<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:70955.wais]
NATIONAL FIRE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 8, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-955 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Joel Hefley, Colorado Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California Adam Smith, Washington
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
George Radanovich, California Islands
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Jay Inslee, Washington
Mac Thornberry, Texas Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Jim Gibbons, Nevada James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho VACANCY
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
VACANCY
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho
James V. Hansen, Utah
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 8, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 1
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Montana.......................................
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho.........................................
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 60
Udall, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico..............................................
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Statement of Witnesses:
Hartzell, Tim, Director, Office of Wildland and Fire
Coordination, U.S. Department of the Interior.............. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Laverty, Lyle, National Fire Plan Coordinator, U.S. Forest
Service.................................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Martz, Hon. Judy, Governor, State of Montana................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Additional materials supplied:
Charts and Pictures referred to by Laverty and Hartzell...... 27
Letter to The Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of
Agriculture, and The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of
the Interior, dated October 20, 2000....................... 54
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
----------
Thursday, March 8, 2001
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. McInnis. As our audience can see, our membership is not
here yet. The reason I am going to start, Governor, frankly, is
as a courtesy to you. We have a vote expected in about three
minutes, which means I will have to leave in about 15 minutes.
I want to get your testimony. And it is also my understanding
that members that are not too pleased with today's procedure
will file a number of stalling motions over on the House Floor,
so we will have a series of votes.
Under those circumstances, Governor, I would like to have
you testify when more members of the panel are here. But if we
do that, I am afraid that you probably will not get an
opportunity to testify. So I am going to skip over initially
here any kind of opening statement on my behalf and on behalf
of the ranking Committee member.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health
It is appropriate that the Subcommittee's first hearing this
Congress is on the subject of the National Fire Plan. No single program
has a greater potential to transform our nation's forests and the way
they are managed. The National Fire Plan is the culmination of years of
scientific analysis, General Accounting Office studies and
Congressional hearings, and is a direct response to the fundamental
fact that fuel conditions on our federal lands are the worst they have
ever been, dramatically demonstrated by last year's fires. But what was
really unusual about the 2000 fire season wasn't that seven million
acres burned, but that the average size and intensity of individual
fires were much larger and hotter than they have been historically.
These super-hot fires not only destroy habitat for fish, wildlife and,
of course, people, but they also put firefighters at extreme risk. I
personally witnessed such tragic consequences to brave young
firefighters on the Storm King fire in Colorado eight years ago.
So it is for these just reasons that Congress appropriated an
additional $1.8 billion for the fire plan for FY 2001, and for these
same reasons it will remain crucial that we continue to maintain full
funding for these activities. But continued funding will depend on the
success of the fire plan, and success will be measured by
accomplishments in the field, with tangible results such as the number
of acres treated for hazardous fuels removal or the number of new,
highly trained and well-equipped firefighters. Failure to implement the
plan successfully will also result in tangible, but adverse, results:
billions more spent for fire fighting, millions of acres of destroyed
habitat, billions lost in property damage and, most certainly, the
tragic loss of lives.
This isn't to say that the agencies alone are responsible for
implementing the fire plan; much of that responsibility falls with
Congress, requiring thoughtful bipartisan effort and support. So I look
forward to working with all my colleagues and the agencies on this
immense effort. This, then, is the purpose of this hearing: to review
the National Fire Plan, to measure its accomplishments to date, to
review what yet needs to be done, paying careful attention to all
barriers and impediments, and to determine what role this Committee and
Congress can play in its successful implementation.
__________
Mr. McInnis. Governor, welcome to our Committee. We
appreciate it. I will let you proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JUDY MARTZ, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
MONTANA
Governor Martz. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for
the record, I am Governor Judy Martz. I am here today
representing the Big Sky State of Montana. It is an honor to be
here today to testify on behalf of my State and the Western
Governors' Association regarding the National Fire Plan. I want
to thank the Chairman for his interest in an issue that is
critical and of great importance to those of us in the West,
and that is forest health.
Please consider the testimony in its entirety that I have
given to you, and let me begin by saying that those of us in
Montana are pleased with the prospects of the National Fire
Plan. For the first time in nearly a decade, the National Fire
Plan offers a ray of hope for our Nation's forests.
While the smoke has cleared from one of the most
devastating fires in our history, we must remain vigilant in
our efforts to minimize future devastating fires. Already in
Montana, at this time we fear that the potential exists for
another significant fire season. I will not refer to the charts
again that I have placed here today, but I did want you to see
just some of the devastating headlines and what was happening
in Montana. And as I just looked at those headlines, it brought
me back to the fire season last year, and there is something
very devastating that happened.
This picture I think everyone in this room is familiar with
of the elk down in the fire, as the elk were displaced by the
fire. This happened to a lot of our wildlife, but thankfully
someone caught the picture, and you have all seen it. Now,
having been made into a pin, it is a constant reminder of the
displacement of the wildlife.
Drought continues in Montana, and the consequences of an
extended drought impose an even greater fire danger for this
coming year.
In the interior West, the wildfires of 2000 burned nearly 7
million acres. Of the nearly 7 million acres, 900,000 acres in
Montana were reduced to ash. Three hundred homes were
destroyed, and nearly 6,000 were threatened. We had over 20
communities evacuated as a result of an out-of-control
wildfire.
While we cannot prevent drought, lightning strikes, heat,
or wind, we can prevent some of the devastating impacts that
result from mismanagement and inaction.
We must manage our national forests. ``Hands-off'' is not
management. We have successfully excluded fire from our
landscape for the past 90 years. And while the Forest Service
was quick to respond to fire starts across our Nation, an
action plan for forest management sat on the shelf. Entire
watersheds and landscapes have grown dense with small trees and
brush, creating unnatural and unhealthy conditions ripe for
catastrophic fires. In fact, the General Accounting Office in a
report requested by this Subcommittee identified nearly 40
million acres of national forest land at risk of catastrophic
fire within the interior West. Last summer, we burned in
Montana less than 10 percent of the acreage identified by the
GAO.
Instead of focusing on how much timber we harvest, we need
now to focus on how much we leave on the land. Instead of
focusing on acres harvested and board feet processed, we need
to focus on the overall health of the forest ecosystem.
Some of our forests have grown dense and have accumulated
large amounts of hazardous fuels, making it nearly impossible
to prescribe burn. In cases such as this, man needs to mimic
the purpose of fire by cleaning or clearing overgrown and over
accumulated fuels. Only after successful restoration can we
introduce fire in its natural form.
The National Fire Plan offers a full range of forest
management tools, from prescribed burns to mechanical
treatment. State and local governments are active participants.
The Forest Service will follow nine operating principles
guiding their work to implement the National Fire Plan, and I
am encouraged by those principles, frankly, that are outlined
and look forward to working with the Forest Service on
implementing those principles in Montana.
Last summer's fires affected private and State lands as
well. In Montana, we saw over 14,000 acres of State forest
burn. Recognizing that the value of burnt, dead timber
decreases rapidly with time, our Department of Natural
Resources, the DNRC, moved in an environmentally sound and
fiscally responsible manner. DNRC quickly evaluated the
affected resources in accordance with the Montana Environmental
Policy Act, similar to NEPA, and prepared a plan to treat the
area's most severely impacted by fires. Today, the State has
completed 90 percent of the treatment plan on 5,400 acres of
State land. This treatment plan has rehabilitated many of the
burned acres and generated $3.7 million for our public
education system. The harvests were also conducted while
adhering to the letter of the State Forest Land Management
Plan, which is to manage for biodiversity and forest health, in
effect, similar to the USFS ecosystem management philosophy.
To date, the United States Forest Service in Montana has
not removed any timber affected by the fires of last summer,
and I ask why.
Additionally, the treatment plan addressed rehabilitation
measures that included soil stabilization measures, stream bank
stabilization, and reseeding wherever it is necessary. This
summer, the State will begin the process to evaluate and
address necessary treatment of the areas less impacted by the
fires.
My point is simple. If the State of Montana can move in a
timely, environmentally sound, and fiscally responsible manner
with limited resources, should we not expect our Federal
neighbors to do the same? We need them to do the same.
I would like to present the balance of my testimony now on
behalf of the 21 members of the Western Governors' Association,
of which I recently became a member.
Since last summer's fires, States have been working
collaboratively with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to
develop a national 10-year strategy to reduce the risk of
wildfires. The Governors of the Western Governors' Association
requested this strategy, and Congress concurred on the need for
a long-term approach in the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior
Appropriations report. A draft of that strategy for public and
congressional comment is appended to my testimony. We are
aiming to complete it by May 1st. I encourage Congress to
remain vigilant in improving the health of our Nation's
forests. We must be dedicated to a long-term strategy that
addresses the health of our forests and reduces the risks to
our population. And we must fully fund the National Fire Plan.
The goals set by the National Fire Plan are crucial to
minimizing threat to lives and to property in our entire
region.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Martz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Judy Martz, Governor, State of Montana
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for the record, my name is
Judy Martz and I am the Governor of the great state of Montana. It is
an honor to be here today to testify on behalf of my state and the
Western Governors' Association regarding the national fire plan. I want
to thank the Chairman for his interest in an issue of critical
importance to those of us in the west; the health of our forests.
Let me begin by saying that those of us in Montana are very excited
about the prospects of the National Fire Plan. For the first time in
nearly a decade, we view the National Fire Plan as a ray of hope for
our nation's forests. And the reason we are hopeful lies in the
opportunity to work together with our federal partners on solving
issues that we witnessed last summer. Devastating and catastrophic
fires swept across vast acres of Montana and the west last summer. We
need to do everything possible to avoid that scenario from repeating
itself again.
While the smoke has cleared from one of the most devastating fires
in our history, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to minimize
future devastating fires. Already in Montana, we fear the potential
exists for a repeat performance of last year's fires. Drought has hit
Montana hard, and the consequences of an extended drought have serious
impacts to our natural environment.
In the interior west, the wildfires of 2000 burned nearly 7 million
acres. Of the nearly 7 million acres, Montana witnessed over 900,000
acres reduced to ash. The State of Montana watched in horror as over
300 homes were destroyed, and nearly 6000 were threatened. We had over
20 communities evacuated as a result of an out-of-control wildfire.
The Big Sky State fell under a brown hue of smoke. From August 5th
to September 8th, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
issued a total of 21 ``very unhealthy'' advisories and 19 ``hazardous''
advisories for communities in the northwest part of the state.
Visibility hung around 1 mile or less for most of the summer. A state
proud of its ``clean and healthful'' environment had fallen to air
quality levels worse than Los Angeles. Environmental groups long
opposed to active management fell silent amidst the smoke, chaos and
personal trauma of last year's fires.
While we cannot prevent drought, lightening strikes or hot windy
days, we can prevent some of the devastating impacts that result from
mismanagement and inaction.
In particular, we must manage our national forests. ``Hands-off''
is not management. We have successfully excluded fire from our
landscape for the past 90 years. And while the forest service was quick
to respond to fire starts across our nation, they were slowly drifting
away from active management of those lands. The result, entire
watersheds and landscapes have grown dense with small trees and brush,
creating unnatural and unhealthy conditions ripe for catastrophic
fires. In fact, the General Accounting Office in a report requested by
this subcommittee, identified nearly 40 million acres of national
forest land at risk of catastrophic fire within the interior west. Last
summer, we burned less than 10% of the acreage identified by the GAO.
Unless we move aggressively, with a unified plan and strategy, we
can expect many more summers like last. While spring has not eased into
the intermountain west yet, the impacts from last summer's fires remain
to be seen. Impacts to water quality, wildlife habitat, endangered
species, erosion and regeneration will play itself out with the coming
spring run-off and summer rains.
As a nation, we need to move away from the confrontational gridlock
we have experienced in the past. I have long maintained that there is
no constituency for dirty air and dirty water. We all want a clean
environment. But a clean environment does not happen by accident. It
happens with measured purpose. And the National Fire Plan is a move in
the direction of a cleaner and healthier environment.
By focusing on the health of our forests, we can achieve many of
the objectives important to all Americans. Instead of focusing on how
much timber we harvest, we need to focus on how much we leave on the
land. Instead of focusing on acres harvested or board feet processed,
we need to focus on the overall health of the forest ecosystem. We need
to manage our forests for an end result; and that end result must be a
healthy forest.
Charles Keegan, Director of Forest Industry and Manufacturing
Research and Research and Carl Fiedler, Research Associate Professor,
School of Forestry, both of the University of Montana, Missoula, have
long advocated for healthy forests through active management of our
nation's forests.
In a nutshell, Chuck and Carl recommend active management to bring
our forests back to a more natural and healthy condition. This
management technique involves clearing under-story and over-story of
overly crowded trees, and prescribed burning where appropriate. And the
key word here is appropriate. Some of our forests have grown dense and
have accumulated large amounts of hazardous fuels, making it nearly
impossible to prescribe burn. In cases such as this, man needs to mimic
the purpose of fire by clearing overgrown and over-accumulated fuels.
Only after successful restoration can we introduce fire in its natural
form.
The National Fire Plan endeavors to offer a full range of forest
management tools, from prescribed burns to mechanical treatment. And by
including state and local governments and the affected public to
participate in management decisions, we have an honest opportunity to
positively affect the health of our nation's forests.
The National Fire Plan moves us in the direction of sustainable and
healthy forests. The Forest Service will follow nine Operating
Principles guiding their work to implement the National Fire Plan. I am
encouraged by the principles outlined and look forward to working with
the Forest Service on implementing those principles in Montana.
Responsible agencies must use expedited procedures to implement
this plan. I understand the agencies have the available procedures to
expedite this plan, and if not, then Congress must act prudently and
expeditiously itself to provide legislative language that allows
expedited procedures.
We can and we must move in an expeditious manner to address forest
management. Last summer's fires affected private and state lands as
well. In Montana, we saw over 14,000 acres of state forest burn.
Recognizing that the value of burnt, dead timber decreases rapidly with
time, our Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) moved in an
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manner. DNRC quickly
evaluated the affected resources in accordance with the Montana
Environmental Policy Act (similar to NEPA) and prepared a plan to treat
the areas most severely impacted by the fires. Today, the state has
completed 90% of the treatment plan on 5400 acres of state land. This
treatment plan has rehabilitated many of the burned acres and generated
$3.7 million to the school trust that will be used for our public
education system. The harvests were also conducted while adhering to
the letter of the State Forest Land Management Plan, which is to manage
for biodiversity and forest health, in effect similar to the USFS
ecosystem management philosophy.
To date, the United State Forest Service in Montana has not removed
any timber affected by the fires of last summer.
Additionally, the treatment plan addressed rehabilitation measures
that included soil stabilization measures, stream bank stabilization
and reseeding where necessary. This summer, the State will begin the
process to evaluate and address necessary treatment of the areas less
impacted by the fires.
My point is simple. If the State of Montana can move in a timely,
environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manner with limited
resources, should we not expect our federal neighbors to do the same?
I would like to present the balance of my testimony on behalf of
the 21 members of the Western Governors' Association of which I
recently became a member.
Since last summer's fires, states have been working collaboratively
with federal agencies and other stakeholders to develop a national 10-
year strategy to reduce the risk of wildfires. Western governors
requested this strategy and the Congress concurred on the need for this
long-term approach in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations report. A
draft of the strategy for public and Congressional comment is appended
to my testimony. We are aiming to complete it by May 1. Once completed,
we believe this document will demonstrate that a broad range of
interests are in agreement on the need, resource levels and approach to
addressing this issue.
And I would like to take this opportunity to encourage Congress to
remain vigilant in improving the health of our nation's forests. We
must be dedicated to a long-term strategy that addresses the health of
our forests and reduces the risks to our population. We must, and I
repeat must, fully fund the National Fire Plan. The goals set by the
National Fire Plan are crucial to minimizing threat to lives and
property. We must remain committed for the long run.
We were lucky last year. With the grace of God and a mobilization
of forces like we have never before seen, lives were saved and property
was protected. Unless we seriously commit to addressing the risks posed
by unnatural and unhealthy forests, we will not always be able to say
we were so lucky.
__________
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Governor.
Governor, the panel appreciates the effort that you made to
travel clear across the country to make your presentation.
Later in the meeting, we intend to have the Forest Service. I
am pretty positive about some of the steps that they have
taken.
There are a couple of comments that stand out in your
comments that you have made, in particular your comment that
``hands-off'' is not management. You label it directly. That is
exactly correct. You also said that, to date, the United States
Forest Service in Montana has not removed any timber affected
by the fires of last summer, and I think what is of interest,
Governor, is you compare it to what your State Department of
Forest Service has done in comparison. It is clear that one
agency is able to move on a much more rapid basis than the
other agency.
Considering the fire potential that we have out there, it
is important that we move on an expedited basis, not a careless
basis, not a reckless basis, but an expedited basis. And I
think that we are heading in that direction.
I think your point that the State of Montana can move on
that--and you have set a good example for us--is the kind of
thing we need to hear back here.
Governor, as you will remember, at the beginning of the
meeting we waived opening remarks because of the fact we wanted
to get your testimony in, and I want to allow as much
questioning as possible. In view of that, I will waive the
remainder of my time and yield to the ranking member for a
couple comments, and, members, we will go to the 5-minute
question rule. I yield my time to the ranking member and
welcome the ranking member.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I really will not
have too much of a comment here. Should we move to some
questions here? Is that appropriate?
Mr. McInnis. That would be appropriate.
Mr. Inslee. Great. Thanks again, Governor. This is twice in
two days. You are doing yeo-woman's service, so we appreciate
it.
Governor Martz. Thank you.
Mr. Inslee. I just want to ask you a real broad question,
if I can, and feel free to philosophize or rhapsodize at your
pleasure. And I will go right to the heart of a controversy
that we will be talking about, something that can be a
controversy on this issue, and that is, the need in certain
instances to remove fuel from the forest which in certain
instances needs to be done because our previous fire
suppression policy has allowed tremendous growth to some degree
in fuel.
But in doing so, many of our constituents have concerns
that any fuel suppression program could end up as a masquerade
for, in fact, an increase in commercial harvest. That was
really motivated not so much by fuel suppression but, rather,
simply the increased harvest levels where the law, the ESA, and
various other restrictions may not allow it.
I would just like your thoughts on how you think we can
structure or should consider structuring a program to avoid
that second possibility of disguised commercial harvesting, if
you will, under the guise of fuel suppression while still, you
know, reaching that goal. And feel free to give us your
thoughts even if you haven't thought all the way through it.
Governor Martz. Thank you very much, Congressman. I really
believe that within my heart I think what we are trying to do
is talk about healthy forests. And if we consider that and keep
the argument of timber harvests as being jobs related or
creating jobs for the industry out of this, we will look truly
at creating a healthier forest. And that is what we have been
saying for years in Montana.
The fuels are laying there. They are laying dead. Trees
can't even grow to the size they should grow. Thinning is
better for forests. We are finding that out for sure. And I
really think that for the ecosystem the argument is that we
really need to do--we need to leave some of that dead and burnt
timber. But how do we do that in an environmentally and
ecologically safe way? And I think that has got--we need to
continually take the harvesting or the removal out of the
picture, but start to look and really concentrate and focus in
on the reasons we want to do this. And the reason we want to do
it in Montana is to have a healthy forest.
Our fires last year, as you know, were so large. We had the
best firefighters in the world there. And to sit in the same
room with them and hear them say these are too hot, we cannot
put them out, flames flashing over 300 feet in the air, and
there was no way because of the hot box that sat underneath
them.
Now we are faced with different problems--erosions,
watersheds, those kinds of things. So for a healthy forest, we
must take away the equation. The equation, yes, is going to
bring some timber harvests, and we must be diligent to get that
out of there. But the first and main concern and the argument
that we need to keep focused on is a healthy forest.
Mr. Inslee. Let me ask you, you said something to the
effect of wanting to remove the issue of harvest from this
debate. I want to make sure I understand you. I have many
constituents who basically are looking for a level of trust in
a decision-making process. What they want to have is trust that
a decision to remove any fiber or timber from the forests under
this program, in fact, would be done for a fire suppression
purpose rather than for a purpose of, although it may be
laudable at times, job creation, profit creation, commercial
harvest.
Could you suggest to us ways in fashioning this program
which would help build that trust in the public? And let me
just give you an example of some things that I have heard
tossed about as far as ideas. I have heard tossed about having
a maximum diameter of tree that can be removed. I have heard it
tossed about that you limit actual commercial use or sale of
the timber. I have heard ideas tossed about that would, in
effect, artificially restrict the removal of the timber for
commercial purposes.
What could you suggest to us that would give confidence to
the public on how we would structure such a program in that
regard?
Governor Martz. First of all, you can't fool yourself.
There will be jobs in this, and there will be tree harvest.
There has to be, or else all of the dead, burnt, standing
timber right now is going to be diseased, and each of those
trees, depending on what kind of tree they are, is a very
limited time before they are diseased. Now, we can't have a
diseased forest either because then as new growth comes in, we
start to build another tinder box. So you do have to do
removal.
When we did our State lands, Congressman, we had to
designate how many of those trees and what diameter they are to
be left standing. So in the prognosis of how you go forward,
you do it by prescribing what you want to have standing in
that.
We have through the Western Governors' Association what we
believe--concentrating on what we want to see, we have a list
of goals and outcomes, and this is just in draft form. So as
soon as it is in its final form, we will get this to you. We
have several recommendations on the outcomes and what we
believe we need to do.
But to get confidence in the general public, I think we
have to be very honest. There are going to be some jobs in
this, but that is not our main focus. Our main focus is to get
the dead timber out of there so it doesn't disease, then create
another hot box in several years, which it will do. As that
undergrowth goes up again, we may have a predicament this
summer in Montana that will cause us to not be able to get back
into the forest again. If we continue in the drought that we
are having right now, we may not be able to get in. If we don't
get those trees out early that are dead standing, we may not be
able to get into the forest because of the fire danger again.
So I think we just have to be honest with them, for one
thing. That is the greatest thing.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Governor Martz. You are welcome.
Mr. McInnis. Governor, I might point out, before I yield to
the next member, that I agree with the gentleman from
Washington in regards to that we don't want to use this fire
policy as a guise to sneak in commercial logging.
Governor Martz. Right.
Mr. McInnis. On the other hand, Governor, we don't want to
use this as a tool or a vehicle to prevent logical, scientific
logging. If we have timber in there that we need to harvest for
forest health, it is beyond me why we would not go ahead and
offer it for commercial sale instead of, I guess, stacking it
up somewhere and burning it and so on.
I will yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Governor, I was present in 1998 when we had a
hearing in which they warned us about these fires and that they
were coming, and then again in early 2000 and the GAO report
that you mentioned with the warning that there were 40 million
acres in the West in immediate danger of catastrophic forest
fires. And then we saw those warnings that we received as early
as 1998 come true, and I remember reading one article that
there had been $10 billion worth of damage from this roughly 7
million acres that you mentioned burned.
If I had gone out there and set fire with some matches, or
whatever, to even a few acres, I probably would have been put
in jail. And yet these policies that we followed resulted--the
policies that I think we followed because of radical or
extremist environmentalists who seemingly don't want us to cut
a single tree any place. Somehow, though, they have almost
brainwashed the children in this country because I think if I
went to any school in Knoxville, Tennessee, and told them I was
opposed to cutting a single tree in the national forests, I
would probably get applause.
Somehow people seem to have the idea that the national
forests are national parks, and nobody is advocating going in
and logging in the national parks. And I don't know--I agree
with the Chairman on most things, but I am not opposed to
commercial logging. People have to think that if we don't have
some commercial logging in a few places in this country, people
aren't going to be able to build affordable houses or furniture
or have toilet paper or books or whatever.
How do we get the message out that to have healthy forests
we need to cut some trees, and to have low prices for all these
products that we want, we have got to cut some trees? And if
people stop all logging, you are going to drive up prices and
you are going to destroy jobs. How do we get this message out?
Because we seem to be, I think, losing in some ways on this.
Governor Martz. And I am not sure that I can answer how we
get it out. We try very hard in Montana. We have what is called
best management practices that they use in the forests where
they are only able to cut so many trees in a certain area, they
can't cut within so many feet of the watershed. There are very
strict guidelines on how they do cut.
For us to pretend that we don't want to have the jobs, that
is ludicrous. We need the jobs. The health of the forest
depends on those people bringing it out in a scientifically
conscientious manner. But when we talk about that, it almost
seems like we are shifting the focus to the jobs it creates,
when we really need to concentrate. In a sense, we did put the
fire--we did start those fires. In 1998, we came up with a plan
where we knew better, and we didn't really do it. Now we know
better because we are seeing the ramifications of that, and we
need to do it.
I think education, continually educating, if we can--if you
go see a cut, it doesn't look pretty when it is being done.
When they harvest it, it doesn't look pretty because you have
the stumps. But you go back a year later, and the new growth,
and you will see new seedlings coming up, that is pretty. And
it is usable. Cattle can graze there, and they don't hurt the
ecosystem. They can't graze there probably the first year,
especially after a prescribed burn, but they can go on there
and graze within the next two years and you have a healthy
forest again.
So I think education is key to what we are doing in sync
with the process that we are using to have a better managed
forest.
Mr. Duncan. I remember reading in the Knoxville News
Sentinel that in 1950, 39 percent of Tennessee was in forest
land, and by 1990 it was up to 45 percent, and today about half
of Tennessee's 27 million acres is in forest lands. And then I
read in the Christian Science Monitor where just about every
Eastern State, the amount of forest land has gone up
significantly over the last 50 years, yet very few people
realize that.
I mentioned yesterday in this hearing that Congress passed
in the mid-1980's this law that was hailed by the
environmentalists that we wouldn't cut more than 80 percent of
the new growth in our national forests, yet today we are
cutting less than one-seventh of our new growth. And what I
think it is, some of these groups can't raise money unless they
keep raising the bar and scaring people and convincing people
that we are raping the environment and doing all of these
horrible things, when really we have made great, huge strides
and, in fact, we are not even cutting enough trees to keep
these forest fires from happening.
Governor Martz. I could not agree more.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mr. McInnis. Governor, those buzzes you heard obviously
were an indication of a vote. We will be getting a couple more.
It appears to me we probably will only have time for one more
set of questions.
I would request that the remaining panel members who will
not have an opportunity to ask those questions to you be
allowed to submit those questions in writing to your staff for
response back.
Governor Martz. Absolutely.
Mr. McInnis. We also appreciate the courtesy of you coming.
After this next set of questions, I do not anticipate that we
will be back here for probably half an hour. I would ask the
other people to stay, certainly the second panel. Your
testimony is very important. We intend to continue the hearing,
but at that point I understand you need to keep with your
schedule, Governor. So let's wrap it up. As you will see,
Colorado pretty well dominates this Committee, and that is by
choice. But the fine Congressman from the State of Colorado,
Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Governor. It is important that you are here today to share with
us your perspectives on Montana's approach to this.
The Colorado delegation last year in the person of
Congressman Hefley, who is chairing another Subcommittee of
this large full Committee, and myself introduced a bill that
would have applied to the lands in Colorado in the so-called
Red Zone. That is the urban-wildland interface. And that is
where we have had the most pressure on our forests and, in
fact, where we had a couple of the catastrophic fires last
year. And our emphasis has been on focusing there to educate
the people who live in those areas, but also to do the kind of
fuel reduction and forest health work that would save lives,
save property, and save people from the heartaches that come
when these fires get out of control.
Is it your sense that--I am not trying to lead you on this,
but ask if this would be the kind of policy that we first
implement with these monies and with this large-scale program
that we now have before us?
Governor Martz. It is, and could I just tell you some of
these recommendations from the Western Governors, and I think
they will line up with what you are thinking. We believe that
we must reduce the risk and consequences of catastrophic
wildfires and increase public and firefighter safety, to
improve conditions of fire-adapted ecosystems to make them more
resilient, to promote local action by increasing public
understanding and providing the tools to enhance local
responsibility. We need to maintain and enhance community
health, economic and social well-being, increase resources for
protection capabilities. We need to provide the restoration and
rehabilitation of fire-damaged lands and to enhance
collaboration, coordination among all levels of government and
stakeholders for joint planning, decision-making, and
implementation.
And I think there is something further that needs to be
entered into the discussion at some time, is when people build
in these areas where the trees are right up to their houses,
maybe local planning or planning on Federal and State land,
they have to have their own buffer zone, put that in before
they can build, of some many feet before timber can be right on
top of the house. I think something has to be looked at in that
way, too, because we spend millions of dollars fighting fire
over one home. And is that fair to every taxpayer? I don't
know.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you for that response. I want
to associate myself with my colleague from Washington, Mr.
Inslee, when he discussed the concerns that some of us share
that we don't put the cart before the horse and that in the end
this approach is about making our forests healthy.
I would tell you, when you talk to the environmental
community, who I think is very well intentioned and understands
that forests are part of our economic base in the West, that we
sell our views and our recreation as well as the commodities
that we bring off the public lands, that when you say forest
health to those communities, they think that means clear-
cutting. When you say sustainable forests, which is what the
environmental community tends to use as their approach, the
commodity interests and other economic interests think that
means lock up the forests and nobody ever has any access. And I
think we have got to work to find some additional common ground
here, understanding that in the end we all want the same thing,
which is healthy forests that can provide for our families in
recreational amenities and the views and the experiences we all
enjoy in the West and the out-of-doors, but also, where
appropriate, that allow for access to those wood products.
I also think we have an enormous opportunity--and you
mentioned leaving some of this material in the forest because
it is needed for the forests to regenerate themselves. But with
the emerging energy crisis, we had a hearing yesterday, and
there is a whole industry emerging around biofuels, and a lot
of this small-diameter material can be used with the emerging
technologies to produce ethanol. It is a cellulosic ethanol.
And I hope that we will look at that as a potential feedstock
for ethanol production so that we become more independent and
we don't have the national security issues that are tied to our
dependence on foreign oil.
I am not giving you much chance to comment, but the last
question I would ask you is: In our bill, Mr. Hefley's and my
bill, we included a 12-inch diameter limit. Now, some people
think that is too big. Some people think that is too small. But
we felt it was important to begin with a standard and at least
put something on the table. I am curious if you have a reaction
to that particular size limit for cutting. And, again, this
would be in the Red Zone, in this urban-wildland interface.
Governor Martz. We have designated in Montana certain--it
may be 9, it may go to 12, but you have to leave so many of
those standing. I mean, it doesn't mean that you leave every
one of them that are 12 inches in diameter standing. It would
mean you leave so many in a certain area for a healthy forest.
We call it best management practices, and you are calling
it something else, but we are talking about the same thing,
managing it in a viable way that is good for the ecosystem, is
good for the ground, is good for everything that is around it.
I want to go back to the ethanol use. We are considering
everything in the way of ethanol use in the State of Montana to
the extent that we are looking at building an ethanol plant
there right now. The legislature is looking at a couple of
bills. And so that is something that we are seriously
considering.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. We would like to work with you
through the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in
the House, which has about 180 members from both parties and is
very interested in ethanol maybe being a transition fuel to
what I think eventually may be a fuel cell economy over the
next 50 to 100 years.
Governor Martz. Right. In fact, the next State car I have
will use both ethanol and--it is a good start.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Excellent.
Mr. McInnis. Governor, again, we are going to have to
conclude our testimony temporarily. There are a couple of
things that I would point out.
First of all, I do want to make note that there is some
danger in getting into specific measurement of diameters. I
mean, you may have a species that is not natural to the forest
which exceeds 12 inches, and all of a sudden you have got a
Federal bureaucracy, and I think our bureaucracy has pretty
clearly demonstrated in lack of movement, as compared to your
State Forest Service--which, by the way, in my opinion are
closer to the soil than the Federal agency is.
I wish that we could continue this meeting because I am
sure you would be interested in the follow-up panel, Mr.
Laverty and Mr. Hartzell. We are going to hire 4,000 new
firefighters. I think our communication with your State, with
all the States on these fires will be enhanced. I think some
very positive news will be held in the rest of the hearing.
I understand that you need to go. We certainly need to go
vote. I appreciate the courtesy, and safe travels home.
Governor Martz. Thank you very much.
Mr. McInnis. The Committee will reconvene after the vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. McInnis. If everyone could be seated; also, just as a
reminder, no cellular phones in the room, please.
As the Committee knows, we have been delayed by a vote. I
think, however, we can wrap up the second panel. I would ask
members to submit their opening statements for the record. I
also have a statement to submit for the record from Congressman
Rehberg.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall of Colorado follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mark Udall, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for scheduling this hearing
today. I don't think you could have chosen a more timely subject for
the start of your tenure as chairman of the Subcommittee.
And, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it is also a subject of particular
interest to me--and to everyone back home in Colorado as well as other
western States.
Across Colorado--and across the west--rapid population growth means
that more and more communities are pressing against and into our forest
lands, enlarging the so-called ``urban interface'' that in Colorado is
also known as the ``red zone''--the area where forest fires present the
greatest dangers to people's lives and homes.
The danger of forest fires in such areas is certainly not new. But
last year's combination of a Presidential election and very damaging
forest fires--including those in Colorado and Montana as well as the
disaster in New Mexico resulted in important new developments,
including the legislation whose implementation we are reviewing here
today.
That legislation, which set up the National Fire Plan, resembles in
important ways a bill that our colleague, Representative Hefley, and I
introduced earlier in the year and that was also cosponsored by
Representatives DeGette and Tancredo.
However, our bill would have applied only to Colorado's ``red
zone''--and it also had some other important provisions that were not
included in the legislation setting up the national fire plan.
For one thing, our bill emphasized public involvement by providing
for setting up a committee--representing a broad spectrum of
interests--to establish priorities for use of funds.
And, our bill specifically provided that fuel-reduction projects
would have to meet some essential guidelines.
For example, the bill specified that projects could not be
performed in Congressionally-designated wilderness areas, that roadless
areas would have to be protected, that the projects must comply with
all state and federal environmental laws and regulations, and, most
notably, that projects could include removal only of trees up to 12
inches in diameter.
That last requirement--a cutting limit based on tree size drew many
comments from people holding differing views about the use of
mechanical thinning to reduce fire risks.
Some people do not support allowing removal of trees that big, or
perhaps of trees of any size. Others see the 12-inch limit--or perhaps
any specific limit--as both arbitrary and too restrictive.
I respect the sincerity of those raising those objections. However,
I think that our bill struck an appropriate balance and represented a
legitimate starting point for legislative action.
The bill recognized that where the risk of catastrophic wildfires
comes from overly-dense vegetation, it is because of the build-up of
small-sized materials, including trees smaller than 12 inches in
diameter.
It was also shaped by an understanding that cutting larger trees
often can lead to more severe fires, for a variety of reasons, and can
also have other adverse effects.
The limit in our bill also reflected the fact that cutting larger
trees is controversial--especially when the larger trees may have
commercial value.
It is simple fact that some will see the inclusion of larger trees
as evidence that a project ostensibly aimed at reducing the risk of
fire is really intended to be a commercial undertaking, by the Forest
Service and by industry.
This could lead to challenges that would unnecessarily complicate
necessary projects that were otherwise not controversial.
In short, both on the scientific merits and for reasons of public
acceptability, I thought--and I still think--that there should be
limits on the scope of these projects, of the kind that would have been
set by our bill.
That is why last year, after enactment of the legislation setting
up the national fire plan, I initiated a letter--ultimately also signed
by 25 other Members of the House--to the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of the Interior urging that the fire plan be implemented
under appropriate safeguards and conditions.
I now have received a response from Michael Rains, the Deputy Chief
of the Forest Service for State and Private Forestry. The response
states that the Agriculture Department shares the concerns expressed in
our letter and outlines how those concerns will be addressed in the
implementation of the national fire plan.
I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be included in
the record of today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, in Colorado's ``red zone'' and other areas covered by
the national fire plan, there are very real risks to people, property
and the environment--some of them resulting from past fire-management
policies.
But it is very important that the need to respond to those real
risks is not misused as a convenient rationale for projects that do not
meet proper standards.
I think it is essential that fire-plan projects reflect public
involvement, are based on sound science, and are completely consistent
with applicable environmental laws.
In fact, it is precisely to help assure that fire-plan projects
meet those requirements that last month I joined in cosponsoring a bill
to clarify that funds appropriated to implement the fire plan can be
transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. That will enable those agencies to review
projects to assure that they will comply with the Endangered Species
Act. I think we should act promptly on that legislation, to forestall
problems and to keep the fire plan both on track and on a sound legal
and environmental footing.
With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
________
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael K. Simpson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this oversight hearing on
the implementation of the National Fire Plan. As you know, I have the
dubious distinction of representing a district that had one of the
largest fires in the United States during the 2000 fire season: the
Clear Creek fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The Clear Creek
fire covered an area of over 200,000 acres, outside of Salmon, Idaho.
However, it is but one of many that burned throughout Idaho and the
Western United States.
I was able to spend a couple of days on the Clear Creek fire and
saw first-hand the devastation catastrophic forest fires cause. It is
unfortunate that it took a fire season like the one we had last year in
order for the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to produce the
National Fire Plan. However, I am pleased that the U.S. Forest Service
and the Department of the Interior responded with a comprehensive plan
and strategy for dealing with heavy fuel loads, and restoration and
rehabilitation of lands already stricken by catastrophic fires.
Moreover, I was pleased that the U.S. Forest Service and the Department
of the Interior worked with the Western Governors' Association to draft
report language ensuring cooperation and consultation between governors
and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior.
We need to restore our forests. They are in an unhealthy state as
evidenced by the 2000 fire season. The Forest Service and the General
Accounting Office estimate that more than 72 million acres are at risk
of uncharacteristic wildfire. We must restore our forests to a more
healthy and natural state that includes managed prescribed burns and
thinning. We may not agree on every aspect of achieving that natural
state, but we can find common areas where we can agree that fuels
reduction is better than the alternative--catastrophic forest fires.
The old adage ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''
is very appropriate. A well-funded fuels reduction program will pay
significant dividends in the reduction of fire fighting and restoration
costs over time. I am hopeful that the U.S. Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior will continue to aggressively implement the
National Fire Plan. In addition, I trust that the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Interior will continue to work together with state and
local officials to improve forest health.
I am committed to working with state and local officials, the U.S.
Forest Service, and the Department of the Interior to address any
barriers that might stand in the way of successfully treating our
forests. In addition, I am committed to working for continued funding
for a long-term forest health initiative.
Once again, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for
holding this hearing. I am hopeful that the information presented here
will bring us one step closer to healing our forests.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
__________
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dennis Rehberg, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Montana
I would like to thank Chairman McInnis for the opportunity to
participate in this hearing about the National Fire Plan. This is a
very timely issue, as we must prepare now for the fire season to come
while we continue to deal with the effects of the wildfires of last
summer. The national fire plan is an important thing for the state of
Montana in our efforts to rehabilitate affected communities and
National Forest lands.
I am concerned that though the fire management plan contains many
projects and programs that will be invaluable to the future of fire
management, the President's Budget does not provide for continuing
funding. In Montana we know that the risk for catastrophic fire is not
over. Less than ten percent of the 3.5 million acres the GAO identified
as at risk for catastrophic fire burned during the summer of 2000. And
again this year, snowpack levels are below normal. If forecasts are
correct, we are looking at another fire season that is worse than
normal--perhaps even worse than last year.
Another thing we face today in Montana is the presence of dead and
dying trees as a result of fire on our national forest lands. State,
tribal and private foresters have removed salvageable timber from their
lands and I look forward to working with the Forest Service to expedite
action on National Forest lands. It is important that we are able to
get people on the ground to remove dead and dying stands while they are
still salvageable.
In addition to the devastation catastrophic wildfires leave in
their wake, experts agree that such fires will prevent the Forest
Service from meeting its mission requirement to sustain the national
forests' multiple use because fires damage soils, habitat, and
watershed functions for many generations or even permanently.
I am pleased to see the Forest Service working to devise a cohesive
strategy to address barriers to reducing excessive fuels on national
forest lands, deal with the potential threats to people and property
wildfires produce, and to provide affected communities with the
assistance they need to rehabilitate.
__________
[The prepared statement of The Honorable Tom Udall
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for affording me
the opportunity to comment on some of the issues presented as a result
of last summer's extraordinary wildland fire season.
The National Fire Plan identifies a strategy to deal with ecosystem
health issues in a manner that protects our communities and their
citizens. It is a good start to a complex problem: A problem that
exists because we have ignored the critical role fire plays in shaping
the ecosystem. Now we have an opportunity to begin to undo what 100
years of fire suppression, overgrazing, and poor logging practices have
done.
The National Fire Plan addresses several key elements that will
safely and effectively manage our wildlands for future generations: 1)
To adequately prepare our Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments
for fighting wildland fire when they need to; 2) To restore landscapes
damaged by last season's wildland fires; 3) To invest in projects to
reduce fire risk; 4) To work with communities to ensure adequate
protection through community assistance programs and; 5) To provide
Congress with accountable results of these goals.
Although wildland management agencies have long identified a need
to address the risk of wildland fire, the Fire Plan is not a one-time
effort. Congress should be committed to the program for the long haul
and maintain adequate funding for 10 to 15 years. We should not measure
the Fire Plan's success from start to finish in only 1 year. This
process will take time.
The intent was not to set up agencies and local governments for
failure, nor expect them to solve the problems in 1 year. Rather,
Congress needs to provide funding and oversight to our Federal land
management agencies and Tribal governments to achieve key elements
identified in the National Fire Plan.
To be successful and to comply with congressional intent, Federal
agencies, the Tribal, state, county and local governments, along with
contractors, service providers, and the public need to collaborate and
work in cohesive partnership. Of the major concerns I have toward
implementation of this Plan, this one has major importance because of
the planning and management that led up to the escaped prescribed burn
in Los Alamos last year. We must ensure all groups and agencies are
communicating and are in agreement with these efforts.
Another concern is that we must work to ensure adequate funding is
made available for the long term. Although the President's Fiscal Year
2002 budget maintains funding levels for preparedness and other
programs, it lacks adequate support for fire facility maintenance, fire
science research, and community assistance. The backlog of fire
facility maintenance exists throughout the country and this funding is
inadequate to take care of the backlog. The research component will
guide the development of the National Fire Plan and must be adequately
funded. We need to support our states and local communities through
community assistance funding to ensure they can make their communities
safe through FIREWISE and other treatment methods. I believe it is
important that adequate funding is made available for the long-term
strategy. The current proposed budget does not do that.
In the past, land management agencies have proposed and implemented
fuels treatment and risk reduction projects in areas that are non-
controversial, inexpensive, and easy to do. Now is the time to look at
the communities, watersheds, and species that are at risk from high
intensity wildland fire. These areas tend to have the higher fuel
volumes, higher resistance to fire suppression efforts, and threaten to
burn homes or other valuable resources. Consequently, it will require
more collaborative planning and higher costs to safely and effectively
reduce risks of wildland fire.
The process may include commercial timber harvest, non-commercial
thinning, chipping, piling, or prescribed fire, or a combination of
all. Let's keep our focus on sound land management practices.
In conclusion, the National Fire Plan is a step in the right
direction. However, the agencies must apply the best land management
practices, be fiscally responsible, and demonstrate that their efforts
are paying off. Finally, I want to recognize all the agencies and
partners who are working together to make the National Fire plan a
success. Their long tireless hours and their dedication to make this
Plan a success is commendable.
__________
Mr. McInnis. With that, we will call up the second panel.
Mr. Hartzell, thank you for attending today. Lyle, thank you
for coming out. I am familiar with both of you. I appreciate
the effort.
I am very excited to hear your testimony. We had a visit
the other day, for the rest of the people in the room, which I
thought was very interesting. I think we are focusing on fire
control. Whether we discuss biomass or whether we discuss the
hiring of new firefighters, communication, of course, is the
key. As the two gentlemen know, I was on Storm King Mountain
when Storm King Mountain blew up. That was not a result of bad
forest health. That was a result of poor communication,
unfortunate weather, dry conditions, and the lightning storm.
So, needless to say, not all efforts in fighting forest
fires necessarily pertain to the management of that particular
forest. Communication is critical. And we had a good discussion
the other day--I hope that one of the two gentlemen will
mention that--on coordination of firefighting. That was a major
contributing factor to the fatalities that we suffered on the
mountain during that fire.
So, with that, I will turn to the ranking member very
quickly for comment, and then we will turn it over to our two
witnesses.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comments are brief. It
is my belief that we face the prospect of a fire storm in the
West this summer. It is my belief that the current budgetary
projections will leave us grievously short of resources to deal
with this. And if that occurs, it probably will not be the two
witnesses' fault in this regard. It will be the U.S. Congress'
and the White House. I am going to look forward to your helping
us figure out what decisions need to be made on a budgetary
basis to allow you to do your job to keep this natural disaster
from occurring in the West this summer.
Mr. McInnis. With concurrence from the ranking member or
without objection from the ranking member, I am going to waive
the 5-minute rule, because I think both of your presentations,
number one, are absolutely critical and, two, based on what I
have seen, will take longer than 5 minutes.
Lyle, do you want to start off?
STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, NATIONAL FIRE PLAN COORDINATOR,
FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Chairman, it is truly an honor to be here
and have a chance to share with you this morning actions that
we are taking regarding implementation of the National Fire
Plan. I am here today, along with Tim Hartzell, to bring you up
to date on what has been accomplished thus far and, perhaps
more importantly, what we will be doing this summer to
implement the provisions of the National Fire Plan.
As the Governor really eloquently addressed, the fire
season of 2000 certainly captured the attention of the American
people on the need to find ways of protecting life and property
and at the same time minimizing losses to natural resources.
On September 8th, the Secretaries issued a report entitled
``Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment,'' and that report, which has been referred to as
the National Fire Plan, contains a series of recommendations to
reduce the impacts of wildland fires on rural communities and
ensure that we do, in fact, have sufficient firefighting
resources in the future.
Mr. Chairman, the implementation of this National Fire Plan
is well underway, and we have made significant progress to
date. Cooperation between the Federal agencies, the Governors,
in collaborations with the tribes and local communities
probably is beginning to set a new standard and new model of
how Government can work, in fact, responding to the needs of
the people of this great country. We clearly recognize there
are many challenges to complete this significant increased
workload that has been designed as part of this plan.
Long term, it is going to take many, many years of a
continued commitment and investment of resources to effectively
reduce the impacts of wildland fire on rural communities. And
if there is a theme that we will share with you over and over
again, it is that this is a long-term journey; 1 or 2 or 3
years will not do it. And we need to be able to ensure that we
are in this for the long term, but at the same time that we are
responsible with the resources that are given.
Even though it is early in the year, we have made really a
good start in some major areas of accomplishment. We have, in
fact, treated over 80,000 acres of some of the areas that were
damaged during the 2000 fire season. We have restored 713 miles
of roads, we have treated about 245 miles of trail, and we are
doing those emergency actions to protect those resources.
We have already reduced fuels on over 400,000 acres of the
national forests of the 1.8 million acres that we plan to treat
this year. We have been involved collectively in terms of
hiring the resources to staff the fire organizations, and we
have hired over 815 permanent firefighters, and we expect to
hire another 1,900 additional firefighters before April 30th.
In addition, we plan to acquire new engines, new fire
engines. We are going to bring new equipment under contract and
begin to staff the organization to be responsive to what we
know is the potential for another fire season.
We have already started the process of providing funding
and training and equipment to over 4,000 volunteers just on the
Forest Service side. We published a list of the communities
that are at risk, which was prepared by the National Governors
and the tribes to begin to start the discussion on how can we
begin to more effectively target and focus our fuels reduction
projects on those communities that are at greatest risk.
We have initiated action on over 63 research projects,
which are what I would consider to be the intellectual mutual
fund in terms of how are we going to begin to acquire new
knowledge about the effects of fire and these actions on
resources in this country.
We have developed the framework that the Governor
referenced in terms of a draft of a national 10-year
comprehensive strategy with the States and the tribes as full
partners--full partners--in the implementation of the National
Fire Plan. Very, very significant.
Our success to date, beginning with the definition of the
wildland-urban interface communities, the hiring of
firefighters, and the ongoing rehabilitation and restoration of
burned areas, fire-wise education work, is evidence of the
strong start. We are committed to increasing the Nation's
firefighting capability and to protect communities and restore
resources. But it is going to take longer than a year.
After my partner, Tim Hartzell, presents his remarks, we
are going to take a few minutes to expand on the key points and
add some additional specifics and then answer any questions
that you or any of the members of the Committee might have.
Thank you again for the opportunity just to share with you
some great results that we will pick up on a little bit more.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty follows:]
Statement of Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief and National Fire
Plan Coordinator, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the implementation
of the National Fire Plan. I am Lyle Laverty, Associate Deputy Chief
and National Fire Plan Coordinator of the Forest Service. I am here
today to bring you up to date on what has been accomplished thus far
and what we plan to do next.
The severe fire season of 2000 captured the attention of the
American people on the need to find ways to protect life and property
and minimize losses of natural resources. On September 8, the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior issued a report
entitled, ``Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment. The report, referred to as the National Fire Plan,
contains recommendations to reduce the impacts of wildland fires on
rural communities and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, implementation of the National Fire Plan is well
underway and significant progress has been made. However, we recognize
that there are many challenges to complete the significantly increased
workload. Long-term, it is going to take many years and a continued
commitment in resources to effectively reduce the impacts of wildland
fire on rural communities.
Even though it is early in the year, we have made a good start with
the following:
<bullet> Treated over 80,000 acres, 713 miles of roads and 245 miles of
trails to restore and rehabilitate areas damaged during the 2000
fire season.
<bullet> Reduced hazardous fuel on over 400,000 acres of the 1.8
million acres we plan to treat this year.
<bullet> Hired over 850 new permanent fire personnel and expect to have
another 1900 (650 permanent, 1250 temporary) hired by April 30,
2001 along with planning to acquire 412 fire engines and the
services of an additional 47 contracted helicopters to provide the
highest practical level of firefighting capability.
<bullet> Initiated assistance for training and equipment for 4000
volunteer fire departments.
<bullet> Published a preliminary list of communities at risk prepared
by the States and Tribes to ensure that we increase the focus of
our future efforts on reducing fire risk in the areas adjacent to
these communities.
<bullet> Started 63 research projects to increase scientific knowledge
in support of the National Fire Plan.
<bullet> Initiated discussions on a framework and draft of the national
ten-year comprehensive strategy for the National Fire Plan.
Before I talk more about our accomplishments and our planned
actions let me explain how conditions on our forests and rangelands
developed the level of uncharacteristic fire risk that exists today.
BACKGROUND
Fire conditions
Decades of excluding fire from our forests and past management
practices have drastically changed the ecological condition of western
forests and rangelands and dramatically affected fire behavior. A
century ago, when low intensity, high frequency fires were commonplace,
many forests were less dense and had larger, more fire-resistant trees.
Over time, the composition of our forests has changed from more fire-
resistant tree species to species non-resistant to fire such as grand
fir, Douglas-fir, and subalpine fir.
Fire ecologists point out the paradox of fire suppression: the more
effective we become at fire suppression, the more fuels accumulate and
ultimately create conditions for the occurrence of more intense fires.
As it became Federal practice to extinguish fires aggressively in the
west, firefighting budgets rose dramatically and firefighting tactics
and equipment became increasingly more sophisticated and effective. In
the early 1930s the annual acreage burned by wildfires in the lower 48
states was about 40 million acres a year. In the 1970s because of our
effective fire suppression the annual acreage burned by wildfires in
the lower 48 states dropped to about five million acres. In the 1990's,
the annual average acreage burned by wildfires was less than 4 million
acres.
In addition to changes in tree species and ecological conditions of
forests and grasslands more communities are at risk of wildfire than in
earlier years. During the last two decades dramatic increases in the
population in the West has resulted in housing developments in fire-
prone areas, often adjacent to Federal land. This area where human
development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland is called
the ``wildland-urban interface.''
Reversing the effects of a century of aggressive fire suppression
and past management practices will take time and money targeted to high
priority areas to protect people, communities, readily accessible
municipal watersheds, and habitat for threatened and endangered
species. Although not all areas will need to be treated, the Forest
Service and the General Accounting Office have estimated that there are
around 60 million acres at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire in the
interior West and more than 72 million acres nationwide.. Many of these
acres are not in the wildland-urban interface and include acres distant
from habitation.
The Forest Service and its interagency partners have increased
their efforts to reduce risks associated with the buildup of brush,
shrubs, small trees and other fuels in forest and rangelands through a
variety of approaches, including controlled bums, the physical removal
of undergrowth, and the prevention and eradication of invasive plants.
In 1994 the Forest Service treated approximately 385,000 acres across
the United States to reduce hazardous fuels. In 2000 we treated over
750,000 acres almost double our earlier efforts.
Addressing fire conditions: The key points of the National Fire Plan
To address these changed conditions the recommendations in
``Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment''
and actions implementing the National Fire Plan focus on five key
points:
<bullet> Firefighting. Be adequately prepared to fight wildland fire.
<bullet> Rehabilitation and Restoration. Restore landscapes and rebuild
communities damaged by the wildfires of 2000.
<bullet> Hazardous Fuel Reduction. Invest in projects to reduce fire
risk.
<bullet> Community Assistance. Work directly with communities to ensure
adequate protection.
<bullet> Accountability. Be accountable and establish adequate
oversight, coordination, program development, and monitoring for
performance.
The report also recommended substantial increases in funding for
the land management agencies to address the five key points.
In response to the recommendations in the Report, Congress and the
Administration increased funding for agency firefighting, fuels
reduction, and other fire-related programs. We appreciate the quick and
decisive actions of Congress and the Administration to fully fund the
fire budgets for both the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of the Interior. (See Appendix A.)
The Conference Report for P.L. 106-291 contains explicit direction
for the implementation of the National Fire Plan. The Appropriations
conferees directed the agencies to work closely with State and local
communities to maximize benefits to the environment and to local
communities. They directed the agencies to seek the advice of the State
Governors and local and tribal government representatives in setting
priorities for fuels treatments, burned area rehabilitation and public
outreach and education. The Appropriations conferees also directed the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to work together to
formulate complementary budget requests and to carry out the other
tasks, including developing criteria for rehabilitation projects,
developing a list of all communities within the vicinity of Federal
lands at high risk from fire, and working collaboratively with the
State Governors to develop a 10-year comprehensive strategy. (See
Appendix B.)
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
Implementation of the National Fire Plan is well underway. Since
the very beginning we have worked collaboratively with Department of
the Interior agencies, the Governors, State Foresters, tribal
governments and county officials.
Our implementation efforts focus on addressing the five key points
of the National Fire Plan. The status of our actions include the
following:
Firefighting readiness
We are focusing on increasing firefighting capability and capacity
for initial attack, extended attack, and large fire support. We believe
our efforts will keep a number of small fires from becoming large,
better protect natural resources, reduce threat to adjacent
communities, and reduce the cost of large fire suppression.
The expanded capacity will be used in a manner consistent with our
knowledge and experience of the causes of fire risks. The agency will
be guided by fire management plans that we intend to have updated and
completed by the end of 2001.
To date the Forest Service has hired over 850 new permanent fire
personnel and plan to hire a total of over 2,750 (1500 permanent, 1250
temporary) to provide the highest practical level of protection
efficiency. This will include twelve new hotshot crews for a national
total of 74 crews. We plan to acquire an additional 412 fire engines
and have contracts for an additional 47 helicopters for a total of 106
helicopters and 40 fixed-wing aircraft. In addition we will have
another 500 aircraft available through ``call when needed'' contracts.
We are also in the process of awarding the retardant contract for 2001-
2003 to ensure adequate supplies.
In addition, we will construct several new fire facilities and
increase the level of maintenance on existing fire facilities to
support initial attack. This construction includes projects such as a
new airtanker base and national fire cache in Silver City, New Mexico,
new hotshot crew housing in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and a new helitack
base in Price Valley, Idaho.
The agency is also investing in applied research to improve the
efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of the national firefighting
effort. In addition to the progress made in the Forest Service research
and development program, the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) has been
increased. This additional applied research and development will assess
fire behavior and fire restoration techniques during and immediately
after fire events; upgrade aircraft-based tools for monitoring fire
behavior; increase understanding about post-fire conditions, fire
effects, and the effectiveness of past land management treatments; and
establish protocols for evaluating rehabilitation measures. The
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior have also established a
stakeholder advisory committee to advise the JFSP Governing Board. The
committee plans to hold its first meeting in April.
Rehabilitation and restoration
We are focusing rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed
function, including protection of basic soil, water resources,
biological communities, and prevention of invasive species in priority
watersheds. Healthy, diverse ecosystems are resilient and less likely
to produce uncharacteristically intense fires when they burn.
Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) teams mobilized after
the 2006 fire season. Plans were developed and approved for over $40.8
million of emergency stabilization for 235 projects on moderately and
severely burned National Forest System lands. Most of the emergency
treatments were completed before winter, including 62,000 acres of
grass seeding, 3,606 acres of mulching, 17,886 acres of intensive log
and wattle erosion barriers, and drainage improvements on 713 miles of
roads and 245 miles of trail. For example:
<bullet> In Idaho, 650 acres were seeded, 242 acres intensively
mulched, and erosion control barriers installed on 3,157 acres on
the Trail Creek fire on the Boise NF.
<bullet> In Montana, drainage was improved on 410 miles of road and
4,732 acres of intensive erosion control barriers were installed on
the Skalkaho-Valley fire on the Bitterroot NF.
<bullet> In California, 890 acres were seeded and 200 acres intensively
mulched on the Manter fire on the Sequoia NF.
<bullet> In New Mexico, 13,500 acres were seeded, 3,070 acres
intensively mulched, and 5,170 acres of erosion control barriers
installed for the Cerro Grande fire on the Santa Fe NF.
<bullet> In Colorado, 1,000 acres of mulch and erosion barriers are
being installed on the Bobcat burn.
The remaining acres will be treated as soon as the land is
accessible this spring.
In addition, long-term rehabilitation and restoration on over 400
projects is currently underway. These activities will include
reforestation, replacement or repair of minor facilities, treatment of
invasive species (including noxious weeds) resulting from fire, survey
and monitor impacts to wilderness, survey and rehabilitate impacted
heritage resources, reconstruct fencing, restore critical habitat and
restore impacted trails.
We are also conducting additional research in rehabilitation and
restoration methods. One example is research at Rocky Mountain Research
Station quantifying the soil and water quality consequences of
catastrophic fire, using the Cerro Grande and other southwestern fires
as study sites.
Hazardous fuel reduction
We are focusing hazardous fuels reduction projects in communities
at risk, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and
endangered species habitat, and other important local areas, where
conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires. We will remove
excessive vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire,
and other treatment methods.
Following Congressional direction we asked State, local and tribal
governments, and interested parties to identify urban wildland
interface communities within the vicinity of Federal lands that are at
high risk from wildfire. The Departments of Agriculture and the
Interior published a preliminary list in the Federal Register on
January 4, 2001. The States and Tribes each developed criteria for
selecting communities that resulted in some States listing numerous
communities and others listing only a few. The Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior have asked the Governors and the National
Association of State Foresters to help the Federal Agencies to work
with Tribes, States, local governments, and other interested parties to
develop a national list based on uniform criteria.
We have completed hazardous fuel reduction on over 400,000 acres of
the 1.8 million acres that are planned for treatment this fiscal year.
Many of these projects focus on wildland-urban interface areas. In the
future, we intend to focus the majority of this work on wildland-urban
interface areas where hazardous fuel conditions exist near communities.
In addition to work on Federal lands, we will also provide
technical and financial support to State and local fire departments to
implement 329 projects to improve conditions on wildland-urban
interface areas on non-federal lands. The States will also be
implementing projects in impacted areas using the Community and Private
Land Fire Assistance funding.
Research is also focusing on hazardous fuels projects. An example
is work to characterize and map vegetation and fuels from remote sensed
data to locate urban interface areas exposed to high fire potential.
These methods will be helpful in prioritizing investments in fuels
treatment.
Our success in accomplishing hazardous fuel reduction objectives
will be largely dependent on focusing our treatments in the areas of
greatest need. Our goal is to do this efficiently and with the least
amount of controversy, getting the most amount of high-priority work
done. Protecting communities and restoring forests represents the sort
of win-win solution that will allow us to build a strong constituency
for ecologically sensible active management.
Community assistance
We are assisting State and local partners by providing funding
assistance to rural and volunteer fire departments and through programs
such as FIREWISE to educate homeowners to take actions to reduce fire
risk to homes and private property.
We plan to expand community assistance to rural volunteer fire
departments to increase local firefighting capacity. Rural and
volunteer fire departments provide the front line of defense, or
initial attack, for up to 90 percent of communities. Strong readiness
capability at the State and local levels goes hand-in-hand with optimal
efficiency at the Federal level. We will increase our assistance for
training and equipment to 4,000 volunteer fire departments in high-risk
areas.
The Forest Service has been working with the State and private
landowners, the National Fire Protection Association, and local
firefighting organizations to help ensure that home protection
capabilities are improved and to educate homeowners in fire-sensitive
ecosystems about the consequences of wildfires. Also homeowners are
being taught techniques in community planning, homebuilding, and
landscaping to protect themselves and their property. Efforts include
FIREWISE and other high priority prevention and mitigation education
programs, as well as fuels reduction, defensible space development, and
community hazard mitigation on non-federal lands.
We expect implementation of the National Fire Plan can create over
8,000 new jobs in rural areas and provide economic opportunities for
rural forest dependent communities.
We are also beginning research to test the effectiveness of
different models of collaboration, education, and community actions and
to compare different local regulatory and incentive-based policies for
encouraging residents to adopt FIREWISE practices. These new efforts
will provide useful insights and guidelines for implementing effective
community-level programs for wildfire protection.
Accountability
The agency is working to establish adequate oversight,
coordination, program development, and monitoring for National Fire
Plan performance to ensure accountability.
A key component in ensuring accountability is tracking funding and
accomplishments. In keeping with Congressional reporting requirements,
the Forest Service is finalizing a database to track projects funded by
Title IV funds. It will include project accomplishments and funding for
work in hazardous fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and community
assistance. Once it is fully operational--which is planned for the end
of this month--we will be able to report, for example, numbers and
types of rehabilitation work being done in a particular national
forest, congressional district, or state.
Of course, the Forest Service must be accountable for all funding.
In Fiscal Year 2000, obligations in the Wildland Fire Management
Appropriation totaled $1.5 billion, exceeding available funds by $274
million. An anti-deficiency report was sent to President Clinton and
members of Congress as required by law. This violation was caused by
delays in entering suppression costs into the agency financial system.
The agency is conducting an intensive Anti-Deficiency Act violation
review to more fully determine the specific causes and implement
procedures to prevent a reoccurrence.
Another recent development associated with the implementation of
the National Fire Plan is the ``Review and Update of the 1995 Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy.'' The Review and Update was completed
in January 2001 in response to a request from the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior. The working team concluded that the 1995
Federal Fire Policy is generally sound, but that some changes and
additions are needed to address issues such as fire planning, program
management and oversight, and program evaluation.
If you refer to the list of Reporting Requirements in Appendix B,
you will see the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have
accomplished several other important tasks and reported to Congress in
a timely manner. These include a report on criteria for rehabilitation
projects; a report on the need for revised or expedited environmental
compliance procedures; and a financial plan and an action plan showing
how agencies will spend the emergency funds.
NEXT STEPS
The following are the next immediate actions to be taken by the
Forest Service to continue implementation of the National Fire Plan:
<bullet> Complete the fuels management projects underway and continue
planning for 2002 focusing fuels treatments in urban interface
communities where they are most likely to reduce risk effectively.
<bullet> Continue work on a long-term strategy for the National Fire
Plan (2002-2010) in collaboration with Governors and other
stakeholders.
<bullet> Complete the hiring of new fire personnel to produce an
extremely high level of firefighting capability.
<bullet> Complete analysis of fire risk and integrate with other
resource information to prioritize treatment areas.
We will continue to provide timely information to Congress and
other interested parties about the National Fire Plan.
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, my staff and I will continue to work closely with the
Department of the Interior Team to work with communities to restore and
maintain healthy ecosystems and to minimize the losses from future
wildfires on National Forest System lands, other Federal, State,
Tribal, and privately-owned lands. Our successes to date--beginning to
define the wildland-urban interface communities, hiring firefighters
for the 2001 fire season, and ongoing rehabilitation, restoration,
FIREWISE education work--is evidence of the strong start. However, our
continued success will depend on what happens this field season.
We are committed to increasing the Nation's firefighting capability
and ability to protect communities and restore resources, but it will
take longer than one year.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee might have.
__________
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.012
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Mr. Hartzell?
STATEMENT OF TIM HARTZELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WILDLAND AND
FIRE COORDINATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hartzell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tim
Hartzell, and I am the Director of the Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination in the Department of Interior. I really appreciate
this opportunity to address the Committee concerning a natural
resource effort that is, frankly, historic in its scope and
unprecedented in both its innovation and collaboration, that
is, implementation of the National Fire Plan.
I am pleased to report to you that the Department of
Interior firefighting agencies have already made significant
and substantial progress in responding to the mandate and
opportunity that Congress has given us in the appropriation
language for Fiscal Year 2001 to minimize the occurrence of
another fire season such as 2000, to lessen the danger to
communities at risk, and to restore ecosystems and the natural
role of fire, to protect our critical natural resources, and,
most important, to keep our firefighters and public safe.
We are pleased to speak to you about this historic
initiative that is truly a new approach to solving resource
management problems. The key to our initial success has been in
our openness and our desire to work with States, local
governments, and others as full and equal partners in
identifying and finding solutions to problems. I certainly hope
that this is a clear message that you hear throughout our
testimony.
At this time I would like to forego the balance of my
submitted testimony so that my colleague and I can focus on the
critical actions that we have completed to date under the
National Fire Plan and talk to you about future actions and
opportunities under the plan.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartzell follows:]
Statement of Tim Hartzell, Director, Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee concerning a
natural resource effort that is historic in its scope and presents a
unique challenge, implementation of the National Fire Plan. My name is
Tim Hartzell and I am the Director of the Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination for the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to report
that the Department of the Interior firefighting agencies have made
substantial progress in responding to the mandate that Congress gave us
in the appropriation language for FY 2001 to minimize the severity of
another fire season such as we had in 2000, lessen the dangers to
communities at risk, restore ecosystems and the natural role of fire,
protect our critical natural resources, and most important, keep our
firefighters and the public safe.
Background
The 2000 fire season was long, stubborn, volatile and widespread.
The fire season started on January 1st, when a small blaze ignited near
Ft. Myers, Florida, and lasted well into the fall. As late as December,
more than 14,000 acres burned east of San Diego, California, destroying
fourteen structures.
In total, almost 93,000 wildland fires burned close to 7.4 million
acres. While neither the number of fires nor the number of acres
approached all-time records, the conditions, fire behavior and
potential for an even more explosive season were perhaps unparalleled
in the last fifty years. The intensity of the fires was the result of
two primary factors: a severe drought, accompanied by a series of
storms that produced millions of lightning strikes and windy
conditions, and the long-term effects of more than a century of
aggressively suppressing all wildfires, which has led to an unnatural
buildup of brush and small trees in our forests and on our rangelands.
The 2000 fire season also caught the attention of the public. In
early August, President Clinton visited a battalion of soldiers from
Ft. Hood, Texas, pressed into duty as firefighters on the Burgdorf
Junction Fire, near McCall, Idaho. During that trip, President Clinton
asked the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop
recommendations on how to reduce the impacts of fire on rural
communities and ensure sufficient firefighting resources for the
future. On September 8th, the Secretaries responded with a report
entitled, ``Managing the Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of
2000,'' also known as the ``National Fire Plan.''
The National Fire Plan recommended that the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior seek an increased appropriation for fire
management, and do several things:
<bullet> Continue to make all necessary firefighting resources
available.
<bullet> Restore landscapes and rebuild communities.
<bullet> Invest in projects to reduce fire risk.
<bullet> Work directly with communities.
<bullet> Be accountable.
We are grateful that Congress took quick and decisive action once
the report was issued. As a result, the wildland fire budgets for both
the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture were
substantially increased for FY 2001.
At present, we are concentrating our efforts in the Department of
the Interior on three main areas: tire preparedness, fire operations,
and assistance to rural fire districts. Later in my statement, I will
detail some of the steps that have been taken and will be taken in the
coming months to address these three critical areas.
Accomplishments to date
The FY 2001 appropriation provided an injection of critically
needed support and funding for wildland fire and resource management.
Although the agencies have managed wildland fire in the past as
efficiently and safely as possible, the FY 2001 appropriation provided
a much needed boost to ensure that adequate resources are available in
the face of today's significant fire and resource management issues,
such as rangeland and forest health, the increasing size and intensity
of wildland fire that is resulting from much of the land's unhealthy
state, and the ever-expanding wildland-urban interface. Late in 2000,
the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service began
implementation of the National Fire Plan by detailing support,
direction and funding for wildland firefighting agencies to better
manage fire and resources on the land. An interagency steering group
convened with representatives and leads from each Federal wildland
firefighting agency, including DOI's Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau
of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and USDA's Forest Service. Each of these agencies developed an agency-
specific National Fire Plan implementation strategy to provide field
personnel with procedural guidance.
The National Fire Plan is founded on a long history of cooperation
among firefighting agencies. Its long-term success depends on
cooperation and collaboration among Federal agency partners, Tribal,
State, county and local governments, contractors and other service
providers, and users of Federally-owned land. As soon as agencies
received the FY 2001 budget, National Fire Plan leads from the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior met with such partners as
the National Association of State Foresters, the Western Governor's
Association, and the National Association of Counties, to discuss the
ramifications of the FY 2001 appropriations.
Within weeks of the passage of the FY 2001 Appropriations Act,
requests for pertinent data and status reports were sent to the field
to determine staffing, rural fire district, and planning needs, and to
determine which hazardous fuels treatment projects are ready for
implementation in FY 2001 and which remain in the planning stages.
Deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects were prioritized
and allocated, and project tracking systems were developed. Weekly
interagency and agency meetings, satellite broadcasts and information
bulletins help coordinate efforts and disseminate information
throughout the agencies.
In January 2001, the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service issued the ``Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy.'' This report came in response to a request
from the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. The National Fire
Plan is built upon the foundation and framework of the Review and
Update. The Review was conducted by 14 Federal agencies and the
National Association of State Foresters, who concluded:
<bullet> The 1995 Fire Policy is still sound, but additional emphasis
is recommended on science, outreach and education, restoration, and
program evaluation.
<bullet> The fire hazard situation is worse than predicted in 1995.
<bullet> The scope of the Urban Wildland fuels hazard problem is even
more complex and extensive than predicted in 1995.
<bullet> Additional research is needed on the effectiveness of
different fuels treatment options, and post-fire rehabilitation
activities.
<bullet> Additional collaboration and integration of all Federal
agencies with land management responsibility as well as non-Federal
agencies is needed.
The National Fire Plan addresses these concerns by:
<bullet> Increasing fuels hazard treatment activities for DOI to a
planned target of 1.4 million acres of Federal land in FY 2001.
This represents an increase from an average of 800,000 acres of
fuels treatment activities.
<bullet> Increasing on-the-ground fuels hazard reduction work in FY
2001 around a greater number of vulnerable communities, and by
developing a collaborative partnership with the State Foresters and
others to design a long-term fuels treatment strategy in the Urban
Wildland interface.
<bullet> Increasing research in: (a) the economic and environmental
consequences of fuels treatment alternatives in a variety of fuels
types across the country; (b) the effectiveness of post fire
rehabilitation techniques including the control of noxious weeds
and invasive species.
<bullet> Increasing outreach and partnership activities with the
Western Governors' Association, the National Association of
Counties, Tribes, other Federal partners, and nongovernmental
organizations in designing a 10-year strategy to restore health to
fire adapted ecosystems and a plan of action to implement the NFP.
Also in January 2001, the Department of the Interior completed an
action plan to implement the National Fire Plan. This action plan
contains proposed accomplishments for FY 2001 in wildland fire
preparedness, operations, and rural fire assistance. It addresses
actions needed to implement the National Fire Plan, including:
<bullet> Hiring additional personnel and obtaining needed equipment.
<bullet> Completing deferred maintenance and construction.
<bullet> Enhancing fire science work.
<bullet> Planning and implementing hazardous fuels treatments.
<bullet> Planning and implementing burned area rehabilitation.
<bullet> A financial plan for complying with Title IV of the 2001
Appropriation Act.
We divided our accomplishments under the National Fire Plan into
the three key areas: fire preparedness, fire operations, and rural fire
district assistance.
Fire preparedness
Wildland fire preparedness provides agencies with the capability to
prevent, detect and take prompt, effective initial attack suppression
action on wildland fires. Preparedness includes staffing, aircraft and
equipment, maintenance and construction, fire science and research, and
the associated Federal acquisition practices.
Interior and Forest Service personnel have been working together to
create consistency in position classifications. Outreach and
recruitment to obtain diverse, well-qualified candidates began in
December 2000 to fill firefighter, fire manager and support positions,
and for fire and fuels specialists. Many of these positions have been
advertised jointly and centrally to eliminate duplication of effort and
to streamline the application process.
We are contracting for the use of an additional 16 aircraft, and we
purchased equipment, including 40 new heavy engines, 43 light engine
upgrades, 14 crew carriers for Hot Shot crews, 7 water tenders, 5
helitack trucks, and 3 dozers and lowboys. Although this equipment has
been purchased in 2001, some of it will not be delivered until 2002.
Within the Department of the Interior agencies, 50 fire facilities
require maintenance or construction. These projects have been
prioritized and the funding has been allocated.
The Joint Fire Science Program, a six agency partnership to address
wildland fuels issues, was established in 1998 to fill the gaps in
knowledge about wildland fire and fuels. The purpose of the Program is
to provide wildland fire and fuels information and tools to specialists
and managers who make wildland fuels management decisions. The
information and tools will also help agencies develop sound,
scientifically-based land use and activity plans. The Joint Fire
Science Program will fund important new research to explore effective
methods of mapping and treating fuels. The program will also direct a
significant portion of funding to answer questions about important
regional or local suppression, fuels management and rehabilitation
needs. The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service recently
issued a request for proposals for fire science projects. We expect new
proposals to focus on the feasibility of developing a locally-based
biomass conversion industry. Other proposals will examine carbon
storage, soil compaction, water quality, and habitat as they relate to
fuels treatments. We have also requested proposals to determine the
cumulative effects of fuels manipulation on fire behavior and severity,
wildlife populations, and habitat structure. In addition, on January
18, 2001, we established the Joint Fire Science Program Stakeholder
Advisory Group under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The
purpose of the Group is to advise and assist the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior, through the Joint Fire Science Program
Governing Board, on priorities and strategies for completing wildland
fire and fuels research and implementing research findings.
The National Fire Plan calls for a dramatic increase in the amount
of fuels reduction and fuels management work, and much of this work is
targeted for completion by independent contractors or through service
agreements. In December 2000, an interagency team of contract and fuels
specialists met in Boise, Idaho, and developed model contracts and
agreements that agencies will use for fuels reduction, rehabilitation
and restoration projects, and model grants and cooperative agreements
to assist communities and rural fire departments. We created a web site
that houses these model contracts so that each field office can access
them easily, saving valuable time and effort, and increasing
consistency among agencies.
Although fuels management by contract has grown over the last 10
years, there is still a need to foster growth in the number of
contractors available. A primary focus of the 2001 appropriation is to
facilitate awards to firms that will hire locally. Although the term
``local'' is undefined, managers and contracting personnel will
emphasize the use of sealed bid awards to firms that are in closer
proximity to project work and best value awards to firms that commit to
specific plans to hire local workers.
The interagency contract and agreement team has developed an
outreach plan that will:
<bullet> Locate firms that are not currently active in bidding or
proposing on Government procurement for fuels management contracts.
<bullet> Introduce local independent contractors to the benefits of
contracting for this type of work with the Government.
<bullet> Encourage continued participation by firms that currently have
fuels management contracts.
Fire operations
Wildland fire operations include suppression, burned area
rehabilitation and fuels management, including fuels reduction in
wildland-urban interface areas that pose a risk to people, property and
natural resources. To better facilitate these operations, several steps
have been taken:
First, a list of communities most at risk from wildland fire in the
wildland-urban interface (discussed in more detail later in this
testimony) and hazardous fuels reduction projects within and around
those communities has been developed. Work is continuing to refine the
criteria and the list of communities at risk.
Second, a cohesive fuels management strategy has been drafted that
will provide a broad, national framework for Interior agencies to
ensure:
<bullet> Effective collaboration among Federal agencies, Tribal, State
and local governments and other stakeholders.
<bullet> Alignment of all program areas to prevent further degradation,
and to work toward the common goal of reducing unnaturally intense
wildland fire.
<bullet> Integration of fire and resource management within and across
all agencies.
Third, on February 7th, Secretary Norton approved the release of $4
million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and $2 million to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, needed to perform consultations
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for work identified by
DOI. This money will facilitate consultation for critical hazardous
fuels treatment projects as implementation of the National Fire Plan
progresses.
Finally, both Departments are engaged with the Governors, Tribes,
non-governmental organizations and others in an active and open
partnership to develop a ten-year comprehensive strategy to implement
collaboratively the National Fire Plan and to begin to effectively and
efficiently manage the nation's hazardous fuels situation. This ten-
year strategy will unify State, Tribal, and Federal efforts to
cooperate across jurisdictions, coordinate activities and maximize
capabilities to reduce the impacts of wildfires on communities and the
environment.
Rural fire department assistance (RFDA)
The 2001 budget appropriation provided $10 million to the
Department of the Interior for a new program to enhance the wildland
fire protection capabilities of rural fire departments (RFD). In
December 2000, representatives from each of the Interior agencies met
and developed basic selection criteria for the distribution of these
grant funds. Grants will be limited to $20,000 per RFD, and the RFDs
that apply will be reviewed for criteria that include:
<bullet> Having an agreement in place with the State Forester or an
Interior agency.
<bullet> Serving a community with a population of less than 10,000, in
the wildland-urban interface.
<bullet> Using funding only for training, equipment and prevention.
<bullet> Sharing a minimum of 10 percent of the total cost.
An Interior work group was formed to develop an interagency
agreement/contract which will be used by field offices to facilitate
the transfer of funds to rural fire departments. A draft of this
document is currently undergoing field review and will be finalized in
the next few weeks.
The money for RFDA has been allocated by each Interior Bureau to
field offices, and fire managers are working with partners at the local
and regional levels to establish priorities and to allocate available
funds.
Communities-at-risk
The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior were asked in the
FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-291) to publish
jointly in the Federal Register a list of all wildland-urban interface
communities that are at high risk from wildfire.
The list was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2001.
Communities on the list were proposed by States, Tribes and local
governments. The criteria for listing varied from State-to-State, which
explains why some States listed hundreds of communities, while others
submitted a much smaller list. The list also identifies communities
with ongoing fuels treatment projects and those with projects planned
for FY 2001. A total of 37 States participated and more than 4,500
communities were listed. Since then, four more States have submitted
their lists, and the total number of communities has grown to more than
6,400. We appreciate the work that went into the list, especially the
work performed by the State Foresters and Tribes.
Developing the list of communities was only part of the Federal
Register notice published on January 4. The notice also provided a
definition of wildland-urban interface, and included suggested criteria
for categorizing interface communities and evaluating the risk to those
communities. The January 4 list is a starting point. It needs to be
refined, possibly narrowed, and focused so that we can set treatment
priorities for the coming years. The list of communities far exceeds
our hazardous fuel reduction capabilities.
Revising the list is a formidable task. Working closely with the
Western Governors' Association, we have developed a process to address
this daunting task. Some communities are much more vulnerable to
wildland fire than others. Our next task becomes one of identifying,
again in collaboration with our Tribal, State and local partners, the
communities in the vicinity of Federal lands that are most at risk,
which are the places where we will begin hazardous fuels reduction
work. The results of this effort will be published in the Federal
Register later this spring. The Federal Register Notice will identify
the full extent of the high-risk wildland urban interface problem along
with communities where hazardous fuels reduction treatments will not be
planned, and the reasons why.
The revised lists of communities at risk in each State will be
developed by an interagency team consisting of representatives of the
Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, State Foresters,
and Tribes. Representatives from other Federal agencies such as the
Departments of Energy and Defense will be included where appropriate.
Others who may be invited to participate include representatives of
county government, local fire response organizations, State emergency
management offices, and community forestry organizations. A specific
process for refining the urban wildland communities list has been
developed by the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and
the National Association of State Foresters. We envision that these
teams will continue and will serve the long-term goals of identifying,
prioritizing and implementing fuels treatment projects, to ensure that
the long-term needs of communities vulnerable to wildland fire are
addressed.
Existing project proposals in these identified urban wildland
communities that have approved plans and completed environmental
compliance will have the highest priority for fuels treatment, and work
is already underway in many of these communities. DOI's projects will
cover about 300,000 acres. Additional projects that can be readied for
implementation this Fiscal Year will receive the next priority.
Finally, for those newly identified projects or projects not ready for
implementation, the planning process will be initiated toward future
treatments and implementation schedules will be developed.
A cornerstone of the National Fire Plan has been enhancing the
communication for preparedness and strategic planning among all
partners in the wildland fire management arena. To facilitate this
objective, all of the National Fire Plan Coordinators from the
Department of the Interior and its bureaus, as well as the Forest
Service, and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency,
Council on Environmental Quality and others, assembled in Denver on
February 21 and 22, 2001, to share concerns and issues, clarify roles
and expectations, validate the importance of success, and define a
management structure for collaboration at the geographic area level
throughout the country. This meeting provided a springboard to unify
State, Tribal and Federal efforts to cooperate across jurisdictions,
coordinate plans and activities, and collaborate with local governments
to implement efficiently and effectively the goals and commitments
outlined in the National Fire Plan.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing. We are
grateful that Congress has afforded firefighting agencies an
opportunity to reverse the trend of deteriorating health for our forest
and rangeland ecosystems. We view the funding for FY 2001 as an
investment that will, in the future, help save communities, money, our
natural resources, and the lives of firefighters and the public.
Like any long-term investment, it will require patience. It took
many decades for fuels build up to reach their current levels. The
demands on public land and its resources will only increase in the
future. It will take time for all of us, the Federal agencies, our
Tribal, State and local partners, rural fire districts, elected
officials and others, to ameliorate the volatile and dangerous
situation that currently exists in many parts of our country. The
Department of the Interior has made a commitment to see this process
through to a successful conclusion. We intend to honor this commitment,
and we look forward to your continued support.
Thank you, again. I will be happy to answer any questions from the
committee.
__________
Mr. Hartzell. With that, I would like to call your
attention to the five key points in the National Fire Plan
which we have up on the poster board. Those are firefighting,
rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuels management,
community assistance, and accountability. And we would now like
to spend a little bit of time talking to you about each of
those key elements of the plan.
The first component that I would like to talk about is
firefighting and tell you what we have done from an Interior
perspective to date. Firefighting is that component of the
National Fire Plan that enables us to be adequately prepared to
prevent, detect, and initially attack wildfires. To date, the
Department of Interior has been successful in hiring 875 new
employees. We have committed $30 million to reconstructing and
repairing over 50 facilities. The facilities are necessary to
provide and meet minimum housing standards for crew quarters,
adequate storage for our engines, and to provide helitack
bases.
In addition, we have ordered a significant amount of
equipment, including the contracting of 24 helicopters,
requesting 62 engines, 6 bulldozers, a variety of crew
transport vehicles, and 8 water tenders.
In addition, I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, since
you mentioned Storm King Mountain, that with the additional
firefighters that we are hiring, training is going to be a key
issue for us. We will put no firefighter in a position where
they have not had adequate training on basic firefighting and
behavior, standards for survival, and the importance of
communication under duress. We will not place a firefighter in
a position without adequate training. Safety is, under the
National Fire Plan, job one for both our firefighters and the
public.
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the components
that Tim described in terms of the efforts that are underway in
terms of the firefighting efforts, the funding that has been
provided by the Congress is incredibly unique. This is probably
the first time that I can recall in Forest Service history that
we have been funded at this level of suppression forces and
preparedness. Not only does that install the firefighting
capability in the human resource, but it brings us on board
with a lot of the equipment that Tim referred to. In addition
to the engines, we are making some investments in a number of
air tanker bases across the country that can help us in terms
of being prepared. It brings on additional helitack bases so
that we can have these resources in place in the right
locations to deal with the kinds of field conditions that we
have across the country. It is a major, major step forward, and
I just cannot tell you how significant that is to both of the
agencies.
Recruitment has been a major, major task for us. We have
never hired this many people in one block in the Forest Service
history that I can recall. And the fact that we are trying to
recruit and fill about 5,000 positions is an enormous
undertaking, particularly as you look at the state of the
economy. In Colorado, you can't go anywhere but you find help-
wanted signs, so there are just not a lot of people waiting to
come to work for us. So we are really creative in terms of
going out and holding job fairs. We have held job fairs, over
35 job fairs across the country, to try to recruit people and
identify candidates for these jobs.
Between us, I think we have had in excess of 15,000
applications for these jobs, so this is a major undertaking as
we begin to prepare not only for this season but make that
equipment in place for the long term.
The other part that Tim addressed is the training and the
supervisory capacity in terms of how do we supervise brand-new
people. If there is a caution that comes to my mind, it is that
we need to make sure that we are making those kinds of
investments in the supervisory skills so that we are not going
to put these new firefighters in harm's way. It is an enormous
undertaking.
Another area is the coordination that is taking place
between the agencies that Tim and I have talked about. We are
really focusing on how we can most effectively train these new
people so that we are not duplicating efforts and we are being
as efficient as we can with these funds that have come to us.
Maybe we will go on to the next one, which deals with the
restoration and rehabilitation of the burned areas. The second
key area of the National Fire Plan addressed and recognized the
need to rehabilitate and restore these intensively burned areas
from the fires of 2000. You can see that between the two of us
we have got probably in excess of four to five million acres
that we plan to treat with a variety of techniques. Just as the
Governor of Montana spoke about, the restoration and rehab,
these activities are well underway. We responded back to the
Congress in January in terms of a framework on how we were
going to prioritize projects that came in for rehab and
restoration. We submitted that in January, and those criteria
have been applied. That was an interagency effort between the
Interior Department and the Forest Service.
We are well underway in terms of implementing rehab and
restoration projects. Many of those projects started even
before the smoke was out on the ground. We started doing much
of that emergency work, and that is going to continue on
through the summer.
I should tell you that between the two of us, the two
Departments, we received about $250 million in appropriations
for rehab and restoration. The projects that came in just from
the Forest Service were well in excess of $260 million. So
there is a lot of work out there that needs to be done.
Tim?
Mr. Hartzell. I think it may be helpful to mention that in
the congressional report on rehab, we were asked to indicate
what criteria we would use to direct our rehabilitation and
stabilization efforts. In summary, they were that our actions
would be compatible with existing land use plans; we would take
a full and open look at the projects and alternatives to
complete them; rehab would be conducted in full cooperation
with other partners; and rehab would be restricted to within
the perimeter of the burned area.
I would like to mention two important points regarding the
rehab program that result from the National Fire Plan. Number
one, we now have the flexibility and the opportunity to conduct
rehab for up to three years after a wildfire, and during that
period we can use these rehabilitation funds for replanting
native shrubs, forbs, and grasses, and this is a significant
addition and improvement to our rehabilitation program.
Mr. Laverty. One of the other areas that I would just tag
on to the rehab and restoration recognizes the issue of noxious
weeds. And as we deal with noxious weeds and invasive species,
this is a long-term commitment. It is more than just simply
sending a crew out and monitoring some of these disturbed areas
from the fires of 2000. But it is a long-term investment. If we
do, in fact, find species coming into these sites, we are into
really a war on weeds, and these rehab and restoration plans
recognize the importance of monitoring and aggressive action on
invasive species.
The bar chart that Mary has up there just kind of gives you
a graphic display of the rehab and restoration acreage, and you
can see--in fact, as the Governor referenced this morning--that
we burned in excess of 7 million acres, and between the two
agencies we are treating about close to 5 million acres of
that, the remainder being on State and private lands.
This is a huge undertaking, and it cuts across not only
just the Federal boundaries but it deals with State and private
lands as well.
Mr. Hartzell. I think at this time we should move on to our
next key point, the hazardous fuels program. Under the
hazardous fuels program, we have on the Interior side $195
million that is going to enable us to treat almost 1.4 million
acres; 309,000 of those are wildland-urban interface acres,
acres around communities that are vulnerable to wildfire. The
remainder of the acres are in priority watersheds.
Our hazardous fuels program concentrates on those actions
that we take to reduce fuel loadings and fire behavior
potentials such as prescribed fire or mechanical or manual
thinning or chemical means or any combination of the above.
Lyle and I have a series of photos that we would like to
share with the Committee, one, to give you an understanding of
the fuel problem in inter-mountain shrub lands and another to
give you a sense of the problem of fuel loading in our forest
and timberlands.
Mr. Laverty. The two photos that Mary has posted there show
really a very graphic representation of what has happened
across the interior West in terms of fuel conditions and in
terms of structure and composition of the stands. That first
photo in 1871 and the same photo back in 1982 just shows the
dramatic transformation that has taken place. This could be
replicated literally in 100 billion acres across the interior
West. I think this is a great example of the kinds of
situations that we are talking about. And as we begin to look
at that wildland-urban interface in terms of everybody wants to
live in the woods, this is the kind of situation that we are
beginning to address.
This is just another one. This is a photo series that many
of you have seen. This represents the Lick Creek area in the
Bitterroot National Forest in Montana. What it shows is the
changes in stand structure and composition that takes place
over time. The 1909 photo on the upper left there does, in
fact, show some treatment on there, but I think what is
important is you look at the relative changes in terms of the
numbers of stems, the composition that has taken place on that
same photo point over the next 80 years. So it is a graphic
representation of the kinds of changes that we are talking
about, not that that is a pure natural stand on the left side,
but it does, in fact, give us a benchmark to measure what has
taken place.
Mr. Hartzell. I would like to spend a little time showing
you a fuels problem that we have in shrub lands. This is a
photograph of what we call a sagebrush steppe community in the
Northern Great Basin. I would tell the Committee this is
probably what the early explorer John Fremont saw when he came
through the West and he described the sagebrush plains in his
writings. The plant community you see right here is dominated
by Wyoming big sagebrush, and the grass that you see, the very
healthy and lush grass you see there is bluebunch wheatgrass.
What this picture shows is ``healthy range'' or ``healthy
lands'' or a ``healthy ecosystem.'' This is an excellent
photograph to demonstrate what healthy rangeland looks like. It
has a low density of shrubs that represent a variety of age
classes, an abundance of bluebunch wheatgrass, a variety of
small forbs and flowers and ground cover, which provides a
variety of food for wildlife.
This is an example of what happens when a wildfire occurs
in a healthy shrub community. Historically, these sagebrush
communities burned in a mosaic fashion with low fire
intensities. And what you get, as you can see in the
photograph, there are these pockets of unburned or lightly
burned vegetation. The pockets of unburned sagebrush and grass
provide a seed source for the burned areas within the perimeter
of the fire. Typically, in these healthy sagebrush ranges fire
recycled every 50 to 100 years, and it was vital to the renewal
of these communities.
The next photo I have got on display for you here typifies
much of what we have in many areas of the inter-mountain West.
This is a problem that probably is common on somewhere between
100 and 140 million acres of rangelands in the inter-mountain
West. What we have when we have these hot fires in cheatgrass,
which is the golden grass you see there, forming a dense stand
in the formerly open inner spaces between the shrubs that were
inhabited by native plants, and this significantly increases
the fine fuels.
Now, once cheatgrass dries out, usually in mid-May to mid-
June, it is highly flammable and it easily carries a fire
throughout the entire shrub community. Cheatgrass in this
situation entirely changes the frequency, the intensity, and
the behavior of wildfires. As a rancher said in 1928 in an
Idaho Statesman article about cheatgrass, ``It grows in a day,
it ripens in a day, and it blows away in a day.''
Let me just say that this site right here represents a site
that is salvable, both from a fuels management standpoint and a
rehab standpoint.
However, this is a photograph that shows what happens once
a sagebrush community is totally invaded by cheatgrass and it
reburns. The vegetation here, which used to be the beautiful
bluebunch wheatgrass and a mixture of sage and forbs and
flowers, has been totally converted to a monoculture of
cheatgrass, which is an annual species, but, more importantly,
it has been taken over by invasive weeds. We used to think
cheatgrass was the bottom of the ecological spiral. No more.
Now we have noxious weeds invading cheatgrass.
I think you can all appreciate that this type of situation
has negative impacts on rangeland health of the site as well as
its value for a variety of multiple uses.
The fire cycle in this photograph, rather than being 50 to
100 years like healthy rangeland, is probably something in the
vicinity of every 3 to 10 years. But, most importantly, those
fires are considerably more dangerous for our firefighters to
fight. An Oregon study found that fires in this type of range
system are 500 times more likely to start and burn than in
healthy native rangelands.
I have got two photos here I would like to close with that
depict the fuel system conditions on our inter-mountain brush
lands. This fire right here shows what was very typical
throughout much of the Great Basin in 1999. In five days alone
in the State of Nevada, there were literally tens of thousands
of lightning strikes, and more than 1.5 million acres were
consumed in that five-day period. As one veteran engine foreman
said when he was dispatched to a fire and topped the ridge,
when asked by dispatch, ``What is your situation?'' He said,
``I don't know. Everywhere I look there's fire, and it's
roaring.''
Fires in this kind of situation are much larger and much
more intense than the historical norm.
I would like to leave you with an impression from this last
photograph, the aftermath of these fires. Fires in these
cheatgrass- and weed-dominated shrub lands burn at an
incredible pace. It is not uncommon for these fires to consume
5,000, 10,000, or even 20,000 acres in a day.
What you see there is a burn that occurred in one day. What
is left behind is certainly not encouraging?
Mr. Laverty. To respond to these kinds of situations
between the two Departments, our plan in the hazardous fuel
component is to treat together about 3.2 million acres across
the country, and, again, recognizing that this is a national
plan, we will be treating lands in the West, as well as
maintaining some of the conditions that we have been able to
sustain in the East. In addition to the Federal land component,
the Congress provided funding that has gone to the State
foresters, and in addition to the Federal land treatment, we
expect that there will be in the neighborhood of 400,000 acres
treated on State and private lands as well. So it really
becomes a part of a system rather than just simply a Federal
land activity.
Let's go to the last one there, just a reference photo.
This is a photo from, I think, Mr. Otter's country, Mr.
Simpson's country that shows a little bit graphically what can,
in fact, happen in terms of treatments versus burned areas. You
can see on both the left- and the right-hand side of that photo
burned areas from the season of 2000. The area in the middle
was pretreated. There had been some activity, some pre-
commercial--I am guessing there were some thinnings, some type
of fuel activities, but it did have a prescribed fire in that
center area. So we can begin to show anecdotally that we can,
in fact, make a difference in terms of what happens with fire
behaviors and fire effects in treated stands. Not that there is
one prescription for all stands, but the fact that we know--and
that really becomes an important part of the investment that
Congress is making in the hazardous fuels, is that we have a
focus on research in terms of helping us clearly identify and
track the effectiveness of these investments over time. Can we,
in fact, by good scientific modeling replicate these activities
and come back and tell you that this is a good investment?
The other part of the hazardous fuels, I would just share
with you that we have been working with the Governors following
the direction in the conference report. We published a list in
January of communities that were at high risk. We worked with
the Governors across the country. We published that list, and
there are about 4,500 communities that were identified to be at
high risk that are in the vicinity of Federal lands across this
United States.
We are currently working with the Governors, with the
National Association of State Foresters, and the tribes to
refine that list. And as you would expect, we have 48 States in
this part of the country that all interpreted the direction one
way. We have got 48 different interpretations. So we are
working with the Governors and the tribes to refine that list,
and our direction is to republish that list in May.
Along with the list of revised communities will be then
which of those communities do we actually have projects planned
in 2001 and which communities do we have projects planned for
2002. And we are working with the communities, with the States,
with the Governors, with counties, to begin to identify where
we should be placing--finding the criteria to place those
projects in the out-years so that--recognizing that we don't
have enough funds to treat all communities, but we can begin to
assess some criteria in terms of ranking on how we are going to
make those investments. It is a huge--and I say that
recognizing that this is a monumental effort in terms of how we
have been able to engage Governors, tribes, counties, and a
variety of interest groups in this process. And I really
believe that this is a model in terms of how we can show that
we can manage America's resources in a fashion that really is
responsive to the needs of people.
Mr. Hartzell. Well, Lyle, before we leave fuels, we ought
to talk to the Committee about contracting. The contracting
procedures that we have in place are another excellent model or
example of how the Federal Government can work together with
States and locals in a more efficient manner. The Fiscal Year
2001 appropriation was very specific that we should focus as
much of our fuels treatment work through the contracting
process as possible. We were concerned that we needed to
minimize the duplicative work of agencies independently
developing and administering their own contracts.
So back in December of 2000, we called 75 to 90 interagency
fuels and contracting specialists together at the National
Interagency Fire Center. We invited States and tribes to that
meeting. And the purpose of that meeting was to sort out what
contracts everybody had in place for doing fuels treatment work
and rehabilitation work and find the best of the best, and then
use those contracts as models for conducting fuels and rehab
work. The concept being we would identify these model
contracts, we would refine them as appropriate, we would get
them posted up on a website so that no matter what part of the
country you were in, whether you were in Florida or Battle
Mountain, Nevada, or eastern Oregon or Grand Junction,
Colorado, if you needed to do a mechanical thinning, you could
go to this website and pull down the appropriate contract and
utilize it to complete your work rather than invest precious
staff time in redeveloping a contract.
The way we see this working in the model we have in place
is that we have established 11 national geographic areas for
contracting, and there will be a lead agency and a designated
lead contracting officer for each of these areas, and then
every agency within that geographic area can order against the
lead agency contract.
We believe that this process is going to have several
important benefits. One I think I have already alluded to,
minimizing the time of everyone developing their individual
contracts, but also we think that through this process we are
going to be able to create significant opportunities at the
local level for jobs in small communities for fuels hazard
reduction and rehab work.
I think that the Committee can expect our contracting
capacity, both internally and externally, to increase over the
next few years. Right now I can tell you that this model
contracting process is up and operable in three of the 11
geographic areas: the Pacific Northwest, the Northern Rockies,
and New Mexico and northern Arizona.
Mr. Laverty. In addition to the contracting model which has
dramatically changed how we do business together, our
expectation is that 50 percent of those contracts will be local
awards. This is a major effort as we look at trying to build
capacity for the long term and how we are going to treat these
kinds of landscapes so that we can deal with the kinds of
outcomes that the Governor addressed this morning.
One of the benefits will be, in fact, that we are going to
employ people, but the long term is that we are going to
improve forest health conditions across America. This is a
major, major part of the fire plan, and huge benefits will come
from this.
The next key point is the issue of community assistance,
and this one is a fairly broad and encompassing program area
because these are in many cases funds that go back to the
States and right into the local communities. The item that we
have displayed is rural and volunteer fire assistance. And
between the Forest Service and the Department of Interior, we
will be providing funds and resources to 4,800 volunteer fire
departments across America.
For any of you that have been involved in fire departments,
most of the funds are done by cake sales, cookie sales,
raffles, and those types of things, just to buy fuel for the
engines. Well, these funds go to these rural fire departments
to provide personal protective gear for the firefighters. It
helps them in terms of the acquisition of equipment so that
they can be in place to respond.
In most places across America, these are the people that
are first responders even to wildland fires. Most of those
folks are trained in structural fire. So these funds also
provide us the opportunity to work with volunteer fire
departments to help them in terms of training so that we can
put those in a fire situation that will protect those folks
from harm.
Tim?
Mr. Hartzell. We were delighted in Interior that the
appropriation included a new $10 million appropriation for us
to target rural fire departments. The purpose of that $10
million is for us to enhance safety and strengthen the wildfire
protection capability of small rural fire departments that
support suppression on adjacent or intermingled Federal lands.
Lyle talked about this, alluded to this, that in strengthening
the capability of small fire departments, we are also going to
increase the overall preparedness or readiness capacity of all
partners in wildland fire protection.
Now, the dollars that we got are going to be specifically
targeted to these small communities, communities with a
population of less than 10,000, and the money is going to be
targeted for technical assistance, training, supplies, and for
public education. The criteria for small fire departments
obtaining this funding are actually just two: one, they have to
have an agreement with the State forester or directly with a
Department of Interior agency; and, secondly, the rural fire
department needs to be able to provide 10 percent of the cost,
whether it is dollars or in-kind services, we will provide the
remaining 90 percent of the funding.
How these rural fire departments can gain access to this
money will be through a standard application that we have just
finished developing, and that application must also be
coordinated with the State forester. In order to get the money,
we have to have an agreement with the fire department outlining
each partner's roles, ours and theirs, before the money is
transferred. And we also hope to have the standard agreements
that each partner will enter into available on a website.
We are very excited about this. I know we are going to have
some big dividends and payoffs here. It is a pilot program, and
we are going to be reviewing it and monitoring it carefully
through the year, and we will make adjustments as needed.
Mr. Laverty. Additionally, on the Forest Service side,
there are funds that go straight to the state foresters to work
with communities in terms of education. And the Governor
addressed that this morning, that this becomes a very integral
part of the whole fire plan, is what can landowners do in terms
of personal responsibility to treat their landscapes to make
them in fact more defensible.
We have hosted a series of what we call Fire Wise Workshops
around the country. In fact, a week ago Friday I was in Cedar
Ridge, Colorado, with the State Forester's staff, the BLM staff
and the Forest Service, we trained about 50 American Red Cross
volunteers, that that is what they are going to do, they are
going to go out, work with landowners, help them make an
assessment of what do they need to do on their own lands to
make them more defensible.
In addition, these funds provide a capacity many times for
the state foresters to work with landowners to actually do some
land treatments. And these are really an important part of the
entire system.
The other part of the community assistance that I will just
talk about deals with the Economic Action Plan. And in the
Economic Action Plan, we are looking at some of the ideas, you
know, what can we do with some of the small-diameter material?
Can we in fact utilize some of these materials that you have
seen graphically today? Can we use that to deal with some of
the energy issues that we have in this country today? We
believe that there are some opportunities for bioenergy. We
have got some proposals. In fact, in California we have
received probably responses in terms of 20 to 1 in terms of
what we have capacity to fund versus what the proposals are.
Many of these are focused on what we can do with small-diameter
material and how we can utilize that material to deal with some
of the energy needs that we have in the country.
But the last point, and perhaps the most important one for
Tim and I, deals with the issue of accountability. And if I
could leave you with a term, we are the ``junkyard dogs.'' We
are passionate about sharing with you very candidly that we are
tracking agencies' performance. We are tracking our
accomplishments on the ground so that we can come back to you
with full integrity and tell you that this has been a good
investment. We are working with GAO to look at can we in fact
design monitoring systems to track our performance? We have
research in place that I think will help us answer those
questions on the real science basis behind these investments
that we are making. We have put together a series of
performance elements in line officers' performance standards,
so that we can actually hold line officers accountable for
these accomplishments. And we plan a series of program reviews
in the field, and we have invited--the idea of bringing
legislative staff along with us to spend time looking at the
field in terms of are we asking the right questions, and really
looking at the monitoring to see that these things are in fact
meeting your expectations as well as ours.
Congress has made a huge investment, and we believe that
with almost $2 billion of new money, that we need to be as open
and transparent as we can in terms of the tracking systems. We
have invested in a framework that we can, probably by the end
of this month, we will be able to, in real time, give you what
has happened in each one of your states and each one of your
congressional districts in terms of these projects.
It is a huge step forward. Again, it is becoming a model, I
think, in terms of how government can work. Tim?
Mr. Hartzell. And each of the departments has regular
weekly meetings to track the status of the National Fire Plan.
Interior people participate in the Forest Service meeting.
Forest Service people participate in the Interior meetings, so
that we are lock-step and know what each other is doing. At the
Interior Department, I can tell you that we have regular weekly
meetings, where our four bureau directors report directly to
the chief of staff on status and progress of implementing the
National Fire Plan. We have safeguards in place to assure that
the funds are only disbursed with the appropriate fund and
project code, and that each of the individual bureaus involved
in this program has assigned a lead and co-lead for
implementing the National Fire Plan, and each of those bureaus
has developed an implementation strategy document to assure
that the five key points in the plan are carried forward.
Also I think we probably need to call the attention to the
fact that--I don't know how many, we have delivered numerous
reports to the Congress as required in the 2001 Appropriations
Act, in addition to a very detailed Financial and Action Plan
which we have shared with you, and which we are monitoring
diligently, and there are still several more reports to come.
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Chairman, I would just tell you thank you
for waiving the five-minute rule. We thought we could get
through this quicker, but we have got a lot to share with you,
but we truly appreciate your time and your interest in the
National Fire Plan, and Tim and I would be honored to answer
any questions you might have for us.
Mr. McInnis. Clearly your testimony in the situation that
we face is critical. That is why we have taken the time this
morning. I would advise the Committee members, as well as our
guests, that the meeting must adjourn at 12 noon. I expect a
vote at that point in time anyway.
In light of that, I would like to give an opportunity for
members, each of the members, to ask a question. So I would ask
the members to keep their questions abbreviated, and to not
take your full minutes so that we can get all of the way
around. In turn, I would also ask that our witnesses keep your
answers very brief in consideration of that.
I will ask three quick questions. If you can give me three
quick answers, then I will go to the ranking member.
What was the overall budget for these activities last year?
Question No. 1.
Question No. 2: How much was this increased for this fiscal
year? Question No. 2.
And Question No. 3: What do you see happening to this level
of funding in the next fiscal year?
So if you could quickly respond to those three questions,
then I will yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Laverty. Let me start quickly on the Forest Service
side. In Fiscal Year 2000, all of the programs that dealt with
the prior plan, we had about $1.2 billion. In 2001, the total,
including the Title 4, brought us up to about $2.1, almost $2.2
billion. So we experienced almost a $2 billion--or a $1.1
billion increase on the Forest Service for all of the programs
associated with the Fire Plan.
Mr. McInnis. So approximately 100 percent increase?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, sir.
Mr. McInnis. And the next fiscal year?
Mr. Laverty. Fiscal Year 2000?
Mr. McInnis. 2002 is the one I meant.
Mr. Laverty. 2002, we are waiting to see.
Mr. McInnis. What is your proposal?
Mr. Laverty. We think it is going to be solid. Our proposal
is that we would like to see a continuation of what we have in
2001 as the minimum.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Hartzell?
Mr. Hartzell. Mr. Chairman, in Fiscal Year 2000 in the
Department of Interior, our money for the fire management
programs was $490 million, almost $491 million. In Fiscal Year
2001, it was nearly $978 million, a $486 million increase,
nearly a doubling.
Mr. McInnis. Another 100 percent. Well, it is clear from a
bipartisan point of view that the funding of this is a high
priority. The President has made it very clear that it is a
high priority for him.
With that, I will yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had an earthquake in
Seattle the other day, and the Federal Government did not
predict it, but we are not being critical. Earthquakes are
somewhat difficult to predict.
Mr. Laverty. It is a different department.
Mr. Inslee. Right. But it seems to me with the incredible
drought in the West we have got up in the State of Washington,
as you know, snowpacks, water levels in the 50 to 60 percent
level. It seems to me we have very, very clear indications this
is going to be a severe fire season. And I am concerned because
at least the information I have received--and I am just looking
at the proposed budget, as I understand it, from the White
House dated February 28th--it actually would reduce the total
fire plan spending, as I understand it, for both agencies by
$500 million, which is about a 20 to 25 percent cut.
Now, I understand a lot of that comes from essentially
backing out emergency fire contingency which had occurred in
previous years. But if you were to assume, as I do, that this
year has every prospect of being as severe or more so than in
previous years, aren't we looking at a demand that is likely to
be as much or greater? And if so, ought we not to be looking
for more resources in this budget cycle in advance rather than
afterwards?
Now, I understand it is difficult for you fellows in your
position to talk about budget issues, but if you can talk about
the threat fire-wise, perhaps we can get the sense of your
drift.
Mr. Laverty. Just to respond, I believe that, you know,
part of the action that we will be able to take as agencies
with this increased funding that we have in 2001, we will
have--historically, we have been funded at about 60 to 70
percent of what we call the most efficient level. This new
funding that Congress has provided for us in 2001 will bring on
additionally these 5,000 new firefighters plus the additional
equipment.
Part of these firefighters, we are going to add 12 new Hot
Shot crews. We ran out of crews this summer. If we had had more
fires--in fact, in Colorado, we were at the point where we
would have had to say we are going to let this one burn and we
are going to have to address this. So I think we are going to
be in a much better position with increased capacity and
capability for firefighting, and we have been talking already
about how we can mobilize and move resources around
strategically to deal with the different fuel conditions that
we have across the country.
So I think we are going to be there in a good position in
2001. I think for 2002, you know, we are optimistic that the
President's budget is, in fact, going to help us sustain that
preparedness level and make those levels of fuels investment.
Mr. Hartzell. I concur with my colleague. We will be able
to maintain a level of funding that is going to help us reduce
fire risk. We are going to have significantly more capacity
because of the equipment we are bringing on this fiscal year,
the majority of which will be online next year. In addition, we
have and will continue to utilize the option of severity
funding to pay in advance to bring resources online to deal
with serious potential fire hazards such as you mentioned.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I appreciate your efficiency, but I have
to tell you that if we end up in a fire year as we did last
year, which I believe we are looking at this year, I can't see
how even Superman would wring out 25 percent efficiencies at
the Federal budget, and you are looking at $500 million
decreases. So I want to tell you I am concerned about that. I
am sure there are others on a bipartisan basis very concerned
about that. And we are going to work through this project.
Jumping ahead to a more long-term plan, on a long-term
issue, on our issue of fuel reductions, you are engaged in a
major effort in that regard, and I think many people understand
that our previously shortsighted policy of total fire
suppression has, in fact, led to a major build-up in fuel
loads. But there is a concern in the public--and I hear this a
lot--that, in fact, there will be harvests driven by commercial
incentives rather than for good thinning science. And I just
wonder if you can tell us what measures have been adopted to
date that we can tell the public to give them confidence that
this is not being driven by commercial incentives rather than
good science in thinning. If you can address that, I have heard
some reports that we have dropped some of those requirements,
like maximum diameter of harvest as well.
Mr. Laverty. Maybe I could just take a start at responding
to that question. If you consider--
Mr. McInnis. We need to keep it brief. Let me interrupt for
just a moment. We need to keep it brief because I do want to
give an opportunity to other members to ask questions. We have
got about 10 minutes.
Mr. Laverty. If you talk about commercial harvest,
commercial harvest is one tool to help us accomplish that, but
it should not be the objective. The Governor was perfect this
morning. We talk about, you know, what do we need to leave on
the landscape. That should be the starting point. And then what
do we take off that is the important part of it. But how we
take it off, we shouldn't constrain ourselves. We talked about
diameter limit. I appreciate the question. But I think we need
to let that local prescription based on, you know, what is good
science, what do the specialists tell us in terms of what needs
to stay there, let that drive the prescription. Don't
artificially constrain.
Mr. Hartzell. I would also add that the prescription needs
to be driven by conformance with local land use plans, and it
needs to be driven by local collaboration to find the
appropriate solution.
Mr. Inslee. Well, we need to have a little more dialogue on
this, and we want to defer. Mr. Chair, if I can put in two
letters in the record by Mr. Udall, a unanimous consent
request, signed by 26 members requesting environmental
standards to be incorporated in any fire plan.
Mr. McInnis. No objection.
[The letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0955.018
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Udall,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Udall: Thank you for your October 20, 2000, letter
from you and your colleagues, to former Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman regarding the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shares your concerns about the
implementation of the fuels reduction program. As directed in the
Interior Appropriations Act, funds provided to reduce hazardous fuels
will be focused in and around communities at risk. In these areas,
protecting life and property from catastrophic wildfire will be the
primary objective of the treatments. In complying with existing
environmental laws, we will work closely with the local communities to
design and implement these treatments. I assure you that
environmentally appropriate safeguards will be maintained throughout
the planning and implementation efforts to restore lands damaged by
recent wildland fires and to mitigate future wildland fire risks
through fuel reduction projects.
The USDA Forest Service has developed the Cohesive Strategy,
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--
A Cohesive Strategy. A suite of Federal laws and regulations guide
management of fire-related activities on those lands. They include the
Organic Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act,
and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others, that will
ensure clean air, clean water, and biodiversity in fire-adapted
ecosystems. Long-term sustainability is a consistent theme embodied
within these laws. The Forest Service's efforts to reduce hazardous
fuels compliment long-term sustainability and will fully comply with
these laws and regulations. All Forest Service activities will be in
full compliance with procedures established by the Council on
Environmental Quality for implementation of NEPA.
The National Fire Plan is in response to Managing the Impact of
Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, A Report to the President
in Response to the Wildfires of 2000, which was submitted on September
8, 2000. The Plan discusses the Forest Service's strategy to remove
excessive fuel through vegetative treatments and prescribed fire in
order to protect communities at risk, help prevent insect and disease
damage, and generally improve overall ecosystem health and
sustainability. It also discusses how the Forest Service's locally-led,
integrated teams should coordinate environmental reviews and
consultations, facilitate and encourage public participation, and
monitor and evaluate project implementation.
The 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review reinforces
the Forest Service's efforts to utilize the best available science that
incorporates the role of fire in land, resource and fire management
planning. Recently, the Agency requested a review of the 1995 Policy.
The review found the basic policy sound. The review group made 11
recommendations, which were accepted by the Agency, on ecosystem
sustainability, restoration, science, communication, and evaluation. As
the Forest Service continues to implement this Policy, planning efforts
will ensure that full environmental safeguards, as required by laws and
policies, are more than adequate to address all concerns raised in your
letter.
Thank you again for your thoughtful letter and expressing your
concerns. Identical letters will be sent to your colleagues. I
appreciate your continued support for our forest health and restoration
program. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 205-1657, if I
can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Rains,
Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.
__________
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McInnis. I might add that reductions that were just
being talked about, it is my understanding those are reductions
for 2002. Your firefighting season that is coming up here in a
few weeks is not suffering. There is no cut in firefighting
operations. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Laverty. Correct.
Mr. Inslee. I think the concern is historically what has
happened, there has been a backloading of contingency in the
next fiscal year, and what I am suggesting is, if this budget--
we shouldn't fool ourselves. If the fires occur this year like
they are likely to occur, we are going to be looking at another
$500 million in the next fiscal year to make up your
contingency funds. Isn't that a fair statement?
Mr. Laverty. Yes. Historically, our 10-year average would
be about $423 million just on the force in terms of suppression
costs. Last year we were over $1 billion.
Mr. Inslee. Just as one Democratic modest partisan
statement, this is the kind of issue we are concerned about in
our tax cut vote today as well.
Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. I just want to make this clear, because I
don't want there to be a set-up situation where a fire occurs
and all of a sudden we hear from a slightly partisan point of
view that we didn't adequately fund the Forest Service. Let me
repeat the question. You have been fully funded for the 2001
firefighting season. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Laverty. That is correct.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lyle, Tim, welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your
testimony. I appreciate, Lyle, you keeping me informed of what
is going on with the fire plan and the update of it. I was
unaware that commercial harvesting was actually a bad thing,
but I know we do do some of that stuff, and it actually can be
used to help prevent fires.
But since we have had a slide show today, let me just show
you one slide show. This is what we are facing in Idaho. And
while you can't predict an earthquake in Seattle, I can
guarantee you you can predict one thing. This is going to burn,
and it is going to burn very hot. And that is what we had last
year on the Kerr Creek fire. And because we have not gone in
and done the necessary thinning and so forth that is necessary
to reduce the possibility of catastrophic wildfires--and I
appreciate what you are doing in that area now and how we are
going to be able to treat some of the lands and a few things
like that and actually maybe some of them we may actually
commercially cut a tree. Who knows? Somebody might want a two-
by-four in their house.
But tell me about the consultation process that is going
on. Are we having problems with that between different
agencies, with NEPA, the NEPA process, and other types of
things? As I understand it, talking to some of the local forest
managers, we have got more biologists from NFS on the ground
trying to have their say in what we are doing in these
rehabilitation efforts and so forth. Are we using the
categorical exclusions? And even when we have used some of
those, I understand that they have complained that we shouldn't
have used them and so forth. Could you talk to me a little bit
about that?
Mr. Laverty. Just a very quick response, Mr. Simpson. We
are working right now with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Again, the funding for 2001 provided funding to the agencies to
support the NFS and Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7
consultation. We are working right now to move that money over
to Fish and Wildlife Service to do that. The Fish and Wildlife
Service is probably going to hire an additional 100 biologists
to do this Section 7 consultation work.
The processes are really not a problem for us. It is just a
matter of having the staff to complete the process. And I think
the Congress recognized that with the funding.
Mr. Simpson. Well, let me ask just a follow-up. Is there
something or anything that Congress needs to do to streamline
this process so that we can actually do some of these
rehabilitation projects and so forth?
Mr. Laverty. Yes. Thank you for asking that question. One
of the things that we are working on right now--in fact, Mr.
McInnis is giving us some support--is we have a bill that will
provide us the legislative mechanism that we can move those
funds over to Fish and Wildlife Service. That is a problem for
us as an agency. And with that out of the way, we will get that
Section 7 consultation work done on most of the 2002 projects.
So that will be a great help.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and thank you for all that you have
done on this.
Mr. Laverty. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Laverty, good to see you here today, sir. In the
political world, in the elected political world, the presence
of an individual who has the courage of his commitments and who
lives up to them is somewhat rare. In the bureaucratic world,
it is even more rare, I think. You are an exception to that
rule. You, from my point of view, are an individual who does
have the courage of his convictions and has expressed them
articulately, not just here today but in my brief history I
have had with you, that has been my observation. And I just
wanted to essentially thank you very much for being a strong
supporter of good forest management, even when that support
could get you into trouble.
The question I have for you is: Although I am encouraged by
everything you have said in terms of the appropriations that
have been made available to the agencies to suppress fire and
to fight it, I am concerned about the degree to which you may
be facing other obstacles, that is to say, more bureaucratic,
more regulatory in nature. And if you could, sir--and if there
isn't time today to complete your answer in a definitive way,
even if you could submit to us some response on paper, that
would be fine--I am interested in the Clean Air Act, NEPA,
Endangered Species, roadless area, that sort of thing, where
you may have all of the equipment now, you may have all of the
firefighters in place, but not be able to do the job because of
the regulatory burden.
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Tancredo, one of the actions that Tim and
I have been working with CEQ is to actually go out and do some
field reviews in terms of the work processes that are going on
with NEPA. We believe that there are some opportunities just
for us to examine closely what we do and how we go about doing
that work. We think there are some efficiencies to be gained
there. In fact, Dinah Baird from CEQ has been very open with us
about helping us, you know, find those ways that we can
actually make NEPA work more effectively for us.
I think those kinds of findings will help us integrate
really a tapestry of laws that we all deal with. Between the
laws and regulations, we need to figure out how can we make
those things work effectively for us. Many times, you know,
training is a key tool to help people understand here is what
you have to do, and perhaps we are doing many times more than
we really need to do. But I think as we go through those kinds
of field reviews, we can learn from that and then make those
adaptive changes in terms of our work processes to be more
effective and efficient in terms of responding to the situation
that we have.
Mr. Hartzell. Congressman, Lyle and I also have an
interdepartmental environmental compliance group that has
members from both departments and other agencies that meets on
a regular basis to look at existing regulations and procedures
to make sure that there aren't any roadblocks in the process
and to help us be more efficient.
Let me just say that right now, from our perspective, we
don't see any problems in meeting our fuels reduction acres
because of regulations and environmental compliance. But one
area we are interested in is possibly getting categorical
exclusion status for rehab projects because they clearly are
emergency in nature.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you both, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. [Presiding.] Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, surprise.
I have got just a couple of questions, and I know, Lyle and
Tim, we have talked an awful lot about this, and I appreciate
the time that you have spent with me as the bottom of the
political food chain and being a freshman. But you have given
me an awful lot of time. But there are a couple of things that
I would like to ask you.
Number one, where does the money go if we should actually
get a return on a harvest? Where does that money go?
Mr. Laverty. On the Forest Service side, those receipts go
to the general treasury.
Mr. Otter. And so couldn't that then be used to help fund
future firefighting and also future planning and rehabilitation
and your five-point program?
Mr. Laverty. It goes into the big mix of the issues that
you are dealing with on the Floor today.
Mr. Otter. Okay. I think that is interesting because it
seems to me that if you will recall, historically speaking, the
Panhandle, the Clearwater, and Payett practically burned in
total in 1914. Right? And then it was replaced by an invasive
species or two, one fir and one a white pine. And their life
cycle is about 90 years. Is that not right?
Mr. Laverty. Ninety to 120 years.
Mr. Otter. We are on the threshold right now. My point is
this: We are at the threshold right now. And if you lock
yourself into a management plan that said simply we are going
to do this for fire prevention and we are at that threshold of
90-year life for those trees right now today, wouldn't it be
reasonable to go in and clear-cut that if you were only going
to go fire prevention? Because they are going to die. And then
they are dead, and then they are fuel.
Mr. Laverty. I think maybe the short answer is that,
depending on the situation, you want to take the right tool for
that silvicultural treatment. It may or may not be a clear-cut.
I would liken it to if you were a cabinetmaker, you want to
have the right tool for that job. And I think the same way is
true in terms of coming up with a silvicultural prescription
depending on the outcome and the objectives that you are
searching for. You want to use the right tool. In some cases it
could be a clear-cut.
Mr. Otter. My point is this: If they were thinned over a
management period of time, allowing the trees a larger base per
acre, wouldn't they be a lot less likely to have a fire, a
devastating fire? A clear burn, let me say?
Mr. Laverty. One of the issues--and I think the Lick Creek
photo series that we showed indicates the changes that are
taking place in those stand structures. When you do, in fact,
have that density of stands, that is when you invite insects,
you invite various types of disease as well. So keeping those
stand conditions in a healthy, functioning capacity, you know,
provides benefits not only of general forest health, but I
think the whole watershed systems begin to function
effectively.
Mr. Otter. Okay. One final question, if I might, Mr.
Chairman. Is there any chance that you can train the Army Corps
of Engineers and the EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and
National Marine Fisheries Service people that are on the ground
out there to fight fire?
Mr. Laverty. We get a lot of people from Fish and Wildlife
Service as crews. We have used--I am not sure if we have used
Corps of Engineer people, but we have a lot of interagency
teams that bring people from all the agencies together.
Mr. Otter. So cross-training is possible.
Mr. Laverty. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Hartzell. There is nothing precluding that. As long as
they meet our rigid physical standards and they take the
training, they can participate.
Mr. Otter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. I think the ranking member has one question he
would like to ask.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I want to tell you a concern I have. The concern is that we
are going to repeat some mistakes of the past. Our fire
suppression policy has resulted in the accumulation of fuel
loads that have resulted in some of these catastrophic fires. I
think that is abundantly clear.
My concern is that when we get into some cataclysmic fires,
which we may be back in that season again this year, that it
will remove us from the long-term goal of getting back to a
situation where fire is part of the natural cycle and we accept
it as part of the natural cycle and we recognize that fire is
necessary for a healthy ecosystem in the long term. Ponderosa
pines developed with fire, and the only reason they are healthy
is with fire.
I guess the question is: How do we keep the twin goal of
not allowing property damage in the West but realizing a long-
term goal which I think should be--and you tell me if it is--of
getting to a point where we can accept fire as part of the
natural ecosystem and a necessary part of one?
Mr. Laverty. Mr. Inslee, I believe that the fire plan, the
objectives are very, very consistent with what you described.
But our challenge is how do we make those investments to bring
that landscape back to that kind of a condition. And because,
as we talked earlier, we have excluded fire from these
landscapes for such a long time, we are no longer in the
position because of the long-term effects of just letting
nature take its course.
In Colorado, we have an example of a fire that burned four
years ago, and that fire, it cost the Denver Water Board $12
million to clear the sediment out of the watershed reservoir
because of the rain that came after that. It burned with such
intensity that we actually changed the structure of the soil.
It is going to take literally centuries for that to recover.
The loss is not only in the function of that watershed, but
at the same time we have lost the productive capacity of
species habitat. And I believe that the goals that we have for
the fire plan will allow us to begin making those kinds of
treatments where we can keep fire in a more natural role that
it plays on many of these landscapes across the interior West.
However, that is not a simple answer because we now have this
huge influx of people that want to live in this same type of a
fire-adapted ecosystem, so the introduction of the human
component makes that challenge much, much more difficult.
Mr. Hartzell. Let me just quickly add that long-term fuels
hazard management is the answer. It gives us options. It lowers
fire intensity. It gives our firefighters more options when
they do initial attack and respond to the fire. And that
generally results in fewer resources and lower costs being
needed for suppression.
Mr. Laverty. I would love to take you out and show you some
of the areas where we have done some treatments on the ground,
and I think we can show you exactly what happens in terms of
changing fire effects in treated stands. And it can be done in
such an environmentally sensitive fashion that it really does
accomplish, I think, the items that you have shared with us,
and I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that response and the fact that
fire is a natural part of the ecosystem and will always be, and
we are never going to put out all fires, nor should we put out
all fires. But there are differences between catastrophic
fires. We have in Idaho places from the 1910 fire where the
soil is still sterile and nothing grows on it because it was so
hot that it burned it--how far down was it?
Mr. Otter. Eighteen inches.
Mr. Simpson. Eighteen inches. So, anyway, I appreciate
that.
I would like to close this hearing today by taking a look
at the weather, as was mentioned by the ranking member. Below
normal precipitation to date throughout much of the Western and
Southeastern States indicates that we may be in for a big fire
season again this summer. This makes it essential that time is
used wisely and efficiently in the near term, preparing for the
thousands of newly hired firefighters because if we don't
adequately train and equip those people, we are unjustly
putting them in life-threatening positions, which, of course,
is unacceptable.
In the long term, we are looking at 73 million acres of
Forest Service lands that are at high risk of catastrophic
fires, more than a third of the national forest system. It will
be a daunting task to reduce the hazards on these and other
Federal lands, but a task we must accomplish.
So the Subcommittee will continue in its bipartisan effort
to scrutinize these and all other aspects of the National Fire
Plan as it is implemented. I look forward to working with you
as we work on this endeavor to make sure that we can address
this issue.
Does the ranking member have a closing statement?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. I thank the witnesses on the second panel for
their insight and the members for their questions. The members
of the Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses, and we ask that you please respond to these in
writing. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for
these responses.
I would like to thank Mike Williams of the Subcommittee
staff for his excellent work on this hearing.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-