon these boundaries, about 2,000 acres of the Garcia Canyon surplus

lands is within the aboriginal domain of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso. The remaining

2,484 acres are in Santa Clara’s aboriginal lands.

3

The BLM and Interior Department for years have supported the transfer of the

land, provided the Pueblos agree upon a division of the Garcia Canyon surplus

lands.

In response, the two Pueblos signed a formal agreement affirming the boundary

between the respective parcels on December 20, 2000.

The Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso have worked diligently in arriving

at this agreement.

They have garnered supporting resolutions from Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and

Santa Fe Counties, and the National Congress of American Indians. They have also

obtained supporting letters from the National Audubon Society’s New Mexico State

Office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa Fe Group of the Sierra Club.

This unique situation presents a win-win opportunity to support more efficient

management of public resources while restoring isolated tracts of federal disposal

property to Tribal control.

We want to secure Congressional authorization to transfer control of these lands

to the two Pueblos, with legal title being held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for each of the Pueblos for their respective portions of the property.

I urge you to support this legislation.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding today’s hearing on S. 32, introduced by

Senator Kyl, which would establish research institutes to examine the prevention

of wildfires and restoration of fire-affected ecosystems in the Interior West. I fully

agree with the aims of this legislation, namely to reprioritize the roles of science,

scientific application, and partnerships with universities in the broader discussion

of forest health and rehabilitation.

The increasing success of appeals and litigation of fuels reduction and salvage operations lead us to believe that there is an imminent need for additional and more

comprehensive scientific principles to defend active forest health management on

public lands. In response to a domino series of such appeals in Oregon last year,

Congressman Walden and I requested that the Oregon State College of Forestry and

the Institute for Natural Resources develop a balanced and comprehensive report

concerning the restoration of post-fire ecosystems. Since then, Dean Hal Salwasser

has been working with his faculty, federal agencies, conservation groups and private

forest land owners to respond to our request. Dean Salwasser recently prepared a

detailed analysis outlining a work proposal, funding needs, and scope. I would ask

that a copy of his proposal be entered into the record.

I look forward to working with Senator Kyl and my other colleagues on this Committee toward creating the scientific underpinnings needed to effectively implement

the National Fire Plan and the Western Governor’s Strategy.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

I thank Chairman Craig, Senator Wyden and the Subcommittee on Public Lands

and Forests for holding today’s hearing on S. 278, the Mount Naomi Wilderness

Boundary Adjustment Act. I appreciate the Senate moving forward with this important legislation so quickly. I also welcome the support of Representative Rob Bishop,

who has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The legislation the subcommittee will consider today will revise the boundaries of

the Mount Naomi Wilderness in order to remove incompatabile uses from the wilderness area and to better reflect the topography of Mount Naomi.

Included in the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, the Mount Naomi Wilderness is one

of Utah’s largest wilderness areas at over 44,000 acres. It is a very scenic area and

contains some of the best examples of alpine terrain in the intermountain west.

There are large populations of moose, elk, and deer. It is an area truly worthy of

its designation.

Unfortunately, the boundaries were drawn in such a way as to have some unintended consequences. Running through the wilderness is a utility corridor, containing a major electricity transmission line. This power line serves the residents of

Logan and the whole south end of Cache Valley. Because of restrictions in the Wilderness Act of 1964, maintaining and repairing the power line will be very difficult

in the future.

Also impacted by Mount Naomi’s boundaries is one of Utah’s most popular hiking

and mountain biking trails: the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail, when completed, will be over 250 miles in length. Starting in Nephi and

heading north into Idaho, the trail will follow the shoreline of ancient Lake BonneVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:53 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\86-587 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
4

ville. The alignment of the trail is planned to go through a small part of the Mount

Naomi Wilderness. While hikers and equestrian users would be permitted to use

this section of the trail, mountain bikers would be prohibited under wilderness restrictions. The city of Logan has tried to work to change the alignment to adjacent

private property to no avail.

This legislation would redraw the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness to

allow for the power line to be accessed and properly maintained and would allow

continuity in the use of Bonneville Shoreline Trail by all outdoor enthusiasts. The

acreage of this wilderness area would not change, thirty-one current acres would be

excluded and thirty-one new acres would be added. The newly added lands will be

managed pursuant to the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984.

This legislation was originally offered in the 107th Congress by former Representative Hansen. It passed the House of Representatives but was never acted upon by

the Senate. Because of the common interest in protecting this area from inconsistent

uses and because of the need to properly maintain the transmission line, S. 278 has

garnered the support of the city of Logan, Cache County, and the United States Forest Service. In light of the benefits provided by and community support for S. 278,

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation this

year.

Again, I thank Chairman Craig and Senator Wyden and the Subcommittee on

Public Lands and Forests for holding today’s hearing on the Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act.

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

FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for holding the hearing. I want to briefly speak about

the two bills that are of particular interest to my State this afternoon—the people in my State.

S. 246, as you indicated, is a bill that Senator Domenici and I

have co-sponsored. It is very important to the Pueblos of Santa

Clara and San Ildefonso. I am very happy that the governors of

those two pueblos are here to speak to us today, Governor Gonzales

and Governor Gutierrez. And I look forward to hearing their views.

During the 107th Congress, we did pass this legislation, or essentially a bill identical to this legislation, through the Senate by

unanimous consent. As far as I know, there is no opposition.

The Bureau of Land Management has worked with us in the development of this bill, and I think they believe this is an appropriate transfer, so I hope we can proceed on that. In my view, the

pueblo has done a tremendous job of helping to craft this legislation.

The other bill I would mention is the one you mentioned that

Senator Kyl has, S. 32. I know Dr. Covington is here to testify on

that bill. It would establish three wildfire prevention research institutes in the Southwest. I think this is a very, very important initiative.

We have a very serious problem in our State as does Arizona and

all of the Southwest, and, of course, your State as well, with the

problem of wildfire. We need to deal with it in a more effective way

than we have. I hope this initiative will help us to do that, so

thank you very much for having the hearing.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Senator. Now, I

would ask all the witnesses if you would please come to the table

and take your places.

[Pause.]

Senator CRAIG. Usually out of courtesy, we offer the administration the opportunity to testify first. But today because of timing

5

and recognition of some folks needing to get to an airport, we are

going to turn to our two governors first and ask them if they would

proceed with their testimony on the legislation. And we will simply

do it by order of your seating.

And so I would ask you, Governor Gutierrez, if you would start

with your testimony please.

STATEMENT OF DENNY GUTIERREZ, GOVERNOR, SANTA

CLARA PUEBLO, ESPANOLA, NM

Governor GUTIERREZ. Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. And pull the microphone up to you, and there

should be a button on the face of it down on the stand to activate

it. Thank you.

Governor GUTIERREZ. Honorable Chairman Craig and members

of the subcommittee, good afternoon. I wish to thank you for holding this hearing on S. 246 and inviting Santa Clara Pueblo to testify. I ask that the full text of my written comments be entered into

the record.

I am Denny Gutierrez, governor of the Pueblo. I have with me,

Lieutenant Governor Edwin Tafoya, former Governor Gilbert

Tafoya, Lance Monitor, Jeff Lyon, and tribal consultant Elvin Warren.

And the Clara Pueblo strongly supports S. 246 and greatly appreciates the efforts of Chairman Domenici and ranking member

Bingaman to secure passage of this legislation.

I proudly represent the 2,500 members and residents of Santa

Clara Pueblo, a federally recognized Indian tribe. We are situated

in northern New Mexico on just over 51,000 acres of land in trust

or restricted fee status, stretching from the Rio Grande Valley to

the Jemez Mountains.

We have resided in this region since time immemorial. S. 246

will support more efficient management of public resources while

restoring control of approximately 4,484 acres of isolated surplus

Federal land to the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso.

I am happy to say that the proposed transfer enjoys wide and diverse public support. This includes the Department of the Interior,

State BLM officials, the Governor of New Mexico, the counties of

Santa Fe and Rio Arriba, in which these lands are located, and the

neighboring county of Los Alamos, the National Congress of American Indians, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the

Wilderness Society, and the Quivira Coalition. Copies of documents

demonstrating this support have been submitted along with our

written testimony.

Part of the reason for this overwhelming support is that in

1998—1988, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management determined

that the lands at issue were difficult and uneconomic to manage as

part of the public lands and decided to dispose of them. They

reached this decision after extensive public consultation.

This land is isolated and almost inaccessible to the general public. It is surrounded on three sides by the reservations of Santa

Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and by U.S. Forest

Service lands on the remaining side.

6

The only road access consists of unimproved roads through the

two pueblo reservations. These factors have resulted in minimal or

no public usage of his land in recent decades.

It does not contain any significant public values or natural resources. Currently there are no resource permits, leases, patents,

or claims affecting this land.

The Clara Pueblo continues to hold original title to about 2,484

acres of this land. Our ancestral boundaries are defined by geographical landmarks, cultural sites, and other distinct places where

traditional Tewa-language names and locations have been passed

down in our pueblo through the generations.

These lands continue to hold important cultural and natural resources for our pueblo. The proposed legislation contains provisions

that protect any valid right of way lease, permit, mining claim,

grazing permit, water right, or other right or interest of a person

or entity other than the United States on these lands that is in existence before the date of enactment of this act. However, to our

knowledge there are no present lease or permit holders within

these lands.

Further, the legislation contains provisions to promote stewardship, conservation, as well as our traditional and customary uses

of the property, which our pueblo include but not are limited to,

hunting, livestock grazing, gathering and harvesting natural materials for personal and community use as well as to produce products for trade or sale, and cultural practices.

Finally, no new commercial developments will be allowed on

these lands after transfer to the two pueblos. The return of these

2,484 acres to Santa Clara Pueblo will enable us to better control

our resources in the area, protect our culture, and provide for our

future generations.

In closing, I ask the subcommittee for favorable and expeditious

consideration of S. 246 and welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Governor Gutierrez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNY GUTIERREZ, GOVERNOR, SANTA CLARA PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO

Honorable Chairman Craig and members of the subcommittee, my name is Denny

Gutierrez and I am the elected Governor of Santa Clara Pueblo, a federally recognized tribe located in northern New Mexico. It is an honor to appear before this

Subcommittee today to discuss the reasons the Pueblo of Santa Clara strongly supports S. 246. The Pueblo thanks you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to our senators, Chairman Pete Domenici and Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman, for their leadership in crafting and introducing this legislation to restore to

our people an important part of our ancestral lands which are currently identified

for disposal by the federal government. We also thank Representatives Tom Udall

and Heather Wilson for sponsoring the companion legislation H.R. 507.

I am here today proudly representing the 2,500 members and residents of Santa

Clara Pueblo. Santa Clara maintains both a traditional and constitutional form of

government: our Constitution was adopted in 1935 pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act. We are also the only Self-Governance tribe in New Mexico. We are situated about twenty-six miles north of Santa Fe. Annually we are fortunate to receive thousands of visitors from around the United States and the world who seek

our traditional Blackware and Redware pottery. Until the devastating Cerro Grande

Fire we welcomed tens of thousands of people to experience the breathtaking Puye

Cliff Dwellings, our ancestral village that is also a National Historic Landmark.

For millennia the people of Santa Clara have known the Jemez Mountains as our

home. Since about the 1300’s our ancient community—which we call Kha P’o

7

* The exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files.

Owingeh in our native Tewa language—has stood at the confluence of the Rio

Grande River and a small river of great importance to us, the Santa Clara Creek.

Our people have lived in the region for thousands of years. Prior to settling in this

village, our ancestors occupied Puye and several other pueblos and cliff dwellings

just nine miles to the west on the Pajarito Plateau that fans out east from the

Jemez Mountains. The boundaries of our ancestral homeland are defined by geographical landmarks, cultural sites, and other distinct places whose traditional

Tewa-language names and locations have been known and passed down in our

Pueblo through the generations.

Currently, Santa Clara Pueblo holds just over 51,000 acres of our ancestral homeland; comprised principally of two patented Spanish land grants and an Executive

Order Reservation created in 1905 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This land base

stretches from an elevation of 5,540 feet in the Rio Grande Valley to 10,761 feet

in the heights of the Jemez Mountains.

Unfortunately, Santa Clara Pueblo has suffered the loss of our ancestral lands located outside our reservation. S. 246 will partially address this loss by declaring

that all right, title and interest of the United States in and to two separate but adjacent tracts of land in New Mexico currently identified for disposal by the Bureau

of Land Management, totaling approximately 4,484 acres, shall be held by the

United States, subject to valid existing rights, in trust for the federally-recognized

Indian Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso, respectively. These lands (hereinafter, ‘‘the Garcia Canyon surplus lands’’) are located in the eastern foothills of the

Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico, and include portions of Garcia and

Chupadero Canyons. They are situated in Township 20 North, Ranges 7 and 8 East,

N.M.P.M. We are attaching as Exhibit 1 * a map showing the location of the Garcia

Canyon surplus lands.

The proposed transfer enjoys widespread support in New Mexico and even from

some national organizations. The Administration supports this legislation, Mr.

Chairman, as is evidenced by a June 20, 2002 letter by U.S. Department of Interior

Assistant Secretary Rebecca Watson [attached hereto as Exhibit 2]. Linda S.C.

Rundell, the State Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s New Mexico

State Office provided a letter dated February 24, 2003, which expressed support for

legislation transferring the Garcia Canyon surplus lands to our two Tribes [attached

as Exhibit 3]. These followed a previous letter of support dated May 18, 2001 from

Rich Whitley, the Associate State Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management

New Mexico State Office [attached hereto as Exhibit 4].

The State of New Mexico also supports the transfer of these lands to our Pueblos,

as evidenced by the letter from Governor Bill Richardson dated February 18, 2003

[attached hereto as Exhibit 5]. Rio Arriba County, in which 3/4 of the land is located, adopted Resolution 2002-15 on August 30, 2001 supporting the transfer of

these lands to the two Pueblos [attached hereto as Exhibit 6]. The remaining 1/4

of the land is situated in Santa Fe County, who similarly adopted Resolution Number 2002-35 on March 27, 2002 in support of the proposed transfer [attached hereto

as Exhibit 7]. The neighboring County of Los Alamos also approved a resolution,

Number 02-03, supporting the land transfer [attached hereto as Exhibit 8].

In addition, the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments, approved Resolution #SPO-01-083 supporting legislation to return the Garcia Canyon

surplus lands to the two Pueblos [attached hereto as Exhibit 9]. In addition, we

have received a letter of support dated April 11, 2002 from the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and the Quivira Coalition [attached hereto as Exhibit 10].

The Wilderness Society has also expressed its support for our efforts in a letter

dated October 17, 2002 [attached hereto as Exhibit 11].

One reason for this widespread support is that in 1988 the Bureau of Land Management (hereinafter ‘‘B.L.M.’’), pursuant to the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1707 et seq., hereinafter ‘‘F.L.P.M.A.’’), declared these 4,484

acres to be ‘‘disposal property.’’ The Taos Resource Area Management Plan identified lands for disposal that it considered ‘‘scattered and isolated’’ and where the

B.L.M. concluded that transferring these lands out of its control may help ‘‘. . .

achieve more efficient management and utilization of public resources’’ (p. 2-11, 1-

6). Further, these lands met the specific ‘‘disposal criteria’’ that include disposing

of land that ‘‘. . . because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands.’’ The designation of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands as disposal as part of the B.L.M.’s land use planning process involved extensive consultation with the public, permittees and lessees and relevant

federal and state agencies.

8

The Garcia Canyon surplus lands qualify for disposal partially because the tract

is an isolated tract of land almost inaccessible to the general public. It is surrounded

on three sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San

IIdefonso, and by U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. The only road access consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblos’ reservations. These factors have resulted in minimal or no public usage of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands

in recent decades. They have also complicated proper supervision of the tract by the

B.L.M.

The Garcia Canyon surplus lands do not contain any significant public values or

natural resources. The tract is characterized by steep canyons and occasional flat

mesas with pinon and juniper trees and sparse gramma grasslands coverage. While

limited pumice mining occurred there during the 1960s it is unlikely that any significant minerals exist within the Garcia Canyon surplus lands. Currently there are

no resource permits, leases, patents or claims affecting these lands.

The Garcia Canyon surplus lands contain a limited amount of poor quality forage

for livestock, and have not been actively grazed for over fourteen years.Although the

area was permitted for grazing after World War II to an absentee rancher, repeated

droughts, lack of water sources and difficulty with maintaining trails to the mesa

tops made grazing the area almost impossible, such that the allotment was frequently left ungrazed or undergrazed and never held more than 31 cows in one year.

Finally, in December of 1989 the B.L.M. cancelled the grazing permit for non-use.

We understand that the B.L.M. currently does not intend to issue a grazing permit

for the Garcia Canyon surplus lands.

Yet to our Pueblo the Garcia Canyon surplus lands constitute an important part

of our ancestral homelands. Based upon our traditional boundaries, approximately

2,484 acres of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands are Santa Clara’s aboriginal lands.

The remaining 2,000 acres is within the aboriginal domain of the Pueblo of San

IIdefonso. Our two Pueblos retain ‘‘aboriginal’’ or ‘‘Indian title’’ to our respective portions of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands and through the proposed legislation are

hoping to finally gain legal recognition of that title. Under American law, ‘‘aboriginal title’’ is the right of Indian tribes to their aboriginal lands. Good against all but

the United States, aboriginal title may be extinguished only by Congress, and then

only where Congress’ intent to extinguish aboriginal title is ‘‘plain and unambiguous.’’

During the time of Spanish and Mexican administration, Santa Clara Pueblo was

recognized as occupying and controlling a much greater area than is represented by

our current landholdings, including the Garcia Canyon surplus lands. In 1763, New

Mexico Governor Tomas Velez Gachupin further guaranteed Santa Clara Pueblo’s

exclusive ownership of the Santa Clara Canyon and surrounding lands totaling approximately 90,000 acres by issuing to Santa Clara the ‘‘Canada de Santa Clara’’

land grant. This well-documented Spanish land grant included the 2,484 acres of the

Garcia Canyon surplus lands currently sought for transfer to Santa Clara Pueblo.

The United States acquired jurisdiction over this area by the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which required the government to respect the property rights of the

inhabitants of the territory, including the Pueblos. For a number of reasons, including ignorance of Spanish land laws, failure to consider the actual land records in

the possession of the archives of Nuevo Mexico and potentially fraudulent land

transactions, however, the United States actually recognized only a small fraction

of the lands subject to Pueblo ownership. In 1850 the United States’ agent for Indian Affairs negotiated a treaty with the Pueblos promising that the United States

would protect the Pueblos’ ownership of property, but the Senate never ratified that

treaty. In 1854 Congress created the office of the Surveyor General, who was instructed to determine the private property rights in New Mexico held pursuant to

Spanish and Mexican law. The Surveyor General was instructed to rely on the documents in the Spanish and Mexican archives.

In the case of our Pueblo, this was not done. Santa Clara Pueblo received confirmation of the Santa Clara Pueblo Grant, totaling approximately 17,369 acres of

land primarily in the Rio Grande Valley. In addition, the United States through its

territorial officials acted to protect some of what it saw as Pueblo lands outside the

Pueblo Grant. In 1852 U.S. Indian Office agents removed an American settler from

the upper portions of the Santa Clara Canyon. In 1882 Santa Clara Pueblo petitioned the Surveyor General for confirmation of the ‘‘Canada de Santa Clara’’ grant,

totaling about 90,000 acres, including the approximately 2,484 acre Santa Clara portion of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands. The Pueblo’s petition was supported by Indian Agent Ben M. Thomas, New Mexico Surveyors General Clarence Pullen and

George W. Julian, and A.J. Sparks, Commissioner of the General Land Office. However, for reasons that remain obscure, Congress never acted to confirm the grant.

9

In 1891, Congress created the Court of Private Land Claims to provide an alternative to the cumbersome and much abused process of congressional confirmation

and patent. Santa Clara presented its claim for the Canada de Santa Clara Grant

to the Court in 1892. Lacking the resources to fully prosecute the claim and facing

procedural disadvantages, however, the Pueblo faced an uphill battle in the Court.

Moreover, the Court relied on a compendium of Spanish and Mexican laws that was

compiled by the lawyers working for the government. The government succeeded in

defeating about 94% of the claims presented to the Court.

The record of the Santa Clara claim shows how aggressively the Court dealt with

even meritorious claims. While the Court confirmed Santa Clara’s title to the ‘‘Canada de Santa Clara’’ grant on September 29, 1894, it ignored the specific details of

the grant boundaries as set forth in the grant document, disregarded controlling

principles of Spanish land law, and accepted a highly restrictive survey of the grant.

Thus, of the 90,000 acres presented for confirmation, the Court confirmed only 473

acres, in a narrow strip at the bottom of the canyon. Many assessments of the settlement of the Santa Clara’s Canada Grant claim have found it to be unjust and

potentially fraudulent, including a 1904 report by C.F. Nester, a U.S. Indian Inspector and various documents produced by the Congressionally-created Pueblo Lands

Board.

Having been deprived of the bulk of its Spanish land grant by the Court of Private Land Claims, the Pueblo sought relief from Congress and the President of the

United States. Those efforts were at least partially successful when, on July 29,

1905, President Theodore Roosevelt by Executive Order created the Santa Clara

Reservation that included about 33,000 acres of the land within the original Canada

de Santa Clara Grant. However, no part of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands was

included in the Executive Order Reservation.

Santa Clara Pueblo brought action against the United States pursuant to the Indian Claims Commission Act (60 Stat. 1040, 25 U.S.C. 70, et seq.), Pueblo of Santa

Clara v. United States, I.C.C. Dkt. No. 356. The I.C.C. had been created on August

13, 1946 specifically to rule on all Indian claims against the United States arising

before the passage of the act. The Pueblo’s purpose in petitioning the I.C.C. was to

regain land they claimed and to utilize the I.C.C. proceedings to convince the Congress to assist with this restoration. However, the I.C.C. Act was later interpreted

to provide only for monetary compensation and not for confirmation of title.

The Santa Clara claim was settled in 1988 in a manner that preserved Santa

Clara Pueblo’s aboriginal title to its ancestral lands in the Garcia Canyon surplus

lands. That year, the Pueblo and the United States reached an agreement whereby

the Pueblo agreed to accept monetary compensation for 5,309 acres of its aboriginal

lands, and it dismissed its claims for compensation as to the remaining 26,230 acres

of the claim. That disposition of the claim left the Pueblo’s aboriginal title to the

remaining lands, including the Santa Clara portion of the Garcia Canyon surplus

lands, unextinguished.

Santa Clara Pueblo has continued to assert its claims to this land and has continued to use this land for a variety of economic and cultural purposes. The B.L.M.

recognizes this fact, and states in its Taos Resource Area Management Plan that

‘‘[l]ands administered by the BLM . . . are contiguous with several Indian pueblos

. . . [including] Santa Clara. . . . Much of the adjacent public land is traditionally

used by these pueblos for wood gathering and religious purposes’’ (p. 2-14). Pueblo

livestock grazed on the lands before the United States erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the land pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act in the 1940’s. Gathering of

cultural materials by our Pueblo is ongoing. Finally, the Pueblo continue to care for

cultural sites located within these lands as we have for centuries.

The current situation presents a unique opportunity to support more efficient

management of public resources while restoring to tribal control isolated tracts of

surplus federal land. The B.L.M. currently seeks to dispose of the Garcia Canyon

surplus lands and Santa Clara Pueblo seeks to have these lands returned. In addition, the B.L.M. and Interior Department for years have supported the return of the

land to Santa Clara Pueblo and San Ildefonso Pueblo, provided the Pueblos agree

upon a division of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands. In response, the two Pueblos

signed a formal agreement affirming the boundary between their respective parcels

on December 20, 2000 [attached hereto as Exhibit 12].

Santa Clara Pueblo believes that federal legislation to restore these lands is warranted in this case because the Garcia Canyon surplus lands are identified for disposal by the federal government, there are no other parties interested in acquiring

these lands, the two Pueblos maintain aboriginal title to these lands and control the

only vehicular access and the B.L.M. supports the transfer of the lands to the two

Pueblos. In addition, the proposed legislation contains provisions that protect any

valid right-of-way, lease, permit, mining claim, grazing permit, water right, or other

10

right or interest of a person or entity (other than the United States) on these lands

that is in existence before the date of enactment of this Act. However, to our knowledge there are no present lease or permit holders within these lands. Further, the

legislation contains provisions to promote stewardship conservation as well as our

traditional and customary uses of the property, which to our Pueblo include but are

not limited to: hunting; livestock grazing; gathering and harvesting natural materials for personal and community use as well as to produce products for trade or

sale; and cultural practices. Finally, no new commercial developments will be allowed on the Garcia Canyon disposal lands after transfer to the two Pueblos.

Above all, the return of these 2,484 acres to Santa Clara Pueblo will enable us

to better control our resources in the area, protect our culture, and provide for our

future generations. By owning and managing these lands, we will be able to prevent

any use or development of these lands that might permanently damage these sensitive lands and their resources, upon which our community depends. We are deeply

committed to maintaining these lands in a natural state and conserving them for

their hydrological, ecological, and cultural values consistent with our traditional and

customary uses. Santa Clara has a proven track record of protecting and managing

the lands currently in our reservation.Finally, the transfer of these lands will demonstrate an effective policy with regards to working with Indian tribes and Pueblos

to achieve both tribal self-governance and effective, cooperative protection of the environment.

In conclusion, we request that you favorably report this legislation and support

its passage by the United States Senate this year. On behalf of the people of Santa

Clara, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Subcommittee for the

opportunity to testify on S. 246.

Senator CRAIG. Governor, thank you very much.

Now, let me turn to Governor Gonzales.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GONZALES, GOVERNOR, SAN

ILDEFONSO PUEBLO, SANTA FE, NM

Governor GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman. First

of all, I would like to just on a personal note extend my welcome

from—or my best wishes from my wife Carla Gonzales, who used

to be known as Carla Hiagle, a member of the Nez Perce Nation

to you, Mr. Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Yes. Give her my best, Governor.

Governor GONZALES. I will.

Senator CRAIG. Yes.

Governor GONZALES. I will. Thank you. And she lives in San

Ildefonso Pueblo now, so she is going through cultural shock.

[Laughter.]

Governor GONZALES. Honorable Chairman Craig and the members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. I am John Gonzalez, the

governor of San Ildefonso Pueblo. Thank you for holding this hearing on Senate S. 246, and inviting San Ildefonso to present to the

subcommittee why the pueblo believes this bill is in the best interest of the United States and San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos. I ask that the first text of the written comments be entered

into the record.

I have with me from San Ildefonso Pueblo, our first lieutenant

governor, Timothy Martinez, if I could please recognize him.

Senator CRAIG. Certainly. Welcome.

Governor GONZALES. And Councilman Sean Hughes.

Senator CRAIG. Welcome.

Governor GONZALES. We want to thank Chairman Domenici and

ranking member Bingaman on the pueblo’s behalf for their sponsorship and additional efforts to secure passage of this legislation.

Our pueblo certainly appreciates that support.

11

The lands between—excuse me. I do not want to cover what Senator—excuse me—Governor Gutierrez has covered, so I will skip

over some parts of my testimony.

San Ildefonso Pueblo’s tie to this part—to its part of the—this

tract goes back to before recorded history. Before the arrival of the

Europeans on this continent, the pueblo had exclusive use and responsibility for a much larger area of land.

We cared for the land and the land cared for us. Now, the United

States recognizes our beneficial title to a much smaller area. Senate S. 246 will return a portion of the pueblo’s heartland to it.

The procedures used for the creation of the national forest and

the application of the Taylor Grazing Act to Federal lands may

have legally changed the pueblo’s relationship to these lands as a

matter of Federal law, but these Federal acts could not change the

fundamental nature of the pueblo’s tie to the lands within the

pueblo’s world view.

S. 246 contains limits on how the pueblo can use the land to be

placed into trust for its benefit. The legislation gives back to the

pueblo its ability to actively manage the land for conservation purposes, as well as continued traditional and customary uses.

It does not permit new commercial development on the land.

These limits are consistent with the pueblo’s own view of its responsibilities to the land.

On behalf of my pueblo, I ask the subcommittee and the Congress to—for favorable consideration of S. 246, and make myself

available to any questions you may have about S. 246. Thank you

very much.

Senator CRAIG. Governor, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Governor Gonzales follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN GONZALES, GOVERNOR, SAN ILDEFONSO PUEBLO, NEW MEXICO

Honorable Chairman Craig and Members of the of the Subcommittee, I am John

Gonzales, Governor of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso and I appear before you today

to testify in favor of Senate Bill 246 (S. 246).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this proposed legislation is to declare that all right, title and interest of the United States in and to separate tracts of land in New Mexico currently

identified for disposal by the Bureau of Land Management totaling approximately

2,000 acres and 2,484 acres shall be held by the United States, subject to valid existing rights, in trust for the federally-recognized Indian Pueblos of San Ildefonso

and Santa Clara, respectively.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

This legislation is supported by the U.S. Department of the Interior, though the

Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management, and the

New Mexico Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management. The New

Mexico Counties of Rio Arriba and Santa Fe, where the Garcia Canyon lands are

located, and the nearby County of Los Alamos support this legislation because it is

most likely to provide better management of the Garcia Canyon lands. In addition,

the likelihood of better management of these lands has garnered the support of the

Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and, the Wilderness Society and the Quivera Coalition. Copies of these support documents have been provided to our Senators, and

can be provided to the Committee upon request.

BACKGROUND

In 1988 the Bureau of Land Management (hereinafter ‘‘B.L.M.’’), pursuant to the

Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1707 et seq., hereinafter

12

‘‘F.L.P.M.A.’’) declared certain lands in Township 20 North, Ranges 7 and 8 East,

N.M.P.M. to be ‘‘disposal property’’. These 4,484 acres (hereinafter, ‘‘the surplus

lands’’ or ‘‘Garcia Canyon tract’’) are located in the eastern foothills of the Jemez

Mountains in the northern part of New Mexico. The surplus lands comprise one

tract, enclosing 4,484 acres in the eastern Garcia Canyon and Chupaderos Canyon

area (hereinafter ‘‘the Garcia Canyon tract’’). A map depicting the location of the

surplus lands and the division between the Pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa

Clara is attached.

The B.L.M. Taos Resource Area Management Plan, dated October 1988 (‘‘Plan’’),

states that the surplus lands were identified for disposal ‘‘. . . through the Bureau’s

land use planning process . . . [and] must meet the criteria established in Sections

203 and 209 of FLPMA’’ (Plan, p. 2-15). These lands met the specific ‘‘disposal criteria’’ applicable where the land, ‘‘. . . because of its location or other characteristics, is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands.’’ The Taos

Resource Area Management Plan identified lands for disposal that it considered

‘‘scattered and isolated’’ and where the B.L.M. concluded that transferring these

lands out of its control may help ‘‘. . . achieve more efficient management and utilization of public resources’’ (Plan, p. 2-11, 1-6). The B.L.M.’s land use planning process designating the surplus lands ‘‘for disposal’’ involved extensive consultation with

the public, permittees and lessees and relevant federal and state agencies.

The surplus lands qualify for disposal because they are isolated tracts of land virtually inaccessible to the general public. The surplus lands are surrounded on three

sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso

with U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. Due to this, the only road access to the surplus lands consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblos’ reservations. Altogether, due to these factors there has been minimal or no public

usage of the surplus lands in recent decades, and these factors create complications

for proper supervision by the B.L.M.

Further, the surplus lands do not contain any significant public values or natural

resources. Steep canyons and occasional flat mesas covered with pinon, juniper trees

and a sparse gramma grasslands coverage make up most of the tract. While limited

pumice mining occurred during the 1960s, it is unlikely that any significant minerals exist within the surplus lands. Currently there are no resource permits, leases,

patents or claims involving this tract.

The surplus lands contain a limited amount and quality of forage for livestock but

have not been actively grazed for over a decade. After World War II livestock grazed

on these lands under a permit held by an absentee owner, C. Earle Miller of

Downington, Pennsylvania. B.L.M.’s file at the Taos Field Office shows that this

area was difficult to graze due to repeated droughts, lack of water sources on the

mesa tops, difficulty with maintaining trails to the mesa tops, and limits on use of

lower parts of the tract in the absence of good precipitation, a rare occurrence in

the desert southwest. In an attempt to ensure the parcel was grazed, in 1970 Mr.

Miller informed the B.L.M. that he wanted to lease his permit to Abel Sanchez, the

Governor of San Ildefonso Pueblo. The B.L.M. discouraged this lease and it was not

completed.

Two years later the B.L.M. threatened to cancel Mr. Miller’s permit after three

consecutive years of non-use. The Pueblo of San Ildefonso continued to be involved

in Mr. Miller’s cattle operations, and in fact managed those operations under contract during the mid-1970s. After this arrangement ended, the allotment was frequently left ungrazed or undergrazed and never held more than 31 cows in one year.

Finally, in December of 1989 the B.L.M. notified Mr. Miller that it was canceling

his permit because he ‘‘did not meet the mandatory qualifications of actively grazing

on public land in conjunction with a livestock business.’’ The Millers continued to

have a good relationship with the Pueblo of San Ildefonso and in their Will bequeathed their five-acre property adjacent to the Garcia Canyon tract to the Pueblo

of San Ildefonso. The B.L.M. currently does not intend to issue a grazing permit for

the Garcia Canyon tract.

ANCESTRAL PUEBLO TIES TO THE LAND

The Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso have long-standing ties to the surplus lands. These lands are important parts of their ancestral homelands which they

have used and occupied since time immemorial.

These Pueblos are two of the Tewa-speaking federally-recognized Indian Pueblos

of New Mexico. Both Pueblos have occupied and controlled the areas where they are

presently located since many centuries before the arrival of the first Europeans in

the area in 1540. From time immemorial, the two Pueblos have used and possessed

their ancestral homelands in the Jemez Mountains, Pajanto Plateau, and Rio

13

Grande Valley. The boundaries of these homelands are defined by geographical

landmarks, cultural sites, and other distinct places whose traditional Tewa names

and locations have been known and passed down in each Pueblo through the generations. Federal Bureau of Ethnology Studies done in the early 1900s documented

these traditional Tewa names and which Pueblo was associated with a particular

landmark. HARRINGTON, The Ethnogeography of the Tewa Indians, 29th Report

of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1908. Based upon these boundaries, about 2,000 acres of the Garcia Canyon tract is within the aboriginal domain of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso and the

remaining 2,484 acres, more or less, of the Garcia Canyon tract are in Santa Clara

Pueblo’s ancestral homeland.

Spanish and Mexican governments recognized these Pueblos as occupying and

controlling a much greater area than their current land holdings. The rights of Indians to their traditional lands was emphasized in the Recopilacion de leyes de los

Re vnos de las Indias of 1680, a condensation of some 100,000 royal pronouncements

on Indian affairs after 1492. Through these laws, the Pueblos and tribes retained

possession of the lands belonging to them. Pueblos were also entitled to additional

lands if needed and Pueblo holdings were protected from encroachment by Spanish

settlers and livestock. San Ildefonso Pueblo’s western lands were the setting of one

of the most thoroughly documented lawsuits brought by the Spanish crown’s representative during the colonial period. The ‘‘Protector of the Indies’’ prevailed over

several persons seeking to take over these lands. The records of this lawsuit have

survived as part of the Spanish Archives of New Mexico (SANM).

Accordingly, both Pueblos retained their aboriginal ownership and use of the surplus lands throughout the Spanish and Mexican periods as a matter of Spanish and

Mexican law. In addition, in 1763 New Mexico Governor Tomas Velez Cachupin further guaranteed Santa Clara Pueblo’s exclusive ownership of the Santa Clara Canyon and surrounding lands totaling approximately 90,000 acres by issuing the Pueblo the ‘‘Canada de Santa Clara’’ land grant. This well-documented Spanish land

grant included the 2,484 acres of the Garcia Canyon tract.

The United States acquired jurisdiction over the area pursuant in 1848, but to

date has recognized less than one-half of the Pueblos’ original land bases. The failure to recognize the true extent of the Pueblos’ lands was the result of many factors,

including ignorance of Spanish land laws, failure to consider the actual land records

in the possession of the archives of New Mexico and potentially fraudulent land

transactions.

Pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (as put into effect by the Surveyor

General Act of July, 22, 1854, Ch. 103, 10 Stat. 308), the United States was obligated to protect the Pueblos’ rights to these lands and the cultural resources on

these lands. See State of New Mexico v. Aamodt, 618 F.Supp. 993 (D.N.M. 1985).

Specifically, property rights were not affected by the change in sovereignty and jurisdiction (Tameling v. U.S. Freehold & Emigration Co., 93 U.S. 644 (1876)). In 1850

the United States’ Indian Agent, James S. Calhoun, entered into an agreement with

the each Pueblos promising that the United States would protect the Pueblos’ ownership of property. This agreement was never ratified by the Congress of the United

States. In 1854 Congress gave the Surveyor General instructions on determining the

property in New Mexico held pursuant to Spanish and Mexican law. The Surveyor

General was instructed to rely on the documents in the Spanish and Mexican archives.

In the case of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, this was not done. The lands now referred to as the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant were recognized and the Pueblo was

given a patent to the grant lands, but not other lands within the Pueblo’s aboriginal

boundary, including lands west of the San Ildefonso Pueblo Grant, even though the

Pueblo’s ownership was clearly recorded in the Archives. Small areas were returned

to the Pueblo in the twentieth century. In 1905 the Federal Jemez Forest Reserve

was created, but the Garcia Canyon lands were not included within that Reserve.

Congress explicitly recognized and reserved for the Pueblo’s use a small area in

1929, located directly west of the present San Ildefonso Grant, but it did not include

the Garcia Canyon lands. In 1949 Congress recognized San Ildefonso’s Sacred Area

reservation, southwest of the grant, approximately one-fifth of the lands the United

States acquired for the Pueblo in the 1930s. At one time the United States contemplated granting the Pueblo of San Ildefonso grazing leases for the Garcia Canyon Lands in exchange for the failure to recognize all of the Pueblo’s sacred area.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Pueblo Agency rejected this suggestion because allowing the Pueblo to use its own land was not giving them anything in exchange for

the other lands.

The Pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa Clara have continued to assert their

claims to this land and have continued to use this land for a variety of economic

14

and cultural purposes. The B.L.M. recognizes this fact, and states in its Taos Resource Area Management Plan that ‘‘[l]ands administered by the BLM . . . are contiguous with several Indian Pueblos . . . [including] Santa Clara [and] San

Ildefonso. . . . Much of the adjacent public land is traditionally used by these Pueblos for wood gathering and religious purposes’’ (p. 2-14). Pueblo livestock grazed on

the lands before the United States erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the land

pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act in the 1940’s. Gathering of cultural materials

by the two Pueblos is on-going. Finally, the Pueblos continue to care for cultural

sites located within these lands as they have for centuries.

PROPOSED TRANSFER

The current situation presents a unique opportunity to support more efficient

management of public resources while restoring to tribal control isolated tracts of

surplus federal land. The B.L.M. currently seeks to dispose of the surplus lands and

the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso seek to have these lands returned.

In addition, the B.L.M. and Interior Department for years have supported the return of the land to the two Pueblos, provided the Pueblos agreed upon a division

of the Garcia Canyon parcel. In response, the two Pueblos signed a formal agreement affirming the boundary on December 20, 2000.It reads:

AGREEMENT TO AFFIRM BOUNDARY BETWEEN PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA AND PUEBLO OF

SAN ILDEFONSO ABORIGINAL LANDS WITHIN GARCIA CANYON TRACT

This Agreement is entered into this 20th day of December, 2000, by and between

the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and the Pueblo of

Santa Clara, a federally recognized Indian tribe (hereinafter collectively referred to

as the ‘‘two Pueblos’’).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the two Pueblo each claim and possess unextinguished aboriginal

title to a portion of the lands within a tract of land presently administered by the

United States Bureau of Land Management (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Bureau

of Land Management’’), consisting of approximately 4,484 acres, situated within Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34 and 35, T.20 N., R. 7 E., and Sections 19 and 30,

T. 20 N., R. 8 E., NMPM, which tract is enclosed by the heavy blue line on the map

attached hereto as Exhibit A (and which tract is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Garcia Canyon Tract’’); and

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Land Management has designated the Garcia Canyon

Tract as surplus land, available for disposal, and officials of the Bureau of Land

management now support restoration of the Garcia Canyon Tract to the two Pueblos, subject to a clear definition by the two Pueblos of the location of the boundary

between their respective aboriginal areas; and

WHEREAS, the two Pueblos agree as to the location of the boundary line through

the Garcia Canyon Tract between their respective aboriginal title areas, and wish

to enter into this Agreement so as to clearly affirm this agreement and to establish

a means for locating the boundary on the ground so that these lands may be restored to the two Pueblos.

NOW THEREFORE, the two Pueblos hereby agree as follows:

1. The red line shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, through the Garcia Canyon Tract, accurately depicts the boundary between the two Pueblos’ respective aboriginal title areas within the Garcia Canyon Tract, at the scale of that map.

2. The lands to the north of the red line within the Garcia Canyon Tract, which

are designated on Exhibit A as ‘‘Tract A’’, consisting of approximately fifty-five percent (55%) of the total acreage of the Garcia Canyon Tract, are agreed to be lands

subject to unextinguished aboriginal title of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, and the

Pueblo of San Ildefonso hereby and forever disclaims any right, title or interest in

or to the lands within Tract A.

3. The lands to the south of the red line within the Garcia Canyon Tract, which

are designated on Exhibit A as ‘‘Tract B’’ consisting of approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the total acreage of the Garcia Canyon Tract, are agreed to be land

subject to the unextinguished aboriginal title of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and the

Pueblo of Santa Clara hereby and forever disclaims any right, title or interest in

or to the lands contained within Tract B.

4. The following procedures will be used for establishment of the boundary line

between Tract A and Tract B on the ground:

A. Each Pueblo shall designate a land specialist and such other staff or officials

as the Pueblo deems appropriate to represent that Pueblo in locating the line on

the ground (which persons are collectively referred to hereinafter as the ‘‘Pueblo

Representatives’’).

15

B. The Pueblo Representatives shall meet and travel to the Garcia Canyon Tract,

utilizing such equipment as they deem appropriate, properly calibrated so as to

yield equivalent results for the representatives of each Pueblo, so as to establish on

the ground the angle points of the red line shown on Exhibit A, in such a manner

that a line joining the points established by them divides the Garcia Canyon Tract

in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

5. Once the Pueblo Representatives have agreed that the angle points of the

boundary line are located on the ground such that a line joining those points divides

the Garcia Canyon Tract between the two Pueblos as provided in this Agreement,

they shall take care to mark each such point on the ground precisely and prominently, physically and with agreed upon GPS coordinates, and shall prepare a written description of the line utilizing such coordinates, the distances from one point

to the next, and a description of the physical monumentation, which description

shall be signed by the governor of each Pueblo and attached to the original of this

Agreement as Exhibit B.

6. The Pueblo Representatives shall then transmit the description of the line as

arrived at, by the procedures set forth herein, to the Office of Cadastral Survey of

the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Cadastral Survey’’) for performance of the official survey. The two

Pueblos agree to authorize the Cadastral Survey to make any necessary minimal

corrections to the line and the monuments—wit the assistance and concurrence of

the Pueblo Representatives—so that the final surveyed boundary line accurately reflects the proportionate acreage described in this agreement. The two Pueblos agree

that the establishment of a line on the ground, by the Cadastral Survey, that joins

the angle points established by the Pueblo Representatives as set forth herein, shall

be and constitute the agreed upon boundary line between the two Pueblos’ aboriginal title areas through the Garcia Canyon Tract for all purposes.

7. The two Pueblos agree to work cooperatively so as to obtain expeditious transfer of the lands within the Garcia Canyon Tract into trust for the two Pueblos respectively, such that Tract A would beheld in trust by the United States for the exclusive use and benefit of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Tract B would be held

in trust by the United States for the exclusive use and benefit of the Pueblo of San

Ildefonso, either by administrative or by congressional action.

8. Once the Garcia Canyon Tract lands have been placed in trust for the two

Pueblos, respectively, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the two

Pueblos agree that they will undertake to construct a suitable fence along the

boundary line as established herein and will equally share the cost of the materials

and labor for such fence.

9. Nothing herein shall be deemed to have any effect whatsoever on any aboriginal title claims of either of the two Pueblos with respect to lands outside of the Garcia Canyon Tract.

10. In the event of any dispute arising between the two Pueblos with respect to

the matters set forth herein, the two Pueblos agree that their respective governors

and lieutenant governors shall meet in an effort to resolve the dispute. In the event

that such efforts are not successful, after a reasonable period of time, the two Pueblos agree that they will request assistance of the Federal Mediation Service to resolve the matters in dispute.

PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA

s/Denny Gutierrez, Governor

12/20/00

PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO

s/Perry Martinez, Governor

12/20/00

Since the agreement was signed, representatives from each Pueblo worked together to establish the boundary on the ground, thereby allowing for survey of each

tract.

CONCLUSION

S. 246 is not a give-away of public lands. It is proposed legislation that recognizes

that transfer of one tract each to the United States Secretary of the Interior for the

benefit of San Ildefonso and Santa Clara Pueblos, with the Pueblos given responsibility and stewardship of these lands. This is in the public interest because it proposes the best use of these lands.

San Ildefonso Pueblo believes that federal legislation is justified in this case because the surplus lands are identified for disposal by the federal government, there

are no other parties interested in acquiring these lands, the two Pueblos maintain

aboriginal title to these lands and control the only vehicular access and the B.L.M.

supports the transfer of the lands to the two Pueblos. The proposed legislation contains provisions that ensure that no private property rights are adversely affected

and there are no present permit holders within these lands. Furthermore, the legisVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:53 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\86-587 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
16

lation contains limits on how these tracts can be used by the Pueblos. Commercial

development is prohibited once the land is transferred to the Secretary for the benefit of the Pueblos. The lands will be managed to preserve cultural and traditional

uses.

Senator CRAIG. What I am going to do now for sake of time—Jim,

you have testimony specific to this legislation, do you not?

Mr. HUGHES. That is correct.

Senator CRAIG. But the Forest Service does not. Okay.

Why do you not give us your testimony specific to this? Then we

will ask Senator Bingaman if he has any questions. And then I

would suggest to both of you governors you are free to leave if you

need to. At that point, I have got a couple of questions or you might

wait. Senator Domenici does plan to be here, but then again if

you—if you are running up against time that you would miss an

airplane, we will understand that and you are free to leave.

So, Jim, why do you not proceed? Jim Hughes, Deputy Director

of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

And just, if you would, be specific to this legislation only. Thank

you.

STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, we thank you

for the opportunity to comment on this bill today.

Senator CRAIG. Is your mike on, Jim?

Mr. HUGHES. Hello?

Senator CRAIG. There you go. Thank you.

Mr. HUGHES. The Department generally supports S. 246, but believes the subcommittee should consider some minor modifications

to the bill.

The BLM has identified approximately 4,480 acres described in

the legislation as available for disposal and believes the adjacent

pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso would be appropriate

holders of this land. S. 246 divides the parcel by conveying approximately 2,480 acres of BLM land to the Pueblo of Santa Clara and

about 2,000 acres to the Pueblo of San Ildefonso.

The Department is concerned, however, that while S. 246 would

be convey the land that is the subject of a land claim, the bill does

not settle any future claims for these lands managed by the BLM.

S. 246 should be modified to include a provision for the Pueblo

San Ildefonso to relinquish any claim under docket number 354 in

the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and a provision to waive any future claims by the Pueblo of Santa Clara regarding these lands.

And I know some people have read that a different way, but we are

just talking about the 4,000—as I understand it, the 4,480 acres in

the bill. I know there are some other lands that may be involved

in those claims. This would provide finality to long-standing land

claims on this parcel.

Mr. Chairman, the Department looks forward to working with

the committee on these bills. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions

that you have or other members have.

Senator CRAIG. Jim, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]

17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT

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

to appear here today to discuss S. 203, a bill to open certain withdrawn lands in

Big Horn County, Wyoming, to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining

and S. 246, a bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land be held

in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State

of New Mexico. The Department of the Interior generally supports the intent of S.

203, but has some concerns about how the bill would be implemented. The Department generally supports S. 246, but would like to work with the Subcommittee to

make some modifications.

S. 203

Executive Order 7491 of November 14, 1936, withdrew over 3,500 acres of public

land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, from settlement, location, sale or entry, and reserved the lands for use by the War Department as a target range. These lands remain withdrawn and reserved under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army

for target range purposes, and are currently used by the Wyoming Army National

Guard. The most recent review and rejustification of this withdrawal occurred in

May 1984 and concluded that mining operations could not be allowed in the area

because of the concerns with small arms training. S. 203 would open approximately

40 acres of this withdrawn land for bentonite mining.

The BLM has no objection to the mining of bentonite on this parcel, however, the

BLM is concerned about some ambiguity in S. 203, in its current form. As written,

it is not clear whether the lands will be opened to bentonite location under the 1872

Mining Law, which would require BLM to record and regulate the location of the

claims. Secondly, it is unclear whether the actual mining of the bentonite will be

managed by the Secretary of the Army or the BLM as the bill does not appear to

return the lands to the public domain by revoking the withdrawal. We would also

prefer to draw a more narrow exception for this parcel than the broad sufficiency

language the bill currently provides.

Bentonite may either be a ‘‘locatable mineral’’ under the 1872 Mining Law or valued as a ‘‘common variety mineral’’ and salable under the Materials Act of 1947.

The Department of the Interior recommends that language in S. 203 be modified

to direct the BLM to use the authority of the Materials Act of 1947 to allow for a

competitive sale of the bentonite on this parcel. The BLM currently has the authority to sell common variety bentonite off the parcel with the consent of the Department of Army, and subject to their operations. It is our understanding, however,

that the bentonite on this 40 acre parcel may be of a locatable nature. Location and

discovery of a valuable mineral under the 1872 Mining Law allows the claimant the

right to apply for patent of the lands. While there remains in force a legislative moratorium on the issue of patents for surface lands, a locatable claim could create a

future property interest in minerals that could conflict with the Department of the

Army’s ability to use the land. Therefore, we could not support this bill if it allows

the minerals on the site to be mined in a way that would complicate any future military use of the land.

Should the withdrawal be modified or revoked, and the lands placed under BLM

management by this bill, it is important that an examination of the use of the proposed withdrawn lands be completed before a decision can be made to open them

to bentonite mining. Without additional statutory direction, if the proposed use is

acceptable , an amendment to the existing resource management plan would need

to be completed and the 40 acres of withdrawn lands placed back into the public

domain. Subject to any existing 1872 Mining Law claims, the BLM might need to

complete a process of opening the land in an equitable manner to all claimants.

S. 246

The Department of the Interior generally supports S. 246, but believes the Committee should consider modifications to the bill. The BLM has identified the approximately 4,480 acres described in the legislation as available for disposal. The BLM

agrees that the adjacent Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso would be appropriate holders of the land.

The two Pueblos have a long-standing interest in acquiring this parcel. The parcel

is bordered on the north by the Santa Clara Pueblo, on the south by the San

Ildefonso Pueblo, and on the west by National Forest lands claimed as aboriginal

holdings by the two tribes. In 1988, the BLM’s Taos Resource Management Plan

identified the parcel as difficult and uneconomical to manage and determined it

18

suitable for disposal. Currently there are no known resource permits, leases, patents

or claims affecting these lands.

S. 246 would divide the parcel by conveying approximately 2,480 acres of BLM

land to the Pueblo of Santa Clara and about 2,000 acres to the Pueblo of San

Ildefonso. Again, the BLM believes the Pueblos would be appropriate owners of the

land, and would support placing them in trust to be used for traditional and customary uses, or to be used for stewardship conservation for the benefit of the Pueblos. The Department is concerned however, while this legislation would convey land

that is currently or has recently been the subject of a land claim, the bill does not

settle any future claims for lands managed by the BLM. The bill should be modified

to include a provision for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso to relinquish any claim under

Docket No. 354 in the United States Court of Federal Claims and a separate provision to waive any future claims by the Pueblo of Santa Clara with regard to these

lands. This would provide finality to long standing land claims.

Mr. Chairman, the Department looks forward to working with the Committee on

these bills. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be

pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members may have.

Senator CRAIG. Now, let me turn to Senator Bingaman for any

questions he might have.

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me ask Mr. Hughes, I am trying to understand this suggestion,

which is new in—as I do not recall this being discussed in the last

Congress when we did this bill.

Mr. HUGHES. Correct, right.

Senator BINGAMAN. But the suggestion is that we should require

the Pueblo of San Ildefonso to relinquish any claim to this 4,400

acres, is it?

Mr. HUGHES. That is my understanding.

Senator BINGAMAN. Under docket number 354, in the Court of

Claims.

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Senator BINGAMAN. Now, is this land that is part of what is

being transferred?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Senator BINGAMAN. It is for——

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Senator BINGAMAN. So why would—I mean if we are transferring

this to the Pueblo, sir.

Mr. HUGHES. They are not receiving all 4,480 acres, sir.

Senator BINGAMAN. Oh, so there is some land that is not the subject of this——

Mr. HUGHES. That is my understanding. That is what the Justice

Department has indicated.

Senator BINGAMAN [continuing]. Legislation that they are being

asked to essentially disclaim any right to.

Mr. HUGHES. Some of the land goes to the other Pueblo that I

think may be involved in this—their claim.

Senator BINGAMAN. Oh, so it is that San Ildefonso is being asked

to give up a claim for land that is being transferred to Santa Clara,

is that what is happening?

Mr. HUGHES. That is—the Justice position, we were made aware

of this this morning. And Justice says they want to work with us

and the committee to make sure, you know, that this is all resolved.

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes. I am not very well prepared to ask you

questions about this because, as I say, I just heard about it. Let

me ask both governors to give us their views as to this, if you are

19

clearer as to what it is the BLM is suggesting here, and if so, if

you have a view on it.

Governor GONZALES. Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Craig, the suggested

modification is strongly opposed by San Ildefonso Pueblo. The legislation—the bill as proposed adequately addresses all the issues

that are involved in this particular transfer to include any reference to anything else other than this particular parcel interferes

with other matters that—and other negotiations that we have been

involved in—we at San Ildefonso Pueblo has been involved in, so—

and to avoid confusing the issue here, I would rather that we just

perhaps maybe not refer to docket 354 or any other part of the—

of San Ildefonso land claims, because all it does is confuse the

issue.

The only thing that we are here to talk about is this particular

tract of 4,484 acres of BLM legislation that everybody is supportive

of. There is no record or no indication of anybody opposing this

from any entity whatsoever. So to include any modification would—

as I indicated would confuse the issue here.

Senator BINGAMAN. Governor Gutierrez, did you have a point of

view here?

Governor GUTIERREZ. I am on the same side as Governor

Gonzales. He clearly states on the bill that this acreage that is

identified in this bill is what we are looking at, nothing more.

We are not relating to any other properties that might be out

there in our original lands, so this is the only parcel of land that

we are speaking to at this time, the 4,480-some acres that is mentioned in this bill.

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. Let me just clarify here once again

with Mr. Hughes. My understanding is that the Assistant Secretary Rebecca Watson and State Director, Linda Rundell, have

both written letters to the pueblos expressing support for the transfer of land that we are talking about in this bill.

As far as I know, this is the first time this has been raised.

Mr. HUGHES. I believe that is correct, Senator.

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. So this is a new position that we are

hearing about?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. And I think it can be worked out. I think what

the issue the Justice Department is trying to raise is they want to

make sure this land is clear of all claims, you know, when it is

transferred to the pueblos, and that it is off—it is not involved in

any future action.

Now, as I say, Justice informed—well, the Justice Department in

discussions asked us, you know, they handle the Indian claims

issues and so I am sure we can work this out to the satisfaction

of everybody and with the understanding of everybody.

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. Did you have another comment, Governor Gonzales?

Governor GONZALES. Mr. Craig and Mr. Bingaman, the legislation as it currently reads does address the issue, what Mr. Hughes

is raising in regard to the claims to this particular property. And

it does adequately address that, so that is why we are suggesting

that there be no modification to this bill whatsoever.

Senator BINGAMAN. And is that your position, as well, as I understand it, Governor Gutierrez?

20

Governor GUTIERREZ. Yes. That is correct. On the legislative bill,

it clearly states how this agreement came about between the two

pueblos in coming forth in drafting up this legislation on that piece

of property.

Senator BINGAMAN. Okay. Well, I think we will have to get to the

bottom of this, Mr. Chairman, and try to figure out the basis for

this in order to understand where it comes out. Thank you very

much.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you, Senator Bingaman. I concur

with you. We will work with all parties here to see if we cannot

resolve this to everybody’s satisfaction to make sure that once this

land is transferred, it is done so in appropriate fashion for both of

the pueblos.

Again, governors, thank you very much. You can remain at the

table, if you wish. Senator Domenici, I still believe, plans to be here

and may have questions of you.

Governor GONZALES. Could you just extend our regrets that we

could not——

Senator CRAIG. Well, of course, if you have got to leave, we clearly understand.

Governor GONZALES. Please—thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Catching a plane in a snowstorm is—has high

priority especially snow in Washington, D.C., yes.

Governor GUTIERREZ. We want to get out before the storm hits.

Senator CRAIG. Good plan.

Governor GUTIERREZ. And once again I want to thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you both very much. Jim, let us go ahead

and proceed with your full testimony now, if you would, on all of

the bills and then we will move to you, Jim, and work our way—

Jim and Jim, and work our way down the table to Dr. Covington.

Please proceed, Jim.

Mr. HUGHES. We are also here to discuss S. 203, a bill to open

certain withdrawn lands in the Horn County, Wyoming, to

locatable mineral development for bentonite mining.

The BLM has no objection to the mining of bentonite on this parcel, however BLM does have some concerns with S. 203 in its current form. As written, we need some clarification whether the lands

will be opened to bentonite location under the 1872 mining law,

which would require BLM to record and regulate the locations of

claims.

Secondly, it is unclear whether the actual mining of bentonite

will be managed by the Secretary of Army or the BLM, as the bill

does not appear to return the lands to the public domain by revoking the withdrawal.

On both of these issues I have talked to staff. I think it can be

worked out with some direction to us, a little clearer direction.

We could not support the bill, however, if it allows minerals on

the site to be mined in a way that would complicate future military

use of the land. The Department therefore recommends that S. 203

be modified to direct the BLM to use the authority of the Materials

Act of 1947 to allow for the competitive sale of the bentonite on

this parcel.

21

Again, on this bill we want to work with the committee to find

a way to get it done. We also, you know, listen closely to what the

Defense Department has to say regarding future use of this land.

Senator CRAIG. Super. Jim, thank you very much. We have just

been joined by Senator Kyl.

Jon, why do we not allow Jim Reaves to go ahead and then just

before Dr. Covington starts his testimony, if you have any opening

comments specific to the institutes, we will approach it that way.

Fine.

Then let me turn to Jim Reaves, Director of Vegetation Management and Protection Research, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jim, welcome.

STATEMENT OF JIM REAVES, DIRECTOR, VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION RESEARCH, FOREST SERVICE,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. REAVES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you

today. I am Jim Reaves, Director of Vegetation Management and

Protection Research. With me today is David Cleaves, the National

Program Leader for Fire Systems Research.

I would like to present the administration’s views on S. 32, the

Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003, and

S. 278, the Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Act.

I am also glad to see Dr. Covington here today. He is a renowned

expert on ecological restoration. I am glad to be here with him.

S. 32 would establish three institutes in the interior West that

would promote the use of adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires and improve the health of forests and

woodland ecosystems. We support the intent of S. 32 to institutionalize research on adaptive management processes and ensure

that sound science research products reach and are utilized by land

managers in the field.

We have some concerns regarding how the bill is currently drafted and would like to work with the sponsors on modifications to the

bill. We commend Senator Kyl and the other sponsors of the bill

for recognizing the importance of research needs in this particular

area.

During 2002 fire season, nearly 73,000 fires burned 7.2 million

acres and damaged or destroyed 3,000 structures. While most of

this fire damage was in the West, the potential for significant property losses and resource impacts from wildland fire degradation of

forest health occurs in many other parts of the country. The issue

and problems of fire and fire fuel managements are truly national

in scope.

Forests where fire has been excluded are also at increased risk

from insect, disease infestation and invasives, and can experience

significant shifts in composition away from the most desirable tree

species for wood products or wildlife.

Congress recognized the need for scientific information and tools

to support fuel and fire management programs by establishing the

Joint Fire Sciences Program in 1998 and provided funds for the national fire plan in 2001.

22

Research conducted under both the Joint Fire Sciences Program

and the National Fire Plan addresses national and regional priorities and receives national level oversight to ensure coordination,

applicability of products and accountability.

Since its inception, the Joint Fire Sciences Program has

partnered with 45 universities and funded 178 research projects in

43 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Similarly, the

National Fire Plan funds supports research in all 50 States, including 329 cooperative studies with 56 universities, non-government

organizations, and private sector partners across the country. More

than one-third of the National Fire Plan in the first 2 years of the

program has been invested with universities and partners.

We agree that many problems need to be addressed on a regional

basis, as outlined in S. 32. We also believe that the scarcity of

funding for fire research relative to the problem demands a national perspective and national oversight. In particular, the measure appears to create an expectation that affected agencies will be

required to provide allocations to the centers without regard to

overall budgetary constraints and lead to a further diluting of scare

fire research funding.

We think that S. 32 should not only address problems of fire in

the interior West, but also address this issue nationwide. There are

several changes we would like to recommend and we would like to

share with—I will share only a few with you today.

The Senate should participate in meeting the national needs on

complex problems and permit the Departments latitude in the

identification of optimal locations for establishment of the centers

created under this bill; ensure accountability through ongoing monitoring and periodic evaluation of funded activities; build on existing fire research and technology transfer capacity to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. We would like to work with the subcommittee as it further considers S. 32.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reaves follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM REAVES, DIRECTOR, VEGETATION MANAGEMENT &

PROTECTION RESEARCH, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

to appear before you today. I am Jim Reaves, Director, Vegetation Management &

Protection Research. With me today is David Cleaves, National Program Leader for

Fire Systems Research. I would like to present the Administration’s views on S. 32

the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003 and S. 278 the

Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act.

S. 32 THE SOUTHWEST FOREST HEALTH AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2003

S. 32 would establish three institutes in the interior West that would promote the

use of adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires and improve

the health of forest and woodland ecosystems. We support the intent of S. 32 to institutionalize research on adaptive management processes and ensure that sound

scientific research products reach, and are utilized by, land managers in the field.

We have some concerns regarding how the bill is currently drafted and would like

to work with the sponsors on modifications to the bill. We commend Senator Kyl

and the other sponsors of this bill for recognizing the importance of research needs

in this area.

A trend that has become increasingly apparent during the last few years is that

wildland fires, especially in the West, are becoming larger and burning hotter.

These fires are increasingly more difficult to control and cause much more environmental damage. During the 2002 fire season nearly 73,000 fires burned 7.2 million

acres and damaged or destroyed 3,000 structures. While most of this fire damage

23

was in the West, the potential for significant property losses and resource impacts

from wildland fire and degradation of forest health occurs in many other areas of

the country. The issues and problems of fire and fuel management are truly national in scope.

In addition to the direct damage caused by wildfires, harmful non-indigenous

plant species such as cheatgrass invade burned over areas, predispose them to even

greater fire risk, and threaten healthy ecosystems and biological diversity. Forests

where fire has been excluded are also at increased risk from insect and disease infestations; and can experience significant shifts in composition away from the most

desirable tree species for wood products or wildlife.

We agree with S. 32 that meeting these challenges effectively and efficiently requires a solid foundation in scientific knowledge and the ability to rapidly convert

new scientific insights into technology and tools. We also agree that more research

attention should be given to fire and forest health, not only in the interior West,

but also throughout the US.

CURRENT FIRE RESEARCH

Congress recognized the need for scientific information and tools to support fuel

and fire management programs and established the Joint Fire Science Program

(JFSP) in 1998. The JFSP is a partnership of six federal wildland management and

research organizations represented by a 10-member Governing Board that oversees

and manages the program. Since its inception the JFSP has partnered with 45 universities and funded 178 research projects in 43 states, Puerto Rico, and the District

of Columbia.

Beginning in 2001, additional research funds were made available through the

National Fire Plan. National Fire Plan research, led by 78 research teams in the

Forest Service regional research stations addresses firefighting, fuels management,

restoration and rehabilitation, and community preparedness to directly support the

goals of the Ten-Year Comprehensive Fire Strategy. The NFP-funded research

teams support research in all 50 states, including 329 cooperative studies with 56

universities, non-government organizations, and private sector partners across the

country. In addition to university partnerships, both the JFSP and the NFP are

working with State and local agencies, not-for-profit groups such as Tall Timbers

Research Station and The Nature Conservancy, as well as several for-profit companies. More than one third of the NFP funding in the first two years of the program

has been invested with universities and other partners.

Research conducted under both the JFSP and the NFP addresses national and regional priorities and receives national level oversight to ensure coordination and applicability of products. Funds are allocated competitively with the involvement of

fire managers and other users in the determination of needs and the selection of

projects. Accountability is assured through annual progress and accomplishment reports. The strength of the two programs is their ability to design their research with

the help of managers in the agencies and to deliver research results and tools

through established training programs and other mechanisms.

S. 32 focuses on the problem of fire research in a portion of the interior West.

However, wildland fire risks and forest health concerns are national in scale and

growing in size and complexity. We agree that many problems need to be addressed

on a regional basis. We also believe that the scarcity of funding for fire research

relative to the problem demands a national perspective and national oversight. In

particular, the measure appears to create an expectation that affected agencies will

be required to provide allocations to the centers without regard to overall budgetary

constraints, and lead to a further diluting of scarce fire research funding. Oversight

and coordination are necessary to assure that critical diversity of scientific talent

and critical funding masses be directed at problems for the protection of all regions

and minimize disruptions to other ongoing research endeavors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We think S. 32 should not only address the problem of fire in the interior West,

but also address this issue nationwide. This approach would enhance existing collaborative efforts to investigate and develop management tools that would enable

public and private land managers to manage fires and prevent the spread of

invasive species throughout the Nation.

Some changes we recommend for S. 32 include:

• Clarify the definition of adaptive management and the scope of work of the centers relating to forest and rangeland ecosystems research;

• Ensure that research comports with criteria related to quality, relevance and

performance;

24

• Participate in meeting national needs on complex problems and permit the Departments latitude in the identification of the optimal locations for the establishment of the centers created under this bill;

• Provide federal research and land manager oversight of the program, including

setting of priorities and direction, to lead to selection of projects and products

that are awarded on a merit-based, competitive, and peer reviewed process;

• Ensure accountability through ongoing monitoring and periodic evaluation of

funded activities;

• Build on existing fire research and technology transfer capacity to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources;

• Improve coordination of existing federal, state, university, and private research

capacity, and establish non-federal cost-share requirements; and

• Utilize and improve existing authorities for centers of excellence such as Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit program and the granting programs of the Cooperative States Research, Education, and Extension Service.

We would like to work with the Subcommittee as it further considers S. 32.

S. 278 MOUNT NAOMI WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT

The Department supports S. 278, a bill that would adjust the boundary of the

Mount Naomi Wilderness in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah. We believe the boundary adjustment will create a higher level of wilderness value by improving the area’s solitude, scenery, and pristine qualities. We supported similar

legislation that was considered during the 107th Congress.

The boundary adjustment would exclude approximately 31 acres of land currently

part of the Mount Naomi Wilderness and, subject to with valid existing rights,

would add 31 acres to the wilderness area. The bill also requires the Secretary to

manage the 31 additional acres pursuant to the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public

Law 98-428).

This adjustment would allow for the alignment of the Bonneville Shoreline trail,

which is a multi-county recreational trail. The trail is designed predominately for

heavy non-motorized use, which does not conform to use as a wilderness trail. The

boundary adjustment would also eliminate the need for a power line easement within the wilderness area, which is also a non-conforming use.

This concludes my statement and we look forward to working with the Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator CRAIG. Jim, thank you very much for that testimony.

Now, let me turn to Senator Kyl, the primary sponsor of S. 32

for any comments and opening comments you would like to make

and then we will turn to Dr. Covington for his testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be very brief,

because having an expert like Dr. Covington here—I appreciate the

comments just made as well about his expertise—is an opportunity

for us. And so we do not need to regurgitate what we think we

have learned from the likes of Dr. Covington.

Let me just say that in all of the years that I have been in the

Senate, one of my priorities has been the restoration of forest

health, because I have learned from Dr. Covington why that is necessary, how it can be done, and I have tried very hard to find ways

to advance the goal. This legislation is but one of the pieces of that

puzzle to enable us to continue the fine research that he has been

engaged in and expand that to other States and regions in the general area as well.

So that is the reason for the legislation, and I assure my friends

from the Department of Agriculture, does not take anything away

from the research and planning that they do, the funding would be

in addition to, and so we are not going to try to compete for scare

resources.

25

I think it is a real good bang for the small amount of bucks that

would be involved in it, and would generate the kind of ideas that

have now pretty much become accepted around the West as the

way to try to restore our forests to their health.

So that is the genesis of the legislation and you have, I think,

already introduced Dr. Covington or provided his qualifications,

and so I will not go into that again. But it is a real delight to have

him here.

It is always educational for me to visit his sites, his research

sites, and I try to get other people to do that. The Secretary of the

Interior was up, for example, going to the site. We had, I think, the

rainy day of the summer, so maybe we will have to come back in

order to get a little bit more rain.

But I have also taken advantage of Dr. Covington’s presence here

to try to set up some other meetings today and tomorrow with

other members who can come to appreciate what he has to offer.

And we will be doing that too.

Thank you very much for holding this meeting, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate it very, very much.

Senator CRAIG. Senator Kyl, thank you very much.

Dr. Covington, any of us who have spent time with forestry

issues, forest health issues in the Senate and with this subcommittee, have in part become a disciple of your effort and the work you

have done. And certainly Senator Kyl has been a loud and most appropriate advocate of it, so we are pleased you are before the subcommittee today and we appreciate your testimony. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. W. WALLACE COVINGTON, REGENTS’ PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INSTITUTE, NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY

Dr. COVINGTON. Thank you very much, Senator Craig and members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate this opportunity to

testify on behalf of this bill. My name is Wally Covington. I am Regent’s Professor of Forest Ecology at Northern Arizona University

and Director and Founder of the Ecological Restoration Institute in

Arizona.

I have with me two additional people. I have Diane Volsik, who

is associate director of the institute, and Jim Gauz, who is a professor at the University of New Mexico. And Jim was actually my

major professor when I was a graduate student at the University

of New Mexico, so we go back almost 30 years in these endeavors.

I will testify that we need to design and apply science-based

treatments immediately and at very large scales that simultaneously reduce the threat of wildfire and restore forest ecosystem

health.

I will further testify that conventional structures that we now

have in place do not supply the kind of support that managers and

local community groups need to design these treatments and get

them on the ground.

And finally, that the proposed institutes are essential in providing that kind of support so we can get on with the business of restoring forest health before we have additional half million acres

fires, and the likely event that we will lose firefighter lives, but civilian lives, if the trends continue unabated.

26

I do not need to tell you that the increase in fire size, frequency

and severity has long been predicted and it is frightening. It is

staggering what is occurring now.

The intersection of drought, especially in the Southwestern

United States, the dead—with the dead trees caused by these unprecedented bark beetle outbreaks is causing fuels to accumulate

at the landscape scale, which will result in years of catastrophic

fire behavior.

The scale and quality and pace of our efforts to prevent these

kinds of calamities is wholly unacceptable. It is unconscionable

that we are allowing this to continue. We have to move forward

with treatments on a scale at least of the Hayman fire, the Rodeo/

Chediski fire of last season, on the scale of 100,000- to 500,000-acre

treatment. And we must begin immediately.

We cannot wait for conventional research to answer questions

that need to be answered. And instead what we have to do is work

in—as Jim Reaves was saying—work in an adaptive management

approach collaboratively learning while doing.

The institutes are needed for a variety of reasons. One is that we

need—instead of conventional—our conventional kind of vulcanized

support for these, we need to have comprehensive integrated support. We need support that brings researchers together to answer

the questions that need to be answered so we can design the treatments to synthesize the information that we now have available

through years of Forest Service Research and university research.

We need to couple that with aggressive knowledge transfer,

transfer of knowledge directly to the people that are trying to design and implement these treatments. And then finally, we need

researchers and managers working hand-in-hand with communitybased groups to make these treatments a reality on the ground.

This gap in support that now exists can be resolved by these restoration institutes. We have proven this to be the case in Arizona.

It has been very effective in working in getting 600,000 acres

planned, 150,000 acres treated at a time that other entities are

working on the scale of a few hundred acres.

The institutes will work not in competition with conventional

Forest Service research or university research, but rather be complementary with them. It is not that we will do different research,

but what we are suggesting is an integration of practitioners, researchers, and community oriented folks in the institutes themselves. This is what we have in Arizona, and this is what has been

very effective. And I think it is about time to wrap up here, so I

will do that quickly.

First, you know, I just in sum say that much good research is

being done and has been done. However, the conventional research

and technology organizations alone are not adequate. We need

something unconventional, something new, a different approach to

do this.

University institutes have a great deal of latitude, and they have

the needed creativity and adaptability to work with the local

groups that need to get this done. This is not to say that we do

not need the national focus that is looking at the big problems. But

that alone is inadequate.

27

We need local support to develop local solutions to local problems. And that concludes my formal remarks. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Covington follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. W. WALLACE COVINGTON, REGENTS’ PROFESSOR AND

DIRECTOR OF THE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION INSTITUTE, NORTHERN ARIZONA UNI- VERSITY

Chairman Craig, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on a subject of personal importance to me and of critical importance

to the health of our nation’s forests and the people and communities that live within

them.

My name is Wallace Covington. I am Regents’ Professor of Forest Ecology at

Northern Arizona University and Director of the Ecological Restoration Institute. I

have been a professor teaching and researching fire ecology and restoration management at NAU since 1975. I am a member of the National Commission on Science

for Sustainable Forestry, the Society of American Foresters, the Society for Ecological Restoration, and other professional organizations dedicated to science based conservation of natural resources.

I have a Ph.D. in forest ecosystem analysis from Yale University and an M.S. in

ecology from the University of New Mexico. Over the past 27 years I have taught

graduate and undergraduate courses in research methods, ecological restoration,

ecosystem management, fire ecology and management, forest management, range

management, wildlife management, watershed management, recreation management, park and wildland management, and forest operations research. I have been

working in long-term research on fire ecology and management in ponderosa pine

and related ecosystems since I moved to Northern Arizona University in 1975. In

addition to my publications on forest restoration I have co-authored scientific papers

on a broad variety of topics in forest ecology and resource management including

research on fire effects, prescribed burning, thinning, operations research,

silviculture, range management, wildlife effects, multiresource management, forest

ecosystem health, and natural resource conservation.

My testimony will focus on the need to establish fire and forest ecosystem health

restoration institutes in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado and how these institutes will make major contributions to reducing the threat of unnatural wildfire in

the dry forest types of the West.

In summary, I will demonstrate that:

1. To provide a long-term, comprehensive solution to the unnatural wildfire

and forest ecosystem health crisis we need to design and apply science-based

treatments that simultaneously reduce the threat of wildfire by treating the

cause of the crisis—degraded forest ecosystem health.

2. A gap exists between getting what we know into the hands of land managers, communities and other stakeholders that influence treatment design.

3. The proposed institutes, with a clearly defined mission of producing and

providing relevant science for land managers, are essential to restoring forests

and reducing the risk of unnatural crown fire.

BACKGROUND

The increase in fire size, frequency and severity in ponderosa pine ecosystems

over the last 10 years is staggering. In 1994 I was senior author on a review paper

that stated that we could anticipate accelerating forest ecosystem health problems

including exponential increases in the severity and extent of catastrophic fires. I

also predicted that there was a 15 30 year window of opportunity to avoid the disaster by restoring forests. Despite the fact that I had predicted recent fire size and

severity, the fire seasons and huge unnatural fires of 2000 and 2002 have me

shocked me to the core. Clearly time has run out for our dry forests.

The intersection of the drought in the Southwest with dead trees caused by bark

beetles, and steadily increasing fuels is setting the stage for another disastrous fire

season, and many more to come. The fire behavior exhibited by the Biscuit, Rodeo/

Chediski, Viveash, Hayman, and Cerro Grande fires make suppression efforts exceptionally challenging and demonstrates that there are limits to our ability to fight

them. The fuels and extreme fire behavior in combination with the ongoing expansion of home sites in wildlands threaten civilian and firefighter lives, property, and

sustainability of the nation’s natural resources.

The scale and rate of our efforts to reduce fire risk in the West are inadequate

to solve the problem. Equally disconcerting is that in some cases treatments provide

28

only short-term protection because they are not designed to address the underlying

problem of forest ecosystem health. Observations from the Rodeo/Chediski and

Hayman fires suggests that extreme fire behavior was reduced when the fires hit

thinned and burned areas. Unfortunately, the treatments were too small to stop

these fires. Treating 100 to 500-acre units is hardly a solution to fires at the scale

of 50,000 to 500,000 acres in size.

We must begin now to implement large-scale, comprehensive forest ecosystem

health restoration treatments that provide adequate, long-term protection to our forests. To do this effectively the treatments must be informed by good science that

lead to effective treatments. However, many of the land managers, community members and other stakeholders lack the scientific information in a form useful for

project planning, implementation and monitoring. It is the goal of this legislation

to fill this gap.

WHY THE INSTITUTES ARE NEEDED

1. To provide a long-term, comprehensive solution to the unnatural wildfire and forest ecosystem health crisis we need to design and apply well

supported science-based treatments that simultaneously reduce the threat

of wildfire by treating the cause of the crisis—degraded forest ecosystems.

I would like to begin by clarifying that when I use ‘‘restoration treatments’’ I

mean management actions in an intact forest that are a cure for declining ecosystem health and unnatural crown fire. By restoration treatments I do not mean

just fuel treatment I mean comprehensive restoration of forest health. Restoration

is also distinct from ‘‘rehabilitation’’ that describes management actions after a fire

has severely burned an area. I believe the bulk of our efforts today should emphasize fighting fires before they occur by treating forests, not closing the barn door

after the horses are out. In my opinion, once a ponderosa pine forest has burned

severely we have failed.

There is abundant scientific research that began in the 1890’s and continues

today that provides a sound scientific framework for implementing the science and

practice of restoration. However, most of that research is not in a form readily accessible to practitioners, policy makers and concerned citizens. We have solid information about forest conditions prior to Euro-American settlement, changes in fire

regimes over the last century, deterioration of overall ecosystem health, and ecological responses to thinning and prescribed burning the key elements of any attempt

to restore ecosystem health in ponderosa pine and related ecosystems. We know that

current overcrowded stands of trees do not sustain the diversity of wildlife and

plants that existed a century ago. We know this by examining the data of early naturalists and scientists. We also know this to be true from primary research. Scientists that have compared biological diversity of overstocked stands stands that

have had decades of fire exclusion—with open, park-like stands that have not had

severe fire regime disruption, have found greater plant diversity, greater insect diversity, and greater bird diversity. Similar studies have also found greater oldgrowth tree vigor and resistance to insect attack in open, park-like stands stands

similar to those present before settlement. We also know that stopping ecologically

based forest restoration that includes thinning, is not saving the forest as some

would like you to believe, but only contributing to its demise and causing severe

losses to the wealth of species that depend on it.

Tragically, many treatments are designed to achieve socio-political acceptance

rather than lead to the restoration of forests. To manage intelligently, treatment design should begin with solid science. Social tinkering will certainly play a potentially

dominant role, but it should be done with an explicit understanding of the consequences. A good example of this is the frequent desire by some environmentalists

and those oriented to commercial use to leave more trees than natural conditions

would support. One hundred years of research shows that in the drought prone

Southwest the land can only support 25 to 60 trees per acre depending on the site.

The cost of leaving too many trees includes increased fire risk, loss of grasses and

shrubs and their associated wildlife, and increased susceptibility to bark beetle and

disease infestation.

As a college professor I believe that when given good information most people will

make the right choices. To recap, we have solid information about forest conditions

prior to Euro-American settlement, changes in fire regimes over the last century,

deterioration of overall ecosystem health, and ecological responses to thinning and

prescribed burning the key elements of any attempt to restore ecosystem health in

ponderosa pine and related ecosystems. We know that current overcrowded stands

of trees do not sustain the diversity of wildlife and plants that existed a century

ago.

29

2. A gap exists between getting what we know into the hands of land

managers, communities and other stakeholders that influence treatment design.

The Ecological Restoration Institute works directly with land managers, community partnerships and other stakeholders to assist in the design and implementation

of science-based treatments. After several years of work in the field we know that

the integrated services we provide including applied research, monitoring, translation and transfer of scientific knowledge is appreciated and effective. There are

many research programs doing good research. However, what distinguishes what

the institutes will do versus these programs is that research is defined by what

managers need to know and actively transferred to the people doing the work on

the ground in forms that are readily accessible.

In the next several years we will be treating forests at an unprecedented rate.

If we use restoration approaches to reduce the threat of wildfire we will improve

forest ecosystem health and simultaneously provide long-term fire risk reduction. If

we merely cut trees we can reduce the risk of fire in the short-term but are leaving

future generations with degraded forests.

To progress with treatments intelligently land mangers, stakeholders and communities must understand what science tells us the forest needs. To keep pace with

the current problem treatments must be applied, tested and refined in an adaptive

management framework or more simply a ‘‘learning while doing’’ mode (as opposed

to waiting for perfect scientific certainty). This means that each treatment will be

comprehensive enough to improve forest ecosystem health and build on the knowledge of previous actions while also incorporating new research findings. It includes

monitoring and active reassessment of each new treatment. Active monitoring has

the dual benefit of providing good information to design effective treatments and

some assurance to land managers, and other stakeholders such as environmental

groups, that treatments achieve the desired outcomes.

3. The proposed institutes, with a clearly defined mission of producing

and providing relevant science for land managers, are essential to restoring

forests and reducing fire risk.

What is sorely needed now is the capability to support the design and testing of

site-specific prescriptions in ongoing operational landscape scale treatments. Research to date indicates that alternative fuel reduction treatments (e.g., diameter

caps for thinning) have strikingly different consequences not just for fire behavior

but also for biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and tree vigor and forest ecosystem health.

Treatment design should be based on what is needed to maintain health and reduce

catastrophic fire.

The institutes will create the knowledge to help solve the unnatural wildfire problem

Significant scientific information exists to initiate the process of restoring degraded forests. However, research gaps still exist in understanding landscape scale

treatments on wide-ranging animals, watersheds, the restoration of native plant diversity, and the response of fire to different treatments. The institutes will continue

to develop research based on what land managers and other stakeholders need to

know to solve the problem. In addition, the institutes will help in the design and

implementation of monitoring that can inform an adaptive management approach.

The institutes will translate the knowledge so it is accessible to managers

We have a solid body of scientific information to design and test large-scale forest

restoration that will protect people, communities and the forest. This knowledge and

emerging research findings will be translated and synthesized into a variety of communication tools so that science-based recommendations are immediately useful to

managers and others who want to solve the crownfire problems of the West.

The rigorous use of science to design treatments will help build quality and credibility for the treatments. Experience in Arizona has shown that the probability of

success is greatly enhanced if collaborators are supported by a comprehensive university-based restoration institute.

The institutes will transfer knowledge to practitioners, while simultaneously educating the land managers of the future

Through field training, community outreach, and continuing education the institutes will transfer knowledge and receive important feedback about what land managers and other stakeholders need. Many other more informal activities will also

help transfer knowledge to the ground.

Central to any institute will be the integration of students into all aspects of forest restoration. At the Ecological Restoration Institute students across disciplines

30

are actively engaged in classroom and field research. In addition, we strive to put

them into real life management situations so they emerge from college with practical knowledge of how to be effective professionals. We are graduating a workforce

that understands the need for ecological restoration, resource sustainability and the

demands of society.

CONCLUSION

Time has run out. Inaction is taking, and will continue to take, us down the path

to unhealthy landscapes, costly to manage. Scientifically-based forest restoration

treatments, including thinning and prescribed burning, will set us on the path to

healthy landscapes, landscapes like the early settlers and explorer saw in the late

1800s.

State level, university based forest ecosystem health restoration institutes are essential for filling the knowledge gap that limits managers and collaborative groups

from implementing treatments at the scale and pace demanded by the current forest

ecosystem health crisis.

Thank you very much for asking me to appear before the Committee.

Senator CRAIG. Doctor, thank you very much.

Let me turn to Senator Kyl to offer the first questions, if you

would?

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that courtesy. Let me

see if I am a good student here. First of all, since he brought his

teacher, I can ask Dr. Covington if I passed the test now.

I think I learned that because our forests today so much of the

time are so choked—the phrase that Dr. Covington taught me was

the dog hair thicket. For those who do not know what it means,

it is——

Senator CRAIG. Full of fleas, right. All right.

Senator KYL. The trees are so close together, they are all old and

snarly and very close together, a dog cannot run through without

losing half of his hair.

Well, the older tree here is not the big tree that I am holding

in my right hand, but the smaller tree here. This tree is older—

excuse me, this tree here is older, yet much smaller, because it was

one of literally hundreds if not thousands of trees in the acreage

in which it was located all competing for the same nutrients and

water and sunlight and the soil, and crowded together, trying to

push each other out of the way for what they could get.

Here is a tree in a much more open environment, where the forest was thinned and there had been prescribed burning, and as a

result the tree grew to be the size in a very short period of time—

I believe this tree is less than 100 years old. And it shows what

can happen when we open up the forests and permit the trees to

grow the way they used to grow when we had healthy forests. Now,

have I got that right, Dr. Covington?

Dr. COVINGTON. Right.

Senator KYL. Okay. So the basis for the research that you have

been pioneering is to establish that through this thinning process

with appropriate prescribed burning, we can restore the forest to

their previous healthy condition.

Dr. COVINGTON. Correct.

Senator KYL. Now, you have also taught me that a lot of this is

fairly site specific, and so I have been to your research plots and

you have mentioned to me that this is perhaps a little different

than it might be in New Mexico or in Colorado or certainly in the

much faster growing States such as Senator Craig lives in in Idaho.

But in Senator Bingaman’s State and mine, we are going to be

31

more on the edge of the environment with a lot hotter climate, less

water, and a more fragile environment where we really have to

watch it in order to make sure that our forests are healthy. Do I

still have it right?

Dr. COVINGTON. Right.

Senator KYL. Okay.

Dr. COVINGTON. You are on a roll.

Senator KYL. Well, and that being site specific, you have also

gone out and very carefully measured the results of the research

so that you can calculate how much more pitch content the trees

have, thus to fight off bark beetle, how much more protein content

the grasses have—there did not even used to be grasses, if you

have got a big canopy covering up the forest floor—all of the different species of butterflies, and birds, and other animals that can

move into the forest demonstrating its healthy quality, but that

each of these depends on a fairly site specific situation, which is

the kind of research that your institute is oriented to do, is that

right?

Dr. COVINGTON. That is correct.

Senator KYL. And so—and therefore in conclusion, that rather

than trying to prescribe some one size fits all program, what I—

one of the things that I have learned from you is that you really

have to go to each site and ask the question and what is the

healthy thing to do here?

One particular area may have a carrying capacity that is far

greater in terms of trees than another, and it could stand higher

diameter trees and lower diameter trees. Another site may only be

able to carry a few trees perhaps of higher diameter. And it will

be different from State to State and certainly even within a forest

from area to area. Is that further right?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes, correct.

Senator KYL. And so I make this point to illustrate the fact that

as we tried to craft legislation last year, there was a real effort to

kind of focus on a one-size-fits-all kind of system.

Some said, ‘‘Well, let us have a diameter cap on the thinning.’’

And I kept saying, ‘‘No. No. No.’’ It may be in some areas—if you

were to ask Dr. Covington he would say, ‘‘Boy, in this place, do not

cut anything over 16 inches,’’ but he may not.

He may say, ‘‘Look, this area can only sustain 200 trees, so let

us pick out the ones we want, starting with the great big ones. But

that may have to mean that we have to cut a few trees larger in

diameter than 16 inches if those trees are in effect left over and

are going to continue to compete.’’ Is that further correct?

Dr. COVINGTON. Right.

Senator KYL. So what I am trying to suggest is through this kind

of research at this kind of institute, that is site specific in the State

of New Mexico, in the State of Colorado, and in the State of Arizona, at least in our area of where the great Ponderosa pine forest

of the Southwest is located, we should be able to get it right. But

it may not be research that we would necessarily want to apply in

a State like Idaho or the State of Washington, or certainly in the

Southeast United States.

Let me just, if I could for the recorder, I think you will have to

answer audibly rather than nodding your head.

32

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes.

Senator KYL. Okay.

Dr. COVINGTON. Sorry.

Senator KYL. Just two other quick—is my time up, Mr. Chairman?

Senator CRAIG. We will tolerate the dialogue a bit longer because

I happen to agree with you.

[Laughter.]

Senator KYL. Just two quick things.

Senator CRAIG. Surely, go ahead.

Senator KYL. This is illustrative. And I think that we obtained

these from you, Dr. Covington.

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes, that is right.

Senator KYL. You described them. But what a wonderful name

of this location, Horse Thief Basin, in Arizona. And it reveals what

condition of the forest?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes. This is bark beetle kill that occurred last

season, and you can see 80 to 90 percent of the trees are dead in

here. This is—unfortunately the way the bark beetle population dynamics work, this literally is the tip of the iceberg. There should

be about eight to ten times as much mortality next year as we had

this year. And this is throughout northern Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado as well, and Idaho, for that matter.

So what happens when we have that kind of fuel condition and

a fire comes through? It is when we get fire behavior that makes

last year’s fires look highly desirable compared to when it is burning through——

Senator KYL. Because these dead trees are more prone to burn.

Dr. COVINGTON. Right. They are more prone to burning with very

dynamic fire behavior.

This is the Rodeo/Chediski fire. You can see the burned area

lower left. You look in the upper right, that is an area that had

a restoration thinning. It is called treated. And you can see the fire

came up to that, went out, and then burned around it and burned

on the backside of it for thousands of more acres.

Currently when you fly over the Rodeo/Chediski fire, and I know

you have seen this too, Senator Kyl, is you see these little green

islands. The green islands are the ones that got treated before the

fire. The rest of it is a black charred landscape.

Senator KYL. Thank you very much for your indulgence.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Senator and Dr. Covington. I mean, we are all well aware and very concerned about the

state of our forest’s health right now, and especially in the great

basin west and throughout the Southwest as we watch this tremendous buildup of wildfires.

I will ask you some questions, but let me turn to you first, Jim.

We have seen more wildfires in the past fire season and we are,

you know, spending more and more money to suppress these fires.

I do not know what, we had a billion dollars last year——

STAFF. $1.4 billion.

Senator CRAIG. $1.4 billion?

STAFF. Yes.

Senator CRAIG. If we do not begin to go out into the forests and

reduce the fuel loading, not just in the wildland urban interface,

33

could you describe for me what you think our Federal forests will

look like, say, 25 years from now? Both Jims or—both Jims, yes,

you can both answer that. I guess BLM has some forest responsibilities, too.

Mr. REAVES. Yes, Mr. Craig. If we do not begin to address these

fires, of course, the fuel loading will—the fuels will increase and

lead to more catastrophic fires. We all agree on that. What we are

doing in our research to address this problem is we have in our developing models to look at this through visualization models.

Researchers can simulate these types of fires and get an idea of

how the forest would look as they burn through these fires under

various conditions.

The research we are doing now not only in the interior West, but

all over the country is to look at these models and try to get a

breadth and depth of information to provide information to the

land manager and to the user to reduce the economic impacts and

the damage to the forest.

So we realize this and are continuing to increase the technology

in this area through these models and through developing demonstration projects on this to show what exactly fires can do under

these conditions.

Senator CRAIG. Did you have any wish—any comment?

Mr. HUGHES. I think Senator, looking at what happened last

summer and last spring tells us that our watersheds will be in danger if some of these fires burn so hot. The ground was actually

sterilized. It will take years to recover in some cases.

The costs to local communities in lost tourism dollars, the economics in our rural areas will just be devastated if this stuff keeps

going. I mean, I do not think anybody really questions that.

Senator CRAIG. And I think that for the record it is important to

say that last summer certainly was a tragic summer, but it was not

just last summer. It was the summer before and the summer before

and the summer before. And we have seen this ramping up or escalation in total acres burned on an annual basis since—especially

since the late 80’s or I should say the late 90’s, but—and I mean

it is indicative of the growing problem.

And now we have this massive bug kill going on that is the result of a stressed forest environment and I am glad, Dr. Covington,

you have mentioned Idaho. We have literally got tens of thousands

of acres that are taking that color in Idaho, so it is a tremendous

concern.

Dr. Covington, let me turn to you. On page 3, you said that in

your opinion once the Ponderosa forest has been served severely,

we have failed. You said that in reference to the need to complete

restoration treatment. Could you explain what you mean, how long

will it take areas like those burned in the Rodeo fire to recover, of

the kind that the Senator just displayed on that—in that photograph?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes. I would be glad to, of course, respond to

that. First, you know, with the 25-year timespan easily half of our

frequent-fire forests are going to look like that Rodeo/Chediski burn

unless we get on top of this.

And what I mean by if we do not get in with preventative treatments, it is really closing the barn door up after the horses have

34

already gotten out. When you look at the amount of money you

have to spend to set these burned areas, the least impacted of

these burned areas, on a pathway to forest health, it staggers the

imagination. It is at least 100 times what it costs to do preventive

treatments once the area is burned.

And many of them for all practical purposes have a recovery period of probably measured on the order of 1,000 to 5,000 years.

These are the severely eroded areas that occur in these big fires,

and we have—I know Senator Kyl has been on the ground. You

have seen this up in Idaho as well; Senator Bingaman, you have

seen it in New Mexico, is severely eroded channeled landscapes.

The soil is rapidly on the march to the seas again.

In those areas, there is really nothing, there is no amount of

money you can spend to get them on the pathway to forest health.

So prevention—just like in human medicine, prevention is the

wisest investment of money. It is not recovery after the disaster

has occurred.

Senator CRAIG. You also said that if we just cut trees to reduce

the risk of fire in the short term, we will be leaving future generations with a degraded forest. Could you explain on that? What do

you mean, and what must we do in your mind to avoid that future?

Dr. COVINGTON. Well, what I was getting at there, Senator Craig,

is that if we just treat the symptoms of forest health, we are not

getting at the underlying problem. In lots of—if you just go in and

thin enough trees so you do not get crown fires, you do not thin

enough trees to prevent bark beetle outbreak. You do not thin

enough trees to prevent forest diseases from occurring and to restore healthy watersheds.

So this piecemeal approach will not work. We do not have

enough money in the treasury to get in and treat each symptom

as it shows up on here. We have got to get at the underlying problem, so just like going into see the doctor—you go in and you have

got a 105-degree temperature, and he says, ‘‘Gosh, that is a heck

of a temperature. Let us get that temperature down.’’ If all he does

is put you in an ice bath to lower your temperature and not get

at the root causes of the disease, he has not helped you to heal as

a patient. So that is what I was getting at in that part of the testimony.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you.

Senator Bingaman, questions?

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

and thank you to all the witnesses. Dr. Covington, I was up in

northern New Mexico visiting Tent Rocks Monument the other day,

and one of the people from the BLM was showing me around. We

were driving up there and looking at all of the bark beetle damage,

all of the trees that have died from bark beetle infestation.

And I said, ‘‘What can be done to prevent this?’’ You were talking

about prevention?

Dr. COVINGTON. Correct.

Senator BINGAMAN. I said, ‘‘What can you do to prevent this?’’

He says, ‘‘Nothing, because once you see it, it is too late.’’

What can be done to prevent the loss of the rest of our forest in

northern New Mexico or a lot of New Mexico, not just the north,

35

but particularly in northern New Mexico and a lot of the west from

bark beetle infestation.

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes. It is very—interestingly the treatments, the

same treatments that restore forest health and prevent crown fire

prevent bark beetle infestation. So they—what—when we see those

brown trees as—like you saw, it is too late. There is nothing you

can do once they have been attacked by the beetle at that kind of

level.

But the irony is, of course, that we have known this was going

to happen for years. Foresters and ecologists have been predicting

these bark beetle outbreaks, just as they have been predicting the

crown fires that have occurred, the crash of forage, of herbaceous

vegetation productivity. None of this is a surprise.

Senator BINGAMAN. You are saying that the thinning not only

prevents the fires, but it also prevents the bark beetle outbreak?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes, it does.

Senator BINGAMAN. And——

Dr. COVINGTON. And it does that by increasing the vigor of the

trees. There is just a fixed amount of water and energy that is

available on a particular area. If it is overstocked, then you run the

risk of you do not have enough vigor to resist disease and insects.

It is not just fire, but it is also biotic causes of death.

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, is it not the logic that flows from that

now that the bark beetles have killed off half the trees or twothirds of the trees or whatever in some of these areas, is there not

enough moisture and resources, nutrients in the ground to sustain

the few remaining live trees?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes.

Senator BINGAMAN.Are they still at risk?

Dr. COVINGTON. Well, they are still at risk. Once bark beetles

build up their populations to a high level, you can get so many—

you can get such a large number of beetle attacks per square foot

of bark that even a healthy tree cannot resist them. But for the

trees that are—that do survive this intact, they will have been

thinned. And if they do survive, then they ought to be able to grow

rapidly.

Now, what we see in—unfortunately is with these huge attacks,

there are not sufficient trees to start with again. What you would

have to do is go in and cut down those trees, get them out because

what they are going to do, of course, is you now have not just surface fuels, but you have red needles in the canopies of the trees.

So when a lighting strike does occur or the errant cigarette butt

or whatever it is that starts a fire, it burns and burns with a severity like we have not see in the Southwest yet.

Senator BINGAMAN. So you are saying that it is a very high priority, particularly in these areas that have been hit by bark beetle

infestations that we get in there, cut out the trees that have died,

and get them out of there?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes. And to prevent the catastrophic landscape

scale fires that we have seen in Idaho already.

Senator BINGAMAN. So comparing the—if we have a limited number—amount of resources, we have the choice of either thinning

areas, I mean doing regular thinning like we always have talked

about around here, of regular forest or thinning the areas that

36

have been most severely damaged by bark beetles. Would you say

that the priority needs to be put on getting the bark beetle infested

areas cleared out first or not?

Dr. COVINGTON. Boy, that is a tough call. In fact, on areas that

have already been hit severely by bark beetles, that—they are almost like areas that have already been burned. So it would be—

it would depend on the particular situation.

If in that Horse Thief Basin photo there, that one is a goner basically. There is not much we can do with—when the infestation is

at that level. If——

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes, but you are saying there is going to be

a fire that is going to be worse than any we have ever seen if that

is hit by lighting?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes. And that is highly probably.

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes.

Dr. COVINGTON. That is very likely to occur. The residual green

trees that they—that are in there, some of those—I have walked

through this area—and some of those are green but dead. You

know, they still have—they are still green, but they are just oozing

pitch and they have a very high level of bark beetle attack.

There are areas—this is one of the worst areas in Arizona. There

are other areas where maybe 15 percent of that scene that you see

there would be brown. And in those areas——

Senator BINGAMAN. You are saying that they are going to all look

like this in another year or two?

Dr. COVINGTON. Yes. Yes. That is for that particular area.

So given limited resources, I—the scene that you are looking at

there, I would probably write that one off as far as saving those

live trees in there. I would look at just trying to prevent a landscape scale fire.

On other areas that are not yet infected with bark beetle, I

would get in there and try to thin them down to the level that the

tree’s vigor can be increased to resist bark beetle attack. And we

know this works.

Senator Kyl alluded to this from some of our research—from—

that is now 10 years ago in which we saw that when we went in

and thinned dense areas of Ponderosa pine, the residual trees

started growing like teenagers. And they started producing pitch

levels that would easily provide defense against bark beetles.

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CRAIG. Senator Kyl, further questions?

Senator KYL. Thank you. That last line of questioning of Senator

Bingaman, I think, is particularly interesting, because there are

some tradeoffs that are necessary. You all have budgets that you

have to deal with all the times, and I—there are though decisions

to make, I know. And then we have legislative ideas too.

And let me talk about some of the legislative ideas, because it

seems to me that there might be some myths here, and maybe this

is a good time to actually get to the facts.

One of the ideas that has been floating around is that we should

give priority to what is called wildland urban interface, the point

at which the bulk of the forest comes up to a community or a community of summer homes perhaps, some kind of urban environVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:53 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 R:\DOCS\86-587 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
37

ment. And that that should be a priority, that we have got to thin

right around that area.

Another is that if you have a particular watershed, you need to

be sure to thin there, because we do not want that to burn and destroy the streams that provide the water and so on.

There are others who say if you are concerned about endangered—or, in fact, all species, if you are concerned about the flora

and the fauna of the forest, you cannot just focus on where it interfaces with something else, because that is where the fire could well

start. And all of that could be burned up and you could destroy

habitat for endangered species and so on.

Could you speak to—and then, of course, you have the downed

timber, you have the burned that is subject to reburn, and you

have the bark beetle that Senator Bingaman is talking about. Talk

a little bit further—and all three of you are welcome to join in, but

let me go first to you, Dr. Covington, about the kind of considerations that you give.

Obviously, if you could do it all, you would try to do it all. So

the—what are some of the considerations that you engage in in deciding whether to give priority to one in a certain circumstance

over another in another circumstance? And how should that be reflected in our legislation; in other words, is large-scale treatment

really something that we ought to be focused on?

Dr. COVINGTON. Generally, greater ecosystem scale treatments,

of what we—we need to be treating areas on the scale of the disturbances, so 100,000 to 500,000 acre units. I do not think it would

be wise to develop some kind of a national categories of how you

should implement these treatments. I think that is best done at the

local level. So a local collaborative group, the local agencies and the

local communities should get together and design their own priorities.

What is the urban wildland interface? How far out should that

be? I do not think we should—just like with diameter caps, I do

not think we can say it is a quarter mile, a half mile or seven miles

out.

It is dependent upon the local situation. And the people that actually have to live with the outcomes of the decisions should have

a lot of input into what those decisions are.

The urban wildland interface on a steep slope in the Southwest

is going to have a different definition than on a flat slope in the

Northern Rockies. So it—you cannot make hard and fast rules, I

think, about that.

The same thing with key cultural areas of the landscape, municipal watersheds, critical watersheds. All of those areas have high

priorities strategically locating these fuel breaks and prioritizing

them, I think, has to be done on the project level. And that is one

thing with the institutes that I think is very important.

The Joint Fire Sciences Program, the national work that the Forest Service is involved in is great work for developing general principles. But when it comes down to supporting these kind of local

half million acre, million acre decisions, you need local expertise

and it has to be customized to the problems that are being—that

are brought up during the course of project design.

38

So no easy and fast treatment, but those elements that you just

described—the urban wildland interface, critical wildlife habitat,

municipal watershed, wilderness areas, national parks, these kinds

of treasures, the keystone elements in the landscape—should be

protected first and foremost.

But in the fullness of time and there is not a lot of time left—

in the fullness of time we have to treat the entire landscape to get

healthy landscapes, not just healthy patches left on for us to pass

on to future generations.

Senator KYL. Did you want to add something else too?

Mr. REAVES. Yes. Thank you. We, too, believe that at the local

level people should have—or communities should have the right

tools to determine how to prioritize what is treated and what is not

treated.

Much of our research is aimed at that. For example, we are doing

research in southern Utah on fuels, fuels management projects

where we look at alternatives of thinning. We look at pruning, and

we are looking at various fuel treatments at the landscape level in

these areas. And also this is going to be completed in 2003.

In addition to that, the Healthy Forest Initiative that the administration has put forth—put forward, as you are aware—what the

administration is trying to do is reduce some of the rules and regulations to allow managers to treat and to move into these areas to

reduce some of these catastrophic wildfires and provide those tools

for them. And that is what we want to do. We want to provide

those tools for land managers, not only in the West, but all over

the country. Thank you.

Senator KYL. Thanks. I have one more question.

Senator CRAIG. Well, why do you not finish yours? I have got a

couple; then we can wrap up.

Senator KYL. All right. Well, right on this last point, one—another one of the ideas that Senator Craig and I have heard expressed is that we should focus on categorical exclusions rather

than the wide area treatment. And we have seen the effect of that,

and I wanted to ask Dr. Covington about this in the Rodeo/

Chediski fire.

We have three situations going on there. The White Mountain

Apache Tribe is getting huge quantities of salvage timber as we

speak off of their land. They have done their environmental work,

but they are cutting a lot of timber, and are hoping to ameliorate

the costs that they had suffered as a result of that huge forest

burning on their land.

The Forest Service has divided theirs into two pieces basically.

Under the law, they can categorically exclude certain areas around

communities, roads, trails, camp sites, I think, and so on, and proceed with an accelerated plan there. And they are still studying,

and hope to complete, I think, by May—and if I am wrong, let me

know, but I think by May they are supposed to have the work

done, all the environmental work done on all of the rest of the forest, which is by far the larger amount.

As soon as they noticed the proceeding on the area categorically

excluded, Mr. Chairman, a group out of Santa Fe, New Mexico filed

a lawsuit, stopped it dead in his tracks.

39

I hate to imagine what will happen when they conclude their

work on the remainder of the forest in May and try to propose

working on that. What I would like to ask about is the sole question of, A, whether we ought to focus just with categorical exclusions or whether that really solves everything; and B, this matter

of salvage. Is it essentially similar to the situation with bark beetle, important to get that timber out when you can?

Start—start with you, Jim, and then Dr. Covington.

Mr. REAVES. We feel that we should not just focus on just categorical exclusion. We feel that there is a balance needed here and

that we are using all of our research tools and management tools

to help actively manage forests. And I think the chief has said that

he is in favor of actively managed forests to produce more productive forests.

So on that note, Mr. Kyl, no, we are not saying just use only categorical exclusion.

Dr. Covington? Just in brief, regarding categorical exclusions,

this particular 25,000 acres that the Apache National Forest is putting up, the lawsuit as I understand it, is saying that is far too

large of an area for categorical exclusion, and that rather categorical exclusions should be used on 20- to 50-acre scale. And clearly

if 25,000 acres is too big, then categorical exclusions cannot be used

to solve this problem.

The other issue linked to utilization is if we are going to utilize

either bark beetle killed or fire killed timber, it has to be done pretty quickly. And the pace of project design, NEPA document preparation, and getting an actual project on the ground is so slow that

it is very difficult under current—our current situation, it is very

difficult to see much utilization occurring outside of the reservation

lands from the Rodeo/Chediski fire.

And I think that is unfortunate. One—when you—when we talk

about greater ecosystem health, we have to realize that this includes human communities in the ecosystems. And healthy human

communities after all are at the heart of why we are concerned

about ecosystem health.

So to get those healthy human communities we have to look at

this in a comprehensive holistic way, and it has to be done in a

timely fashion. There just is not time.

If this were 40 years ago, we would have time to fool around with

all kinds of stuff, but we do not have that time. We have got to

do this in an adaptive management fashion. We have got to think

big and we have got to act big. And we have got to do it right now.

Senator KYL. Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Jon.

Jim, I want your assurance Forest Service personnel will come

up and meet with our committee staff and Senator Kyl’s staff hopefully no later than next Wednesday so that we can move this bill

along, consider your specific concerns about it.

Obviously, we are all concerned about dealing with this issue,

and we know that you are all full bore at it. But we think a case

can be effectively made for the legislation at hand. And so I hope

we can have your assurances that we can work cooperatively to

fashion a piece of legislation or adjust the Kyl legislation with some

of your concerns in it.

40

Mr. REAVES. Yes, we would be glad to come up at your convenience to work with your staff and——

Senator CRAIG. All right. Also I would like to have you do something else. I know that every year you fly and photograph and we

get a feel for this bug kill.

I would like to have a reasonably good guesstimate of total acres

of infestation at this time, if you could come up with that figure

on the forest and public lands—our forest preserves.

Mr. REAVES. Yes. We will provide that to you, Mr. Craig.

Senator CRAIG. Dr. Covington, while I might agree with you

based on observation and knowledge of your reaction to the Horse

Thief Basin that it is too late there. It is too late there, but that

is a beautiful box of kindling wood sitting there, and what about

the adjoining areas? I think Senator Kyl was speaking to that to

some extent.

If that were to catch fire in the way that we have seen fires of

the last year, it would not only take Horse Thief, it would take a

lot of surrounding area with it. So instead of—and we know that

dollars are short and time is short and tempers are short here also.

We have still got a community of people out there that basically

is in the burn mode and they do not give darn much care about

anything and especially they have given no care for the human

communities that you have spoken to that are at risk here also.

What do we do? The edges?

Dr. COVINGTON. Well, your analogy of it being kindling on the

landscape is a perfect analogy.

Senator CRAIG. Or I could say so many gallons of gas per acre.

It is fuel. It is ignitable. It goes boom.

Dr. COVINGTON. And the fact that an area has bug kill—has been

killed by bugs, by bark beetles and has the red needles in the canopy still puts at risk a greater ecosystem of a half million acres.

So you can see a fire starting in Horse Thief Basin, going over the

rim and burning up most of the Bradshaws on the scale of the

Rodeo/Chediski fire.

And so in a sense if we do not do something about that, it really

is negligence to the greater ecosystem to not do something about

that kindling. And this is around communities throughout the

Western United States.

The city of Prescott and Flagstaff is surrounded by huge bug kills

and the—I—there is a very real possibility that Prescott will be the

Show Low, which is the Rodeo/Chediski fire of 2003 or 2004. We

are just not able to—currently we are not moving at the pace that

we need to to get this kindling off the landscape.

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you for that. We have got examples

of that all over my State, and they are building. And that is the

bad news. And then we add bad news to it. We had Mark Rey up

last week, I guess, to talk about—or a week before—to talk about

the potential fire patterns of the coming season.

And I guess the good news is that the Southwest is in a little

better shape. But it seems that we are migrating back to the

Northwest again where we burned very heavily in the late Nineties. And we may be back in that scenario. We lucked out last year.

You started burning very early, and fortunately enough, although we had a lot of starts, we got them out. We got some late

41

moisture, and it held us down. Thank goodness. But we still had

the worst—I guess, one of the worst fire seasons ever.

And as I was telling Senator Bingaman whether we can treat a

million acres a year or more if we were allowed to, the reality is

we are still going to lose millions of acres a year for decades to

come because we simply cannot get there. And we are not going to

be allowed to get to some of it. So priorities are a reality and—that

we have got to face. And certainly we hope that concepts like you

are talking about in being able to employ and work cooperatively

with the Forest Service may effectively broaden a base of understanding as well as a matter of treatment.

As we explained the need to the countryside, I think there was

some awakening in the past season. So, Doctor, thank you very

much for coming and spending time with us, being the advocate

that you are and the scientist that you are in proving the points

that you have made here so effectively. It is greatly appreciated at

a time when truly our forested lands of the nation—not just in the

Great Basin West, but throughout the country—are at risk today

more than they have ever been.

Jim, as it relates to 203, we will work with you on the type of

mineral involved here to make sure that we meet those qualifications. I am sure that Senator Enzi will want that and be willing

to work and cooperate with it.

Jim, as it relates to 278, Mount Naomi borders Idaho. And we

are very concerned that we can work closely with you and closely

with Logan and Utah State University to make sure that this thing

gets done the way we want.

We also understand there is a Lake Bonneville shore trail system

there to be concerned with. We know that it is some acreages, and

we ought not have a problem in dealing with that. So we will work

cooperatively with you on that.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you all very much for your testimony and

for building the record. We are in tragic situation with our forested

lands, and I hope we can deal with them effectively.

Senator Kyl.

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say thank you one

more time. I hope that people other than people in Idaho appreciate your leadership. You know this subject. You have been an indefatigable worker in—behind the scenes to try to get legislation

like this done in support of the President’s program, which we are

all very supportive of getting passed. And holding hearings like

this one today is a critical step in that process, and I just really

personally thank you for assisting us with the bill.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much for those comments.

The committee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(43)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to Additional Questions

RESPONSES OF DR. COVINGTON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. Dr. Covington you’ve spent 27 years teaching and researching the

Ponderosa forests of the Intermountain West. Over the course of these years you

have to have seen dozens if not hundreds of fires. What is different about the fires

we have experienced in the last couple of years?

Answer. What is different about today’s fires is not that there are more of them,

but that they are larger (often by a factor of 5-10) and more severe. The RodeoChedeski fire was fully 100 times larger than the large fires of the previous decades.

Question 2. What resource values do you believe we are losing in these large fires?

Answer. All resource values (timber, range, recreation, watershed, and wildlife)

are severely threatened by these large severe fires. Biodiversity losses are long

term.

Question 3. How many years will it take, after these high intensity fires, before

they can function as a forest ecosystem, in a way similar to how they functioned

before the fires?

Answer. The severe fires we are now witnessing degrade soils and watershed.

function. It will take centuries to millennia for these forests to approach natural

structure and function.

[Note: Responses to the following questions were not received at

the time this hearing went to press.]

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY GRILES

Question 1. IPAMS Testimony: IPAMS testified that their study, based on BLM’s

own data, shows that it takes, on average, 137 days to process a permit. They also

spoke to the increasing concern of oil and gas production by ranchers and landowners as an issue they have ‘‘inherited’’.

Is IPAMS number an accurate estimate and if not can BLM provide a more accurate number?

What responsibility does an oil and gas leasee have with the landowner or grazing

permittee that is not governed by BLM’s administrative oversight responsibility of

a lease?

Question 2. Lease Stipulations—The Wilderness Society presented some BLM tables on wildlife stipulation waivers from Wyoming.

How are these types of stipulations administered and under what circumstances

are waivers granted or denied?

How would you explain that wildlife values are in fact being protected when waivers to stipulations are granted.

Question 3. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory identifies significant potential to produce solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy on Federal lands.

The President’s National Energy Policy also makes several recommendations regarding renewable energy on Federal lands—including a direction to DOI and DOE

to re-evaluate barriers to increased renewable energy production.

Once a resource is identified, what are the barriers to production of renewable energy on Federal lands? Are these barriers any different from those faced by conventional energy projects?

44

Are there possibilities for co-production of renewable and conventional energy

sources on a single lease, and has the Bureau studied that possibility?

Could reductions in royalty rates be useful in encouraging development of Federal

renewable resources? What other legislative or administrative actions can be done

to increase production of renewable energy from Federal lands?

How are leasing and access decisions treated for each of the renewable resources

(geothermal, wind, biomass, solar, hydro) and is it easier to develop one resource

over another?

What can be done to increase the ease of siting new transmission on Federal

lands, to aid development of both renewable and conventional energy resources on

Federal lands?

How difficult will this siting become with the increasing protective withdrawals

placed on public lands by administrative determinations such as in wilderness study

areas and the roadless rule?

Question 4. I&E Resources: It seems clear that BLM is in need of additional resources to oversee an expanding oil and gas program. The BLM budget request indicates there are over 94,000 existing wells and only about 150 employees for I&E

work. This equates to over 600 wells per I&E employee.

How does the BLM I&E program currently handle this kind of workload?

Is this indicative of why surface owners and users are increasingly concerned

about the impacts associated with oil and gas production?

With the public need to for increased production but also a public concern for protecting public resources, what will the Department need for monitoring and oversight for the increases in workload likely to occur in the future?

(45)

APPENDIX II

Additional Material Submitted for the Record

NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY,

February 26, 2003.

Hon. PETE DOMENICI, CHAIR

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, RANKING MEMBER

Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: [S. 32] Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003

DEAR SENATORS DOMENICI AND BINGAMAN: I appreciate the opportunity to offer

the following statement for the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests hearing

to be held tomorrow.

We at New Mexico Highlands University, wish to thank Chairman Pete Domenici

and Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman for introducing the Southwest Forest Health

and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003 [S. 32]. This legislation, if passed, will provide

a long-term mechanism for research, education and community outreach to address

the wildfire problems in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.

We believe that it is necessary legislation and should be passed with dispatch.

Given the catastrophic wildfires of the past few years and their effects on our nation’s watersheds, this action should be among the Senate’s highest priorities. The

wildfires of 2000 and 2002 provided a wake-up to the entire country on the critical

problems in the southwest. The continuing drought in the region only hastens the

need to address ways to decrease the adverse effects of wildfires.

Further, we believe the best location for the Institute to be located in New Mexico

would be New Mexico Highlands University (NMHU).

There are a number of compelling reasons for placing the New Mexico Institute

at NMHU. NMHU is the only New Mexico University with a degreed Forestry Program. NMHU being located in the north central mountains of New Mexico, is ideally

located to study fire prevention, forest health, forest restoration and the

socioeconomics of wildland fire. Indeed, several of the recent tragic wildfires, including the Cerro Grande Fire, which devastated Los Alamos, were not far from campus.

Our university has the expertise to address the pressing issues associated with fire

and forest health issues. Finally, NMHU recently established the Watershed and

Forest Institute. This project was founded to be an educating resource for professionals, policy makers and the wider New Mexico community through teaching, research and service.

NMHU believes in collaborative research and outreach. Working with like institutions gives the taxpayers a greater return on their investment. Senate Bill 32 produces a wonderful opportunity for the three Institutes established in this bill to

work cooperatively, both with each other and with federal agencies. Highlands has

recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the New Mexico State Land

Office that provides state land for a University Experimental Forest. In 1999, a Natural Resources Board of Advisors with members representing the New Mexico Forestry Division, the U.S. Forest Service as well as other relevant agencies, organizations and individuals, was established which has helped guide the program design

and direction for new curriculum programs.

Again, we enthusiastically support the intent of this legislation and applaud you

for recognizing the importance of utilizing the universities in the designated states

as a valuable element in solving this problem. We respectfully request The Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003 [S. 32] be amended in committee stating the Institute for the State of New Mexico be located at New Mexico

Highlands University. This action will serve the legislative intent of the bill and will

provide the citizens of New Mexico with an Institute at a University that is already

46

demonstrating a commitment to addressing these important issues even at a time

when budgets are extremely tight.

Sincerely,

SHARON S. CABALLERO, EDD,

President.

STATEMENT OF HENRY CAREY, DIRECTOR, THE FOREST TRUST

This testimony is to provide the specific comments of the Forest Trust on the bill

introduced by Senator Kyl, S. 32, The Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act. The Forest Trust is supportive of this bill because it addresses a critical

need for research and applied management guidance to inform forest restoration

and wildfire prevention activities. However, we have two concerns about the bill.

First, that the Act does not contain a mechanism requiring the Institutes to seek

feedback from stakeholders to assure that their research is relevant to forest and

fire managers and other research constituents. Second, that the Act does not specify

a competitive process for selecting the location of Institutes in New Mexico and Colorado.

The Forest Trust is a forest conservation organization based in Santa Fe, NM.

The Forest Trust mission is to protect the forest ecosystem and improve the livelihoods of rural people. The staff of 15 includes 7 professional foresters who are actively engaged in forest management on public and private lands. The Forest Trust

operates the Southwest Community Forestry Research Center as a branch of the

National Community Forestry Center. This research organization is funded with a

four-year $3.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for

participatory research in forest-dependent communities.

The Southwest Community Forestry Research Center has conducted extensive

outreach in New Mexico and the Four Corners region of Arizona, Utah and Colorado

to learn the information needs of people in forest-dependent communities. On the

basis of our outreach we strongly agree with the findings of S. 32 which state that

scientific understanding of landscape scale treatments is limited and that rigorous,

understandable, and applied scientific information is needed. The specific need for

applied scientific information is correctly identified for three purposes: (1) the design, implementation, and adaptation of landscape scale restoration treatments and

improvement of wildfire management technology; (2) the environmental review process; and (3) affected entities that collaborate in the development and implementation of wildfire treatment.

We are particularly concerned that the Institutes be set up to be responsive to

the needs of land managers and stakeholders. We are also concerned that in New

Mexico and Colorado, unlike Arizona, no single university stands out as the obvious

choice to house the institute. Therefore, we suggest two modifications to S. 32 as

follows:

Duties include Stakeholder Input. In order to fulfill the purpose of developing the

practical scientific knowledge required to implement forest and woodland restoration

on a landscape scale, the duties of the Institutes must include seeking input from

land managers and stakeholders about their research needs. The research centers

of the National Community Forestry Center, described above, have advisory boards

composed of scientists and the research constituents. These advisory boards play a

critical role in guiding the focus of the centers’ research. Therefore, we suggest that

Section 5(c) be modified to include a new 5(c)(3) for the formation of advisory boards

to provide input to the Institutes. We suggest the following language: ‘‘The Institutes shall form an advisory board of scientists and research constituents to advise

the Institutes on their annual research agenda and to assure that the research will

be relevant to end users.’’

Location of Institutes. In New Mexico and Colorado no one university stands out

as the clear leader in applied ecological research. Therefore, we believe that Section

5(b) should be modified to require a request for proposal process to allow universities to compete to house the Institutes in New Mexico and Colorado. A request for

proposal process is necessary to ensure that all qualified universities have a chance

to compete to house the Institutes. The requests for proposals should be reviewed

by the Secretaries with input from stakeholders groups in each state.

Thank you for considering the comments of the Forest Trust on the Southwest

Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act. The Act will address a critical need for

research to inform forest restoration and wildfire prevention activities.

47

STATEMENT OF HAL SALWASSER, DEAN, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY; DIRECTOR, OREGON

FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY; INTERIM DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

On July 10, 2002, Senator Gordon Smith and Representative Greg Walden of Oregon asked the College of Forestry and the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University to ‘‘develop a balanced comprehensive report concerning the

restoration of post-fire ecosystems.’’ The request, asked to look not only at ‘‘immediate environmental effects of restoration activities, but also at both short- and longterm effects of not proceeding with cost-effective, post-fire restoration activity on

local communities, future forest fire danger and forest health.’’ The letter also asked

to propose new studies if needed.

What follows is a description of how OSU is responding to the request. It will take

some time to develop all of what the ‘‘report’’ asked for in the July letter, but there

are many things in the works while that unfolds. Our faculty and students, working

with colleagues in state and federal agencies, conservation groups and private

forestland owners will simultaneously document the state of knowledge and technologies as it unfolds in periodic reports.

The first of these was recently published by the Oregon Forest Resources Institute

(Fitzgerald, Stephen A. 2002. Fires in Oregon’s forests: risks, effects, and treatment

options). We will convene or participate in periodic conferences and workshops to

bring the best thinking to bear on revising our understanding and priorities, two

of these are already in planning for Spring 2003 and Fall 2003. Our scientists will

also work directly with agencies in active adaptive management projects (i.e., continuous learning through science-based actions, research and monitoring) to solve

specific, place-based problems created by fuels conditions or the aftermath of large

fires. We will propose for Congressional consideration a focused, long-term, interagency research, development and application program for Oregon that could and

we believe should be replicated in other western states if new funding tied to the

National Fire Plan materializes.

CONTEXT FOR DECISION MAKING ON FOREST AND RANGELAND HEALTH TREATMENTS

It is clear to most scientists and forest managers that the most important steps

in restoring forest and rangeland ecosystem health start well before a fire or other

disturbance event occurs. Pre-fire treatments should not only contribute to reduced

fire risk, but when the fires do occur they should be less intense, less dangerous

to life and property, and less expensive to manage. They should also make post-fire

restoration work unnecessary or less likely to cause unacceptable environmental

damage. Therefore, pre-fire activities must be considered in developing an appropriate context for post-fire restoration.

On August 30, 2002, Dean and Institute Acting Director Salwasser visited with

Dr. Don MacGregor of Decision Research in Eugene, Oregon to discuss this and several related projects. On September 4, 2002, he visited with leaders of the Forest

Service, Bureau of Land Management and USGS in Portland. Subsequent input was

solicited and received by forest ecologists (Nancy Diaz, Tom Atzet), decision scientists (Don MacGregor), forestland managers (Ross McKinley), and conservation

scientists (Dominick DellaSala). This document reflects their input but I did not ask

them for endorsement of all of its parts.

The following notes reflect findings related to the preliminary work requested in

its larger context of decision making for comprehensive ecosystem restoration. We

will continue with further review and refinement as we shape the first action items,

site visits and science/management workshops planned for winter thru fall 2003 at

OSU and elsewhere.

A FRAMEWORK FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

1. Link all Action Directly to the National Fire Plan, Joint Fire Sciences Program,

and 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. The National Fire Plan

developed and endorsed by federal agencies and the Western Governor’s Association

provides a blueprint for action related to forest and rangeland health and wildfire

and the general processes to follow. The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan has goals and tasks directly related to restoration. If these have been

tailored to specific landscapes to form what amounts to an annual plan of work with

specific objectives and measurable outcomes for both public and private lands that

is a step that would not have to be done again.

As work progresses, we will try to determine the degree to which regional or local

application of the Fire Plan and 10-year strategy has been done. One reviewer noted

that virtually no guidelines exist for the development of local unit fire, fuel, or resVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:53 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\86-587 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
48

toration management plans. As a result, we could find that almost anything could

qualify as a fire., fuel, or restoration management plan. If so, a template or framework might be needed for local fire, fuel, or restoration management plan development.

2. Landscape-scale Ecological Assessments. Whether management actions under

the Fire Plan are considered prior to or after fire, the fundamental challenges start

with understanding the ecological characteristics and temporal and spatial dynamics of the forests and rangelands in question, at a landscape to regional scale not

just stand-by-stand or watershed-by-watershed. This means the structure, species

composition, patterns and history of events, and management actions and processes

that caused those characteristics and their dynamics, including fires, droughts, insect and pest infestations, human activities, and climate change. Ownership is also

an important variable.

Ecological characteristics vary widely across forest and rangeland types and conditions. A sustainable fuel management or ecosystem restoration strategy must build

from this understanding appropriate to ownerships, types, and conditions. Just considering the potential impacts of action or no action at the site, stand, or watershed

scale is not ecologically meaningful in dynamic landscapes. Nor is restoring a forest

condition to fire-resilience, only to let it lapse again into a high-risk fire-prone forest.

There is potential to add value to existing programs by describing how a landscape-scale ecological assessment could be done in an expeditious manner. Such an

assessment would form the foundation for the collaboration process described below.

Especially important would be the characterization of events and actions that influenced existing conditions and trends and characterization of risks and actions that

influenced existing conditions and trends and characterization of risks and uncertainties posed by those conditions and trends. USGS/BRD/ITR-2002-0003 ‘‘Research

Plan for Lands Administered by the USDI in the Interior Columbia Basin and

Snake River Plateau’’ has been suggested for review.

3. Collaboration on Desired Future Conditions. Given the above understanding,

managers engage affected people, e.g., citizens, neighbors and other state and federal agencies, to determine the desired conditions and rates of healing processes for

forests and rangelands in the landscapes in question. These conditions must account

for water quality, fish and wildlife habitats, wood yields, aesthetics, soil fertility, forest and rangeland productivity, and economic and community contributions desired

from the area as well as the vulnerability of the lands to future fires, drought,

invasive species and pest epidemics, vulnerabilities that put the other wildland values and uses at risk.

It is also important to link the development of desired future conditions to state

plans for watershed health, such as the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

and to land management plans of federal and state agencies, tribes, and private

landowners.

Desired future conditions will differ widely and by ownership and forest type:

from what is appropriate in wilderness areas to the wildland-urban interface, with

private lands whose goals include the production of wood or other natural resources

included. What this means is that there cannot be a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ set of guidelines or principles to use everywhere, for either fire risk reduction or desired postfire conditions or the management actions to achieve them. For this reason we do

not consider it useful or appropriate to try to revise or rewrite papers on general

principles or guidelines for specific practices to apply across the landscape. At best,

such guidelines should only address things to think about when planning projects

and should never prescribe generic activities or lack thereof. Rather, we will work

on procedures to follow for site and landscape specific activities that address problems at hand.

The fundamental step in determining appropriate management actions is to clearly describe the problem(s) to be solved. If there is no problem—that is desired conditions will be met by nature’s processes without management actions—the fuel reduction or restoration task is over. There must be compelling reasons for action, and

those reasons could be ecological social or economic.

4. Develop Regional and Local Restoration Objectives (and Priorities). Based on

desired future conditions, what the specific problem is, and processes and priorities

for where to take action, especially the reduction of risks to private property, communities, watersheds and other resource values, and conditions and processes that

will restore ecosystem resilience and productivity, the management job is to remove

impediments to those conditions and return ecological processes and management

actions that will sustain the desired conditions and their social contributions in the

most cost effective and economically beneficial way. These amount to the objectives

for which management actions or lack thereof would be designed.

49

Existing federal forest plans set objectives for desired conditions based partly on

goals for water, fish, wildlife, wood, and old forest structure and partly on the ecological understandings, management technologies, and citizen expectations of the

1980s and 1990s. In many cases, these plans did not account for risks posed by wildfire, drought, pests, or climate change, as we now understand them. Nor did they

account for some of the knowledge and technologies now available. Furthermore, we

need new knowledge and technologies for use in management situations that differ

greatly from traditional timber sales. In some cases, such as where large fires

burned this year, ecological conditions assumed by those plans may now warrant

reassessment of roles to be played by recently burned landscapes. Consequently, forest plans might be out of date with today’s risks, knowledge, new conditions, and

new technologies.

The revision of land and resource management plans is a policy task that could

run in parallel to the R&D work needed. The two tasks should be kept separate to

minimize confusion between the political process of planning and the practical,

learning process of actually restoring forests and rangelands through active adaptive management (to be described below).

5. Design Creative Management Alternatives and Assess Likely Consequences.

There is always more than one way to meet objectives and reach desired forest and

rangeland conditions. Thus, managers and affected people must consider the comparative risks to those conditions, uncertainties, and financial resources available to

address those risks and uncertainties and how those might vary over time under

a reasonable array of management alternatives. These management alternatives

will include variable costs and actions based on knowledge and technologies not

available or not well understood when reports were done in the mid 1990s. They

will also entail the need for new technologies, more appropriate to the nature of the

management challenges of fuels reductions or post-fire restoration.

Meetings in Eugene and Portland affirmed that assessment of risks and uncertainties under various alternatives is definitely a place where new scientific and

technology work is needed. Vegetation management tools and contract protocols useful for timber sales in times past are not appropriate to the kinds of work to be

done in the future, thus requiring research and development on harvesting technologies and contract mechanisms suited to small diameter trees, brush and low

cost operations.

There is also a fundamental lack of structured science to understand the efficacy

of pre-fire thinning on fire behavior and the effects of post-fire restoration on ecosystem recovery, including effects on future fires (Omi and Martinson 2002 is the

exception). This includes effects of fire suppression activities on post-fire ecosystem

recovery and the history of results with past management actions to avoid repeating

mistakes. Anecdotal evidence abounds and we have more from this year’s fires. One

Portland participant suggested that a grand synthesis of what is known could help.

This prospectus lists several major sources for such a synthesis. Several participants

thought a Science Panel at a public forum such as a university, after the fires are

out would be a good idea to share what is known and what is not known about restoration.

Several Portland participants cited the need for outreach and technology transfer

of what is known. Retrospective studies could also help improve understanding but

there is a large need for applied research to test out the unknowns. The Fire and

Fire Surrogates research proposed under the National Fire Plan and Joint Fire

Sciences Program would be logical places to look or expand from. Several participants in Portland said that new field studies are sorely needed. The RFP for the

Fire Plan sought such studies but good proposals were lacking so funding went to

stronger projects in other areas. There is very little science on post-fire salvage logging effects (hence the conservative approaches recommended by several recent

studies and reports). It is not possible, nor desirable, to wait for more studies before

taking management actions. Therefore the only way to do science-informed ecosystem restoration is to do the science as an integral part of active adaptive management (the final item in this list).

As with every choice people face, there are consequences of action and consequences of inaction regarding fuels treatments or post-fire restoration. An assessment should elucidate these consequences for each alternative with as much site

specificity as possible for forest and rangeland health issues and for economic issues.

Forest and Rangeland Health Consequences of Action Alternatives and Inaction

Economic Issues

• Water quality as it relates to Clean Water Act standards and aquatic-species

habitat

• Soil erosion effects on site fertility and sediments to streams

50

• Habitat conditions in the near and long term for listed species of native plants

and animals

• Vulnerabilities to invasive species of plants or animals

• Vulnerabilities to insect and disease pathogens

• Likelihood of near and long-term vegetative recovery to desired stand and landscape conditions with regard to species composition and structure

• Near and long-term resilience and/or resistance of forests and rangelands to future disturbance events such as fire and storms

• Effects of the fire the ability of the federal agencies to achieve the objectives

of the Northwest Forest Plan;

• Effects on road system management.

Economic Consequences of Action Alternatives and Inaction

• Risks posed by near and long term forest and rangeland conditions on adjoining

property and residences related to future fire, insects, disease, or invasive species

• Local and regional capacity for future wildland and fire management

• Revenues to counties and local businesses produced or foregone

• Total value of marketable resources produced or foregone

• Social quality of life, recreation programs, aesthetics, as impacted by treatment,

delayed treatment and no treatment, with special attention to the effects of

brushfields replacing burned forests.

For each of these issues, consequences of delay in action for 1-3 years should also

be explained.

6. Structured Decision Analysis. The next step, the one where gridlock seems to

have set in, is to make decisions that strike appropriate balances when the risks

to different resources conflict and uncertainty abounds, as is often the case when

forests, fish, wildlife, water, air quality, and wildfire intersect. This requires a decision making process or protocol that explicitly arrays and evaluates risks, uncertainties, costs, and benefits for the different resources in question, that is it evaluates

the likely consequences of the alternatives. Tradeoffs are inevitable in wildland resource decisions. Aversion to risk for one resource in the short run can mean acceptance of high risk to other resources or even high risk to the first resource at a later

time. Science can only inform parts of the complexity that characterizes these decisions; value judgments and subjectivity must be openly described. Coping strategies

for wicked problems (Roberts 2001) might be useful tools.

Honest and open characterization of tradeoff’s and how subjectivity, uncertainty

and risk are handled in decision-making are vital to public understanding and support. This step in particular is where oral agencies could benefit from new approaches. In the absence of structured decision analysis, the precautionary principle

appears to be the deciding factor on risk—in the absence of certainty that proposed

actions will not cause harm to a particular resource value in the short run or that

they will improve future conditions, do not take the action. The line between hard

facts, myths, and soft values is often difficult for publics and some scientists to see.

This leads to inevitable debates over the meaning and interpretation of science.

USGS is currently pursuing development of tools and skills in decision analysis with

Dr. Larry Susskind and Consensus Building Institute.

7. Project Design. Once decisions are made, the key task is to design restoration,

rehabilitation, or fuels reduction projects to gain an acceptable balance between

their costs and the benefits returned, both broadly defined. Ideally, but certainly not

in all cases, the management activities can generate revenues to cover parts or all

of the costs of restoration. This would allow general treasury funds to be more

broadly leveraged in getting more work done.

A Portland participant suggested that the old systems for planning, analyzing and

costing out projects where commercial timber sales were the goal was not workable

in the current context of ecological restoration with low to no commercial values to

be gained. Traditional timber sale contracts are not very useful for restoration

projects. Nor is the technology developed for use in timber sales where machinery

had to accommodate large diameter trees and is thus over-designed for new work

on smaller diameter materials. Designs for cost reduction rather than profit maximization are needed. Options for commercial use of restoration byproducts is also

a possible area for new work. Further, new technologies for getting work done with

less environmental impacts either exist or could be developed. These were not available when assessments of salvage logging and post-fire restoration were done in the

mid 1990s. Suggestion was made to look at what Joint Fire Sciences Program has

underway here. Also need to explore impacts of non-native plants used in post-fire

rehabilitation projects.

51

Development of project templates to assist field managers in project design following direction from pending legislation regarding healthy forests might be needed to

improve project quality and consistency with best knowledge and technologies.

8. Integrate Application (i.e., projects performed under the National Fire Plan’s

10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Plan or proposed Healthy Forests Initiative) with

Research, Development, Outreach and Monitoring. The final task is to integrate outreach, research, and monitoring into regional restoration strategies so that existing

knowledge and technologies are effectively used, so that new knowledge and technologies are gained, and so that uncertainties can be reduced over time allowing for

adjustments to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of treatment activities. The

integration of outreach, monitoring, research and adaptive management into comprehensive restoration strategies might require stronger central leadership and commitment to interagency action than agencies have envisioned to date. This is the

substance of the suggested actions below.

The 8-step framework or procedure for forest restoration decision making described above provides a context for determining appropriate management actions

both prior to and after fires; it replaces a one-size-fits-all approach that uses general

principles or guidelines with ecologically-based site and landscape specific strategies

that address the environmental, economic and social dimensions of our western forest and rangelands. But, to improve performance, it must also (1) lead to expedited

decisions and resulting actions, (2) improve the effectiveness of public participation

in planning and project implementation, and (3) create a learning process that ties

project design (i.e., application) to monitoring, research, and active outreach (i.e.,

technology transfer). For long-term success, this process must be carried out at a

regional or landscape scale so that individual projects have a suitable context and

can be carved out without the costly and time consuming comprehensive analyses

currently called for in each project. Further, these projects should be designed and

carried out with the continuous improvement process in mind, i.e., they are linked

to monitoring and research strategies. This could all logically become an integral

part of implementing the parts of the National Fire Plan that deal with rehabilitation, restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, monitoring and research. It could also

link to state plans for watershed health and their research and monitoring.

Any work on parts or all of the above framework will require teams of experts

from both science and management in both public and private sectors relevant to

the breadth of the work, most likely drawing from the fields of decision analysis,

risk assessment, soils, water, fish and wildlife, forest ecology and restoration, fire

ecology, silviculture, economics, logging and forest operations, roads, and sociology.

The teams should be comprised of agency, private sector and academic scientists

and managers to ensure both scientific validity and practicality of results. This

would apply first, to the synthesis of existing knowledge, the retrospective studies

(which will take several years), and the new R&D on efficacy of pre and post fire

activities (this is probably a 10 year major Research, Development and Application

program).

Suggested Course of Action

a. Facilitate scientist-manager interactions on recently burned areas to develop

ideas for collaborative work that would address various aspects of the above framework. This has begun in Oregon, probably in all the other western states that experienced fires this summer as well. Clearer understanding of challenges and possible

case-by-case work should emerge from these visits. An example of this is the November 16-17, 2002 visit to the Biscuit fire by OSU and FS scientists at the request

of local federal agency officials.

b. Convene science and management workshops at one or more universities beginning winter or spring 2003 to synthesize existing knowledge and technologies pertinent to parts or all of the above framework (initial focus should be on post-fire restoration and decision analysis to integrate our state of knowledge and technologies

with case applications to restoration following 2002 fires, e.g., Biscuit, Tiller,

Hayman, Rodeo-Chediski, and others that provide distinct opportunities to evaluate

and understand fire behavior in response to fuels treatments or post-fire restoration

projects). Coordinate with a workshop being planned for Corvallis in mid-March

2003 by the Joint Fire Sciences Program and with the Risk Conference planned for

Portland in November 2003 and other topical conferences being planned for the coming year. Funding is being secured for these workshops and conferences.

c. Based on products from the initial site visits and workshop syntheses and subsequent program results, develop protocols for place-based restoration strategies

(i.e., no standard guidelines for use in all places) and carry out active and extensive

outreach and technology transfer to give publics and managers access to and understanding of the state of knowledge and technology using Extension Faculty, State

52

Service Foresters, and federal agency technology transfer specialists. This would

begin following the workshops, in 2003 and continue through 2015 if the following

large-scale R&D proposal comes to being. Funding needed would depend on how aggressive the outreach program is. We opened discussion with the Oregon Forest Resources Institute in December 2002 to initiate the outreach education program in

2003.

d. See the attached FIRE prospectus for a bold proposal for a research, development, and application program that would require Congressional support to initiate.

e. Hold annual conferences to review and present progress. Publish periodic newsletters and hold regular field tours to convey new knowledge and technologies. Publish handbooks and field guides as new knowledge and technologies come on line.

The July 10 letter asked about other sources of information on the topic of posttire ecosystem restoration. In addition to the report prepared by Dr. Beschta and

his colleagues in 1995, there are excellent sources of information pertinent to the

general subject of restoring ecosystem health, including the multi-volume Eastside

Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment compiled in 1994 by Dr. Richard Everett of

the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, a report done by Dr. Norm

Johnson and colleagues for Governor John Kitzhaber in 1995, the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Assessment in 1996, the 1996 Blue Mountains ecosystem health

synthesis report edited by Drs. Ray Jaindl and Tom Quigley, the 1997 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, a General Technical Report on the environmental effects

of post-fire logging done by Forest Service Research in 2000, the book Mapping

Wildfire Hazards and Risks edited by Neil Sampson, Dwight Atkinson and Joe

Lewis in 2000, and a 25 chapter special issue of Northwest Science edited by Dr.

Jane Hayes in 2001 that synthesized forest health and productivity issues in eastern Oregon and Washington. Private forestland owners should also be encouraged

to provide results of their work. Recent studies from the National Fire Plan and

Joint Fire Science Project could add new information. The proposed Winter-Spring

2003 science and management workshops would build from the foundation of these

reports.

FIRE INTENSIFIED RESEARCH AND EDUCATION (FIRE) PROGRAM

Funding Requested: 10% of total federal appropriation each year to forest and

rangeland health and fire management work, est. $8-12 million per year for 12

years.

Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Specific authorization in ‘‘Healthy Forests’’ legislation related to the National Fire Plan or Joint Fire Sciences Program through the

USDA Forest Service and the USDI USGS, followed by annual appropriations under

the National Fire Plan.

Summary: In 2002, between January 1 and September 27, 2,300 wildfires burned

through 1,012,828 acres in Oregon. The total cost of suppressing these fires is still

being determined but state costs are estimated to be over $59 million and costs to

the USDA Forest Service and other federal partners will be in excess of $319 million. Although the loss of such resources as timber, property, and habitat for species

at-risk (e.g., northern spotted owl) has not been estimated, it surely will be in the

hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, many experts believe that ‘‘catastrophic’’

wildfire seasons such as the one just experienced will continue in the future at huge

costs to society.

Although scientists nationwide are making important contributions to our understanding of fire science and related disciplines through the National Fire Plan

(NFP) and the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), an intensified, longterm, focused research and education program tailored to local needs in areas with

high wildfire risk is needed to fulfill the expectations articulated in the NFP and

the HFI. The problems confronting local resource managers following the 2002 wildfire season are complex (e.g., the Biscuit Fire in Southwestern Oregon) and are likely to reoccur if steps are not taken to provide a focused research and education program tied directly to investments made in fuels treatments or post-fire restoration

activities. To meet these challenges and minimize future catastrophic wildfires, resource managers in areas with high wildfire risk need scientists and educators to

work in partnership with them to address local conditions and their specific needs

in an adaptive management approach, learning by doing linked to research. The

Fire Intensified Research and Education (FIRE) Program will meet this need.

Experiences in Oregon have demonstrated that programs integrating fundamental

and adaptive research with extended education, conducted in close cooperation with

local resource managers, can be very successful. A key ingredient to success is placing interdisciplinary teams (if scientists in local communities where problems are

most pronounced. This facilitates cooperative; partnerships, sharpens research to

53

address local needs, and reduces the time necessary to implement research results.

This was clearly demonstrated by the Forestry Intensified Research (FIR) Program

(1978-1991) and the Coastal Oregon Productivity Enhancement (COPE) Program

(1987-1999). These programs provide a model of interagency collaboration in research and education to meet the most pressing information needs of resource managers, regulators, policy makers, and operators. But the funding mechanism used

in FIR and COPE, earmarks to federal appropriations that redirected existing research dollars to the university, is not desirable. Building on these successes of

interagency science partnerships and proposing a different funding model, the FIRE

Program will provide research-based information focused on local needs determined

by local information users and scientists working together as managers solve actual

problems. Like the FIR and COPE Programs, a FIRE cornerstone will be continuous

involvement of resource managers, regulators, policy makers, and operators from diverse public and private organizations throughout the duration of the program. Unlike FIR and COPE, research funding would come from an authorized portion of

total appropriations for fuels management treatments, fire management, and postfire restoration work.

The Plan for the FIRE Program in Oregon is a model that could and should be

replicated in other western states. In Oregon the model calls for the establishment

of four interdisciplinary, interagency teams of scientists with one team located in

each of the following areas: Southwestern Oregon, east slope of the Cascade Mountains, Northeastern Oregon, and Corvallis. The Corvallis team will conduct research

requiring sophisticated laboratory and analytical facilities. Teams will conduct research as integral parts of fuels and post-fire work, thus facilitating the needed land

treatments in a learn-as-you-go mode. Extended education programs will transfer

knowledge and technology beyond where the research is occurring. Collaboration

among teams will be essential. Strong ties with county extension natural resource

agents and practitioners will be established to strengthen research and extended

education programs. The FIRE Program will have a 12-year duration.

The Goal of the FIRE Program is to develop new information and technology as

an integral part of addressing fuels, fire and post-fire management work. These

practical, yet science-based knowledge and technologies for public and private forest

and rangeland resource managers, regulatory agencies, policy makers, operators,

and local manufacturers will enable them to better prioritize and understand potential management and policy options, and related risks, benefits, and costs associated

with pre-fire management practices and post-fire restoration actions in fire-prone

environments. Key elements of this goal are information tailored to local needs and

the rapid communication of research results. To accomplish this goal, FIRE scientists will focus on five broad objectives.

• Develop information on fundamental aspects of fire ecology and the influences

of fire, fire management, and restoration activities on biota, physical resources,

and communities.

• Develop and evaluate pre-fire stand and landscape practices and technologies

that change the probability, behavior, and subsequent adverse effects of standreplacing wildfire in forest and rangeland ecosystems.

• Develop and evaluate stand and landscape practices and technologies for forest

and rangeland restoration following wildfire. Such practices will promote longterm recovery of desired forest and rangeland conditions while minimizing

short-term environmental degradation. This would also include the identification and evaluation of treatment cost recovery opportunities, such as harvest of

fire damaged trees that are consistent with land management goals and community needs.

• Develop a decision-making protocol or process for structured decision analysis

that describes and evaluates the different risks, uncertainties, costs, benefits,

and other factors associated with various alternative technologies, management

actions and policies.

• Shorten the time to communicate research-based information and insure it is

user-friendly.

Partnerships and Collaboration for the Oregon Model: Oregon State University

(OSU), the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW Station),

and the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC) have a

long history of successful collaboration on large, integrated research and education

programs involving multiple partners (e.g., FLR and COPE Programs). Research

and education projects conducted under the FIRE Program will be integrated with

ongoing OSU, PNW Station, and FRESC projects to avoid unnecessary duplication

and broaden the scope and effectiveness of existing efforts designed to address firerelated issues. This is particularly true in the case of the PNW Station, which reVerDate 11-SEP-98 11:53 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 R:\DOCS\86-587 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
54

cently expanded its fire research and development program in response to the NFP

and the HFI. The FIRE Program will complement existing research and education

efforts of all three organizations by adding a much-needed, long-term local dimension and intensifying the integration of research and education efforts with resource

management actions. OSU partners will include faculty and students in the College

of Agricultural Sciences and possibly the College of Science and College of Liberal

Arts. There is also the strong likelihood of collaboration with OSU’s Cascade Campus, Eastern Oregon University, Southern Oregon University, other state and federal agencies, and the private sector.

Matching Funds: Salaries of tenured/tenure-track faculty and permanent scientists, and infrastructure/facilities/equipment of cooperating OSU units and partner institutions (e.g., PNW Station, FRESC).

Relevance to OSU’s Mission: This proposal is consistent with the University’s mission. More specifically, it directly contributes to the three strategic goals for the

University (i.e., statewide campus, compelling learning experience, top-tier university). OSU is recognized throughout the world as a leader in natural resources research, education, and public service. The FIRE Program will enhance this stature

while addressing a serious Oregon problem.

Overall Value to Programmatic Goals: In addition to the three strategic goals for

the University, the FIRE Program will directly address an important College of Forestry strategic goal: develop collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches to address complex issues through teaching, research, and extended education. The FIRE

Program will also establish OSU as a leader in fire-related adaptive management

research thus better enabling the University to broaden educational programs and

increase enrollment.

Determination of Need for Phased-in Federal Funding: Given the magnitude of

the problem, federal funds are needed to support the program. Initial funding in

FY04 would be on the order of $8 million for the Oregon model. This funding would

be administered by the cooperating agencies and would be in addition to appropriations already planned for fire-related research. The total amount would increase to

a maximum of $12 million in FY06 and would be maintained annually through

FY13. Starting in FY14, funding will decrease until a minimum of $8 million is

reached in FY15. Funds would be allocated annually among the three principal organizations conducting the FIRE Program (OSU, PNW Station, FRESC).

Implementing Mechanism: The most appropriate approach to initiating this proposal is to work with the Oregon (and other western) Congressional delegation to

obtain specific language in authorizing legislation related to the President’s Healthy

Forests Initiative. OSU should develop a common strategic approach to this initiative with the PNW Station and FRESC in Oregon and work with similar coalitions

in other western states to obtain a network of ‘‘FIRE Centers’’ throughout the west.

Æ