<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:44511.wais]
HEARING ON THE USE OF FIRE AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL AND ITS RISKS AND
BENEFITS FOR FOREST HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-511 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 30, 1997.................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 85
Additional material submitted for the record by.......... 140
Explanation of photographs............................... 140
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Browner, Hon. Carol M., Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Dennison, William, Plumas County Supervisor, Board of
Supervisors, Quincy, California............................ 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 107
Glickman, Hon. Dan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Mutch, Robert, Missoula, Montana............................. 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 116
Pearson, Robert L., Radian International LLC, Denver,
Colorado................................................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 129
Peterson, Earl, Florida State Forester, Chairman, National
Association of State Foresters Fire Committee, Tallahassee,
Florida.................................................... 43
Additional material supplied:
Davis, Stanley B., prepared statement of..................... 95
National Association of State Foresters, Washington, DC,
prepared statement of...................................... 99
HEARING ON THE USE OF FIRE AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL AND ITS RISKS AND
BENEFITS FOR FOREST HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth [acting chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee on Resources will come to
order.
I just want to say that these are the times that try men's
souls toward the end of the year when the work on the House
floor, as you remember, will scare the ducks off the pond, and
so, therefore, the committees are scarcely filled and a lot of
work is going on concurrently. With this hearing and actual
floor work, we will try to move as quickly as we possibly can
through this very interesting hearing.
And, as you know, the committee is meeting today to hear
testimony on the use of fire as a management tool and its risks
and benefits for forest health and air quality. Under rule 4(g)
of the committee rules, any oral opening statements at the
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member, and this will allow us to hear from our witnesses
sooner and help Members keep their schedules as well as help
the witnesses keep their schedules. Therefore, if other Members
do have statements, they can be included in the hearing record
under unanimous consent.
We're very, very pleased to have with us Secretary
Glickman, the Honorable Carol Browner, and Secretary Babbitt.
Today the Committee on Resources convenes for an oversight
hearing on the uses of fire as a management tool and impacts of
the Environmental Protection Agency's national ambient air
quality standards on that use.
It is clear today that our past success in suppressing
forest fires has led to unintended consequences, and I just
want to say, it's my personal--very strong personal--feeling,
as chairman of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee, that
what we're dealing with today in our forests is not a result of
any one administrative policy. These problems began in probably
the 1960's; they have been continuing through various
administrations to the point that we are at a critical mass
now. And, so as we proceed through this hearing, I just wanted
to make sure that that was on the record--that we need to work
together to solve the problems not just in the forests, but
also in the air.
Despite the continued improvement in our fire-fighting
capabilities and the seemingly endless budgets for fighting
fire, the acreage burned and the intensity of the fires has
increased dramatically in recent years. Scientists tell us that
this is due in part to the increase growth of shade-tolerant
trees that have grown up in the understory of otherwise fire-
tolerant forests. And then these smaller trees act as fire
ladders to fuel intense wildfires that cannot be easily
suppressed and cause a tremendous amount of damage to forest
resources. Clearly, we need to take action to reduce the fires'
danger in our forests.
The Community Protection and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Act
of 1997, which I introduced earlier this month, is designed to
address this need in the highest priority areas: the wildland-
urban interface. My bill provides the Forest Service a much-
needed new tool for dealing with this critical concern.
Importantly, a problem that has taken decades to develop can
only be resolved by using all the tools in the agency's tool
kit.
Secretary Babbitt has taken the lead on promoting the
increased used of prescribed fire on Federal lands; and I
understand the Federal land management agencies intend to
increase the acreage they burn each year using prescribed fire
by as much as five-times.
And at the same time, our Administrator Browner, just a few
months ago, issued new stricter national ambient air quality
standards in the proposed rule to reduce regional haze which
appear to conflict with the land management agencies' plan to
increase burning. As I understand it, these rules will allow
for smoke from natural wildfire, but will restrict the land
manager's ability to use prescribed fire.
At a time when the risk of catastrophic fire is so severe,
I question our ability to increase burning with out first
reducing the heavy fuels in our over-crowded forests. Forest
Service Chief Mike Dombeck said 40 million acres of national
forests are at high risk of catastrophic fire and we need to
act responsibly to improve the conditions of these lands and
ensure that our fire management policies do not make the
situation even worse. But it remains to be seen whether this is
possible under the constraints of the new and proposed air
quality standards.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Vento for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have opportunity to place their opening
statements in the record. I put Mr. Miller's statement in the
record, without objection, Madam?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection so ordered.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
The subjects of forest fire management and clean air are of
significant concern to many citizens in my home State of
California. the fact that we have two cabinet Secretaries and
the EPA Administrator here today is ample evidence of the
priority given to these matters.
Frankly, this administration inherited a huge mess in the
western forests. For years, the professional foresters assured
us that clearcutting the biggest and most mature trees was the
best way to manage public forests. While those polices may have
served the short-term interests of the commercial loggers, they
have fundamentally changed the nature of our forests. Instead
of fire resistant old-growth trees, we now have too many
forests dominated by small diameter, densely packed trees.
Compounding the problem was the ``Smokey the Bear'' policy
of putting out every forest fire. Fire is part of the natural
system in western forests and the result of decades of fire
exclusion, ironically, is that we now face a situation where so
much fuel has built up that wildfires tend to be larger and
more severe.
Some see the threat of forest fires as an excuse to turn
back the clock and let the loggers loose on forests. But the
administration is on the right track in increasing the use of
preventative treatments such as prescribed burning. We have
spent over a billion dollars in just one year fighting fires
and fuels treatment prevention efforts are much more cost-
effective.
Instead of building new roads and subsidizing timber sales
in controversial roadless areas, we ought to be using these
taxpayer dollars to make a greater investment in fuels
reductions, especially in the roaded areas near communities.
When it comes to the interplay of the new EPA Clean Air
standards and prescribed burning, it appears to me that we can
and should have both. Without controlled burning, the
alternative is greater carbon emissions from high intensity
wildfires.
I look forward to today's testimony and welcome our
distinguished panel of witnesses to the Committee.
Mr. Vento. Madam Chair, I appreciate you calling the
hearing, and especially from hearing from those Secretaries: my
good friend, Dan Glickman, a classmate, Secretary of
Agriculture; Carol Browner, and of course, Secretary Babbitt. I
very much appreciate you being here at this hearing.
I think that the chairwoman has indicated her legislation
which she has advanced, and there are other proposals advanced
along these lines that seem to have as a goal to increase or
justify increased harvest of trees in the National public
domain and in the national forests. I think we can get very
concerned about that because this type of activity may or may
not be related to some of the dilemmas that we face in terms of
managing forests.
I think historically with the revisiting and revamping of
forest management practices and harvest practices it's become
clear that the reduced revenues have impinged or affected the
ability of the land managers to have some of the revenue that
they need to manage these lands. Under some of the Knudsen-
Vandenberg and other laws that exist, we face real challenges
with regards to that today. As a matter of fact, the amount of
prescribed burning that occurs is very much limited by the
dollars available to do that. I think, between BLM and the
Forest Service, it is something less than $50 million is
principally aimed at that type of activity.
At the same time, of course, we're adding hundreds of
millions of dollars to other activities which are geared to
assist in terms of timber harvest. I think that some revisiting
of that; if the real goal here is in terms of trying to reduce
fire, than we ought to address it through that. Plus, I think,
a goodly amount of money, nearly a billion a year at least in
some of the bad years, has been used in terms of forest
fighting fire. And again, if we can get ahead of the curve
here, we can shift some of those dollars, if we have some good
years, some years that aren't so dry, to, in fact, try and deal
with avoiding the sort of catastrophic fires that all of us
recognize as being a serious problem.
But this isn't the problem, really, of these land managers
that are before us today, Madam Chair. It's a problem that's
been going on because of 50 years of policy that was attempted
to try and control these fires; in many respects doing so. When
they failed then, the fires end up in being very catastrophic.
So, it's really been based on a new understanding and a
recognition of knowledge.
What we're supposed to do in this particular forum,
incidently, is to translate new information, new knowledge into
public policy. That's the ideal that we all have.
But we're faced with certain circumstances, given the
history and given the practices that have occurred in the past,
that have compounded many of these issues that we have today.
And, obviously one of the issues that have come up--and I guess
some have relished the fact that there could be, in fact, a
problem between air quality goals and trying to manage
prescribed burns in the forest. Clearly, I think most of us
recognize an inability to, in fact, deal with some of the type
of catastrophic fires that are reminiscent--like the
Yellowstone fire. We've spent, you know, hundreds of millions
of dollars, or something of that nature, and still have not
been able to have any positive effect in terms of the outcome.
And I think the gentlewoman has mentioned the urban
interface, and of course, this is something where we really
need to have if we really want to save money in terms of fire-
fighting. We need a lot more cooperation in terms of how the
counties and States regulate construction of sites that are
within our forests and within the public domain. And it's clear
that we can't rewrite history in terms of people making tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollar investments in these urban-
forest interface areas, but we can ask States to begin to
address this. In fact, the Forest Service and BLM itself, under
some policies have actually promoted that. There are policies
that go back with regards to leasing, where they have actually
promoted some of these long-term leases which in fact compound
the effort to manage the forest and run the risk of safety and
health problems.
So we have to deal with the safety and health issue today,
but clearly, we need to expect the States and counties, as our
partners, to work collaboratively with us to avoid further
conflicts of this nature. It gets into urban sprawl; it gets
into all sorts of questions--policy questions, quite frankly--
that I think, that for the most part are not easy answers.
But I understand that the leadership being provided by
Secretary Babbitt, by Secretary Glickman, and by Director
Browner are very much appreciated from my standpoint in terms
of trying to come to grips with this in a contentious and
political environment. So, I appreciate your effort; look
forward to your testimony; look forward to working with my
colleagues and with the administration on this issue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento.
I agree with you in part.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Vento. I'll have to recheck it.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. That always worries you, doesn't it?
I want to let you know that we were just called for another
vote. It's just one vote, and I'm going to just temporarily
adjourn the committee immediately--recess the committee,
immediately--to go take the vote and come right back. There's
just one vote. And, then they promise us that there won't be
another vote for 30 minutes to an hour.
[Laughter.]
So this Committee is temporarily recessed.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order.
I am very pleased to introduce our panel of first
witnesses: the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of the Interior; the Honorable Carol Browner,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Before we continue, I'd like to explain that I intend to
place all witnesses under oath. And, this is a formality of the
Committee that is meant to ensure open and honest discussion
and should not affect the testimony given by witnesses. I've
been assured by my staff that the witnesses were all informed
of this before appearing here today and they have each been
given a copy of the Committee rules. And, so, if you would
please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
We'd like to proceed with testimony from----
Mr. Farr. Madam Chair?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes?
Mr. Farr. Are we going to do the same thing for Members of
the Committee?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think we've had this discussion before,
and I think you understand the rules of the Committee.
I'd like to proceed with testimony from the Honorable Bruce
Babbitt. Mr. Babbitt?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Secretary Babbitt. Madam Chairman, Committee Members, I
appreciate the chance to be here and to be with my colleagues
Dan Glickman and Carol Browner. The work that we have done
together over the last several years, I think, speaks for
itself. And I emphasize ``together'' because, I think one of
the most unique features of the administration policy that we
will discuss briefly, is that, in fact, it is administration
policy which the three of us have worked out together and with
many of our other colleagues.
Madam Chairman, the problem that we come here today to
discuss is well understood. The fact is that in many, if not
most, of the inland forests of the West, we have seen large
changes in the composition and structure of forests: a shift in
species composition; in stand structure, characterized in most
cases by considerable crowding and many more trees per acre
than historically. With those species shifts and stand-
structure shifts have come problems of: disease; insect
infestation; stunted growth as trees compete for nutrients, and
water which is sometimes in scarce supply, and, of course, the
fire hazard issue that we know so well.
The really important study of these issues was done in the
Blue Mountains right across from the Idaho border by Professor
Nancy Langston. And for those who are interested in pursuing
these issues, I highly recommend that book. She makes it
crystal clear, as you suggest, Madam Chairman, that there are
related problems and they go clear back to the 19th century:
improper logging practices, over-grazing, and of course, a
history of fire suppression. The three of them together have
produced the kinds of fire hazards that we now see.
Now, the administration response began several years ago in
the form of the Federal wildland fire management policy and
program review, signed off by myself and Secretary Glickman,
and concurred in by Administrator Browner. The principal
conclusion of that is, of course, that we must take management
and administrative steps to restore the natural fire cycle.
These forests in pre-settlement conditions were healthy and
vigorous precisely because they co-evolved with rather regular,
less-intense fires that kept them thinned out and healthy and
prevented the situation--the fuel buildups--which leads to
these catastrophic fires that we have been seeing.
Now, this document has since then been translated into
budget changes which Secretary Glickman and I, on behalf of the
administration, have presented to the Appropriation Committees,
and which are, I am pleased to tell you, now being acted
favorably upon by the Appropriation Committees; and we can
discuss those to the extent that you chose to do so. I just
want to express my gratitude to the Appropriation Committees
for helping us work through the necessary adjustments in fire
accounts and fire funding to get on with the implementation of
the policy that is reflected here.
Lastly, Madam Chairman, I would urge the Committee, as you
begin looking at these issues, to have a look at not just the
paperwork, but at what's actually happening out on the ground.
Because these administrative changes are now well underway and
they are working exactly as predicted, and I think that the
success stories really merit your careful attention.
I would leave you, briefly, with three examples. The first
one, of course, picked absolutely at random, is on the Boise
National Forest in Idaho, where successive forest supervisors
have demonstrated strikingly favorable effects with prescribed
fire. The foothills fire in 1992 can be compared to the Tiger
Creek prescribed burn, which effectively stopped the wildfire.
Another nice example: the cottonwood prescribed burn-up above
Boise which effectively stopped the 1994 Star Gulch fire.
In California, the California Department of Forestry, the
Federal agencies, have a wonderfully developing experience in
the Sierra Nevada that I would call your attention to--
particularly interesting because the Federal agencies which are
managing a new regime are doing that in cooperation with the
San Joaquin Air Quality District. It's an example of how we've
actually handled these air quality issues out on the ground.
Lastly, I would call your attention to a land management
project at Mount Trumbull, north of the Grand Canyon in
Arizona, where Northern Arizona University and the BLM have
done a fire-driven, mechanical-thinning fire restoration
project which is producing merchantable, pole-size ponderosa
pine for a re-tool mill in Fredonia, Arizona. I single that one
out, in conclusion, because it is my belief that the
restoration of the landscape must be fire-driven; that
mechanical-thinning has a role to play which depends very much
upon the specific landscape, and there are, at least in this
case and some others, some economic benefits that can be
derived from ecologically planned, fire-driven restoration.
Madam Chairman, I see the red light, I appreciate your
indulgence in my running overtime, and thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Babbitt may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I don't know
whether it's the power of your testimony or what, but is that
table tilted? Or, is it?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Browner. Staff requested it.
Secretary Glickman. We're trying to get as close as we
can----
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, sir.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Browner.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Browner. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Members of the
Committee for inviting us here today. I am pleased to join my
colleagues, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary Glickman, in this
discussion on wildland fire management.
Let me say, right at the outset, that the Environmental
Protection Agency recognizes the importance of fire as a
natural part of the forest and grassland ecosystem management.
Fire releases important nutrients into the soil; they reduce
undergrowth and debris on the forest floor. Fire allows trees
and grasses to be more healthy. We know that fires--
particularly planned, prescribed, managed fires--have been, and
will continue to be, an integral part of keeping forests and
our grassland healthy, and that they help prevent the larger,
unplanned, catastrophic wildfires that pose serious threat to
public safety.
I want to be very clear about EPA's position. The primary
reason for coming here today is to assure this Committee, all
of the Members, that EPA's newly updated public health air
quality standards for ozone, for particulate matter, will not--
let me be clear about this--will not hinder the government's
ability to implement sound fire management programs. It is just
that simple.
These new standards, these public health standards, will
not cause prescribed fires to be banned or reduced. They are
fully consistent with measures already underway that are
designed to minimize any impact these fires might have on air
quality and public health.
These standards are about protecting the public's health.
They represent the most significant step we have taken in a
generation to protect the American people, most particularly
our children, from the health hazards of air pollution. Taken
together, they will protect 125 million Americans, including 35
million children, from the adverse health effects of breathing
polluted air. They will prevent approximately 15,000 premature
deaths, about 350,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and nearly a
million cases of significantly decreased lung-function in
children.
Clearly, the best available science shows us that the
previous public health air standards were not adequately
protecting Americans from the hazards of breathing polluted
air. Revising these standards, as we did this summer, will
bring enormous health benefits to the Nation.
Now, obviously, prescribed fires, natural fires can cause
smoke-containing particles that above certain levels would fit
the definition of fine particles which would pose a threat to
human health. I think what some people have done,
unfortunately, is taken this to mean that complying with the
public health--the more protective air quality standards--will
require a reduction, or even an outright prohibition, of
managed fires on public land. That is simply not the case. I
have heard--it is a rather tantalizing argument that's been put
forward by some, I guess you could summarize it as: EPA air
quality standards are bad for forests. Not true; that's not the
case.
In terms of natural fires, which do occur, on the days that
those occur, the data, the air quality data for those days is
excluded. It is thrown out of the system. It is not a part of
how we evaluate whether or not a particular community's air
meets public health standards.
In terms of prescribed fires, we think they are an
essential--a valuable--tool, and we would never allow our air
standards to inhibit sound forest management practices designed
to reduce the danger of wildfires to humans and to property.
Madam Chairman--Chairwoman--we can have both: clean air,
public health protection, and sensible forest agricultural fire
management. We do not have to choose.
We have worked very closely with the Department of
Interior, Department of Agriculture, to carry out their
policies to allow for the sensible implementation of prescribed
burning practices. We have agreed on how best to manage these
so they do not contribute to air quality problems. We will
continue with each of these departments, with State and local
officials, as we see these policies implemented.
We can accomplish both objectives and protect the public
health. We can use fire as a sensible management tool.
We look forward to answering any questions the committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Browner may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, the
Honorable Dan Glickman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Secretary Glickman. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it's an
honor for me to be here, back with some of you who I served
with for so many years.
I would like to introduce the Chief of the Forest Service
is with me, Mike Dombeck, behind me; and Mary Jo Lavin, who's
National Director of Fire and Aviation at the Forest Service.
They are very knowledgeable about some of the specifics that
you might have.
And, I have a longer statement and I would ask that it be
included in the record as a whole, and I'll just make a few
comments.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection.
Secretary Glickman. One is to tell you that I have enjoyed
the relationship with Secretary Babbitt, the relationship
between the Department of the Interior and our Department. And,
there is an era of cooperation and collaboration which I don't
think existed in years past, and I think it is important that
we have a national policy, not a USDA policy or a Department of
the Interior policy. I believe that exists.
I also would like to say, and I've heard this said before,
that our fire policy is not--and I repeat ``not''--to simply
put a match to the forests. Our policy involves: mechanical
forest treatment, budget-structured changes, new planning
priorities, personnel training, new research, carefully planned
prescribed burns, and dozens of other initiatives to meet this
challenge. And, I would like to echo Secretary Babbitt's views
that the Congress has been most helpful in terms of giving the
resources necessary to do this kind of effort.
Four basic points: No. 1, we cannot eliminate fire totally
from the world, but we must manage it. As you know, and
everybody in this room, that fire is a natural part of the
ecosystem; it's impossible to totally fireproof a forest, so
what we have to do is make a forest's condition such that a
fire does not get out of control.
Fire data shows that fires are getting more frequent, more
intense. So the idea is to do fuels treatment as opposed to
fire suppression, not only because we keep a forest from
burning down, but the costs are extraordinarily. The Chief
tells me that the costs are about 10 times more to do
suppression than to do fuels treatment, anywhere between $40
per acre for fuels treatment to $400 an acre for suppression.
And as the Chief has stated to you before, over nearly 40
million acres need fuels management in our forest system and in
our total system. So that's the first issue.
The second issue is: The solutions have to be comprehensive
and sophisticated. As Secretary Babbitt says, they involve a
lot of things: Mechanical fuels treatment, thinning, and
harvesting are important. We estimate that nearly one-half of
that 40 million acres needs some form of mechanical fuels
treatment in order to get into a situation where other forms of
treatment are useful. The budget structure needs to be changed
to facilitate appropriate treatment, more fuels treatment, and
in fact, we are working on that. Employee training has been
changed to meet new challenges, and land management planning
addresses new understandings in fire ecology which we are
learning.
Third, is: Solutions are being implemented on the ground
today. The acres of prescribed fire treatments nearly doubled
in 1997 from 1996, more than meeting the targets that the
Forest Service, and the folks at the Department of the Interior
had planned upon. The area of fuels treatments have doubled
from 1992. Safety policies have reduced injuries and fatalities
since the catastrophic fires in the early 1990's. And, research
programs, particularly our Research Forest Products Lab in
Madison, Wisconsin, have refocused on many aspects of fire
management as well as alternative uses for some of the wood
products that have had not a lot of value in times past.
The fourth point I would make is: The collaboration is
there. There is effective collaboration with EPA on air quality
issues, and Interior and Agriculture are working together to
coordinate policies. We are also working with State foresters,
western Governors, local units of government; we provide
assistance, including monetary assistance, to local
firefighters in order to facilitate more efficient and
effective management.
And, I would finally point out, which you already know:
When there are fires, we do not fight these fires as
independent agencies. There is a fire center, in which the
fires are fought as if there is a war on. And the battle is to
extinguish that fire; and the soldiers in that fire are all the
elements of the Federal and State and local governments working
under a management scheme that's appropriate to that particular
fire. And, you know, fire knows no boundaries, nor should its
organization know any one chief, so to speak, to run the fire.
It's based upon who has the knowledge, where it's located, and
who is involved. And, I think that's one of the reasons why
we've really made some successes in the last two or 3 years
that we want to continue forward.
And I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Glickman may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I certainly
am pleased with the work that has been pulled together by a
number of agencies at the Boise Interagency Fire Center; that
is remarkable.
Chair now recognizes Mr. Schaffer from Colorado.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have a number of questions. One, Ms. Browner, did I
hear--you mentioned that the quality regulations are relaxed on
those days that it is known that a fire has taken place?
Ms. Browner. It's not a question of them being relaxed. In
determining whether or not a particular area meets the public
health air quality standards for fine particles, data is
collected over an extended period of time, generally a 3-year
period of time. If within that 3-year period of time you had a
wildfire, for example, the data for that day or for those days
on which the wildfire was burning would simply be excluded from
the data base.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you anticipate that to also be true on
those days when a prescribed burn is known to have taken place?
Ms. Browner. Well, the first thing with respect to
prescribed burns is that they be done following specific
guidelines that are designed to speak to air quality benefits
and public health and safety concerns. What we have found--and
we are working with the Department of Agriculture in terms of
prescribed burns, both on for-
est lands and agricultural lands--is that the vast majority of
these can be sensibly managed and not in any way contribute to
an air quality problem. What it generally means is that you
have to burn under certain weather conditions. Frequently,
those are the same kind of weather conditions that you would be
using for public safety reasons; you need to be monitoring in a
particular way. I mean this is just----
Mr. Schaffer. But, because of those guidelines, you have no
plans to exempt the measurement, similar to the way you do for
wildfires? Is that correct?
Ms. Browner. We're completing our work with the Department
of Agriculture on the prescribed burning policies and that is
certainly something we can look at, which is if a prescribed
burn were to perhaps get out of control, if it were to create a
data problem--again it's many years of data that you select--of
what we would do with that particular data point.
Mr. Schaffer. So you are studying this and considering it,
but there are no plans to exempt those days where prescribed
burn takes place. Is that accurate?
Ms. Browner. No, that's not accurate.
Mr. Schaffer. OK, tell me again what you said. Maybe I----
Ms. Browner. What I said is that we are now working with
the Department of Agriculture to ensure that we have an agreed-
upon set of guidelines, if you will, for managing prescribed
burns. If someone follows those guidelines, if they manage
their prescribed burn pursuant to those guidelines, then
everything is fine; there's no problem.
Mr. Schaffer. And no exemption on those days for the----
Ms. Browner. There won't--if you do it, they're designed to
make sure that you don't contribute to the air quality problem.
Mr. Schaffer. Right.
Ms. Browner. You know we're preventing pollution the way--
--
Mr. Schaffer. Right, I understand the intent. I just want
to establish that it's your belief that, by burning these on
effective time schedules, that meet your concerns that there
will, in your opinion, be no necessity; therefore, there will
be no exemptions from----
Ms. Browner. No one's going to be taken to task for
utilizing a prescribed burn pursuant to the guidelines.
Mr. Schaffer. Are you familiar with the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission study in 1990? It involved
eight western States at considerable cost, about $8 million
over the course of 4 years. That report found that land
managers, in fact, were the largest source of air quality
degradation. In fact, the 20 worst days were linked to forest
fires and controlled burns included in that. Has--tell us how
these new regulations in a prescribed burn--the policy to
increase prescribed burning by 400 percent corresponds to the
Grand Canyon Visibility Study and the recommendations that the
Commission made?
Ms. Browner. I mean, there shouldn't be any problem. Again,
if it is a wildfire, and I don't know which events you're
talking about within that study, but if it is a wildfire, if it
is something outside of a prescribed burn, then the data point,
the air quality monitoring data point----
Mr. Schaffer. I'm talking about prescribed burns. That was
the result of this Commission, was to basically fix a large
portion of responsibility, in fact an inordinate portion of
responsibility, on public lands managers associated with
controlled burns.
Ms. Browner. We agree. We think controlled burns are an
absolutely essential tool, both in terms of managing our
forests, managing our agricultural lands, and quite frankly,
managing our air quality. We would rather have a prescribed
burn and avoid, obviously, all of the problem, not the least of
which are public safety, associated with wildfires. It's just
common sense.
Mr. Schaffer. The increase in controlled burns is on the
order of about 400 percent by the proposal that Secretaries
Glickman and Babbitt have suggested. Once again, in studying
the air quality problems that western States have confronted,
in an 8-State region, it was determined that the existing
controlled burn strategies by public lands managers contributed
inordinately to air quality problems that we have in the West.
Now, increasing controlled burns by 400 percent, is--I think
you're going to have a hard case to make to suggest that this
is going to somehow improve air quality standards and not
threaten the new standards at all--certainly not in a way that
is to the detriment to all of our other efforts, whether it's
auto emissions or manufacturers or whatever the case may be.
Ms. Browner. We believe that you can manage prescribed
burns in a way that does not contribute to air pollution
problems--it's just that simple--including the proposals that
have been put forward by the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of the Interior.
You know, to suggest that somehow or another people need to
choose between having a sensible forest management strategy,
including prescribed burn and clean air, it's just not
accurate. I'll be honest with you, that is not what we--that is
not a choice the public needs to make. They can have both, and
they should have both, and that's what these policies will
allow for.
Secretary Glickman. May, I just make one quick comment,
Madam Chair?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Glickman.
Secretary Glickman. I would note that we have seen in 1997,
about 1 million acres in prescribed burns, which is a
significant increase over 1996, and I don't believe there were
any violations of EPA standards at all in that. Because, you
know, we have been working with them very closely. I would also
say----
Mr. Schaffer. Is that the new standards?
Secretary Glickman. Well, we've just been working with them
based upon our general collaboration. But the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, as you mentioned, did produce
some dialog with air quality agencies, stakeholders like
Federal land management agencies in States which have led to
some common-sense changes in mechanical and chemical fuels
treatment and also additional support for biomass energy
production and research that we're doing in mitigation smoke
emissions. So, I think that that Commission has helped us in
terms of making sure our prescribed burns are done correctly
and without it contributing to air quality problems.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's sort of the way we sit here--they've had this Western
Pacific problem in terms of how not to manage rainforests in
terms of what's happening there and in terms of the
deforestation and some of the problems associated with it. So,
obviously, forests and burning of forests can contribute
substantially to air quality problems.
But isn't it true, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary Glickman,
that in the various management plans for the land that you, in
fact, take into account that they are, in fact, consistent
with--they go through EIS; they go through a process where
you're actually working collaboratively to say we're going to
treat this land or this forest or this BLM district in a
certain manner and a part of it could be or is prescribed burn?
It is an effort to get rid of these fuel loads; you provide for
thinning and you provide, obviously in some cases, for harvest
where appropriate. Secretary Babbitt?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Vento, I would make this point: A
properly constructed prescribed fire program will improve air
quality on a running average over the air quality you would
have without the prescribed fire program. And, I must tell you,
anybody who has ever been in a fire camp on a wildfire will
understand that with no further explanation.
Mr. Vento. But I'm just saying that the plans that we have
for the land--I understand that, Mr. Secretary, but, obviously,
there are some questions being raised about it, but I'm just
trying to reassure those that have these----
Secretary Babbitt. Oh, sure the plans----
Mr. Vento. The plans actually provide for--and they go
through an EIS, and they go through--so they are consistent
with current and whatever future policy rules and regulations
that----
Secretary Babbitt. The plans must comply with the local air
quality management regulations. We went through that back in
the 1980's, when the superintendent of Yosemite National Park,
running a management prescription, got a citation from the
adjoining county for violating air quality standards. Then and
there, we resolved that issue by saying we're going to sit down
in advance and we're going to comply with the local air quality
management plans, and it's done routinely.
Mr. Vento. Well, for that matter, I mean, Secretary
Glickman, when the Forest Service has a harvest area, don't
they have some slash that sometimes is burned as well? And so
that also has to comply with the air standards; is that
correct? It isn't just this prescribed burning? Well, I mean it
does, if they--if it's a non-attainment area, if there's some
other problems, they may say you have to treat that slash in a
different way?
Secretary Glickman. Correct.
Mr. Vento. You know, so, it's--what you're pointing out
is--and I'm very impressed that the fact that the Forest
Service has this aggressive plan and I hope that we can
continue funding it faced with the budget realities that we do.
But, Mr. Secretary, Secretary Babbitt, I notice you have 55
million acres that you say need treatment. And you know, the
best bet that you have on the chart that I have there looks
like within about three or four years we might hit a million.
So, based on that, and based on sort of a recurring problem
here, isn't it--would it be accurate to say that, you know,
this 50-year plan is probably one that should be accelerated,
if possible?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think both the
Forest Service and our agencies have a similar fix on this.
There is no way that we can make up a century of accumulated
problems in 5 years or 10 years. Now, the targets for the
Interior Department are: We'd like to get up to about a little
over 2 million acres a year by the year 2000. And that's
against a total acreage needing treatment of 55 million. Now,
if that were all the same kind of land, that would mean a 25-
year rotation. And, that's probably not adequate, because most
of this land probably needs a fire rotation of more like the
order of 5 to 15 years, something like that. But it's a
significant start, and if we use good judgment in setting
priorities, I think it's a very adequate approach.
Priorities, obviously, for the Forest Service would be Lake
Tahoe, urban-wildland interface; for us, similar areas around
western cities. Other priorities would look at the stands that
have been badly damaged by insect outbreaks, that kind of
thing, but those are judgments that I think we can make.
Mr. Vento. Well, I appreciate that. One of the issues I
raised, Secretary Glickman, was the issue of the urban-forest
interface, and the Forest Service especially with its leasing
programs sometimes has actually contributed to that. I talked
about collaboration with the States and counties. Obviously, we
need to spend a lot of money, and much of what is spent on
fire-fighting today is spent in terms of health and safety
because we have that urban-forest interface. Do you have any
comments on that, and any types of programs?
It's, obviously, not exactly what you want to hear in terms
of the coming from Washington trying to tell people what their
local zoning ought to be, but--and so it does represent a
serious concern. I'm not implying that you should do that, or
Secretary Babbitt; I think you've got enough difficulty with
the responsibilities that you have. But, I think we should
expect States and counties to, in fact, respond to, in fact,
help us with and eliminate the need for suppression in these
instances. Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Glickman. I would ask the Chief to respond. Just
quickly, I would say that we are doing our best to try to train
these fire departments in the areas of urban interface,
cooperatively, in terms of how to respond better, getting
information--communications--out in terms of fire prevention
techniques.
I was up the Buffalo Creek fire myself, right outside of
Denver where that particular fire occurred, and seeing the
number of people who were involved in camping activities very
close to the Denver area, this is a very high priority. But the
Chief, I'd like him to, if possible, respond.
Mr. Dombeck. With the permission of the Subcommittee
Chairman?
Secretary Glickman. Why don't you identify yourself for the
record?
Mr. Dombeck. Mike Dombeck from the Forest Service. I'd just
like to say our--in the new fire plans that we have--our top
prior-
ity is dealing with the urban-wildland interface. In the
planning process, in our response, and that, you know, I think,
because, you know, these residences get there by a variety of
reasons. But, when you travel in the West, and in any parts of
the country, and when you see the 5-acre lots, the 10-acre
lots, with dense forests around them with fuel problems, I
think, that really paints the picture for us.
Mr. Vento. Well, Madam Chairman, one of our best allies is
communities like Portland where they're trying to deal with the
urban sprawl, and I just think that this all comes together and
we have an interest in it. I won't be able to return after this
vote, Madam Chair, because of the Eximbank legislation is going
to be next on the foreign. They need my help.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Administrator Browner, we've had discussions on the new
clean air standards, and, as you know, I've had my problems
with the new standards considering the fact, you know,
California probably cannot meet its existing standards until at
least 2010. And, as was pointed out in an editorial that was in
a recent Science magazine issue talking about the lack of
science on particulates, primarily of 2.5 and below, is lacking
at best. But saying all of that, my logic obviously wasn't
listened to and we're moving on to these new clean air
standards. There may be discussions about this in the halls of
Congress later this session; we'll find out.
But back to the issue at hand, and that's the forest fires
and how that's going to be handled. You know, I'm from the
South Coast Air Basin, probably the most polluted air quality
in the United States. However, we've done a particularly good
job, I think, in the last 50 years, and we're celebrating our
50th anniversary of cleaned-up air. As a matter of fact, Jerry
Lewis, my colleague, wrote one of the first clean air acts in
the United States, and we've made great progress. And, by the
way, Jerry has his problems with this new standard also.
But saying that, fires, when they occur--and by the way,
fire suppression in California, you know, we've gotten it down
to an art; we have more fires than anybody else in this country
and we do a pretty good job of getting them out, though we hear
about the ones we don't put out. That's one of the problems. We
have a lot of land that needs to be burned off, probably more,
I suspect, then most areas in this country. And because of
that, and because of these new clean air standards, even though
you're not going to put them into effect until 2010, is to say
that the fire days themselves are the days in which they will
be removed from the formula in which we're going to put
together both our ozone standards and our particulate
standards. Those particulates hang around for a few days. It's
like in-laws, you know, once they come, they stick around.
Ms. Browner. We'll take those out. We'll take the in-laws
out.
Mr. Calvert. Those things have got to be considered when
you put together those averages. Because we have the--we
consider in southern California, particularly from the district
that I represent--the law of unintended consequences. I don't
think the flow-
er-loving, delphi sandfly was supposed to shut down the 10
freeway either, and discussions of that occurring, you know,
scares a lot of people. And, these air standards scare a lot of
people. And, I would hope that, if in fact these go forward,
that we can make sure that these are common sense and not the
irrational regulations that we have experienced in my area
before.
Ms. Browner. Well, first of all, we would also join you in
applauding the South Coast Air Resource Board for the work that
they have done. They have not only done a good turn for your
part of the country, but in many ways for the rest of the
country. We have all learned, from many of the efforts they
have been engaged in, how best to find the common-sense, cost-
effective solutions to air pollution and provide the public
health benefits.
In terms of forest fires, as I said earlier, don't create
an ozone problem. The question is, obviously, the fine
particles. And, I want to be absolutely clear, that where you
have a wildfire, a natural event, it is absolutely our
intention--we have been talking to the States about this to
ensure that--the air quality data collected around that event
is not included. You know, it just wouldn't make any sense to
us. I mean, why do we want to put something into the data base
that is beyond everybody's control? What this is about is
getting people clean air in a sensible manner. So you have our
commitment that those days, as you say, the in-laws on the
front end or the back end, whatever----
Mr. Calvert. Forgive me for being suspicious, and I
understand your intent, it's what really happens that I'm
concerned about. Because, in the years that this is imposed, I
suspect that many of us won't be here in Washington.
Ms. Browner. Well, I can assure you I won't be here.
Mr. Calvert. Secretary Babbitt may be back in Phoenix, and
I'll be back in Riverside, and we want to make sure that these
laws are being imposed on people the way we say they are and
not down the road when we get into issues like the Endangered
Species Act, where we get into some pretty interesting fights
around here.
Ms. Browner. But, I wouldn't ask you to simply take our
word; we have committed, and are in the process now of, and
have already put portions of the implementation strategy in the
public record. All of this goes into a Federal Register notice.
I mean, no one is being asked to take anyone's word here. What
I am explaining to you is how we have articulated a common-
sense strategy particularly designed to deal with these kinds
of events, and it will be in writing, and it will be in the
Federal Register.
Mr. Calvert. That makes me feel better.
Mr. Vento. Will the gentleman yield to me? Gentleman yield
to me?
Mr. Calvert. Whatever time I have left.
Mr. Vento. Well, I know we've got to go for a vote, but I
was just going to point that they don't include in the record
natural forest fires; and when the plan for this is you deal
with humidity, wind, fireload, in terms of dryness, and so
forth, so there are a lot of different factors that go into it
that minimize the air quality problems.
Ms. Browner. Madam Chair? If I might just----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. Browner?
Ms. Browner. There are monitors out there right now, a
monitoring network measuring 2.5. We do not have a 2.5
violation where there has been a fire. So, it hasn't happened.
I understand why people are raising the concern, and we should
speak to it and ensure that if it ever does happen, we know how
to manage it. But we have records already, and it is not
happening; the concern that people are raising has not yet
occurred. But that doesn't mean that we won't speak to it in
The Federal Register.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. Browner. When we return, if
Ms. Christian-Green will yield her time to Mr. Farr who's asked
for it, we'll return immediately to Mr. Farr. We only have a
little less than 5 minutes on our vote. So----
Mr. Farr. Make a quick statement, Madam Chair, that's all I
wanted to make.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'm afraid we're going to have to
temporarily recess, so we can go for our vote.
Secretary Babbitt. Madam Chair, if I may, I have a 12:30
appointment, and if you will be willing to do without my
presence, I would be very grateful.
Ms. Browner. I have a 12:25.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Secretary, I'm very sorry about these
votes and, yes, I do see you only have 9 minutes to make your
appointment. But, we do need--Mr. Glickman, if you can remain;
Ms. Browner, if you can remain.
Secretary Glickman. My problem is that I think I have the
same appointment as Mr. Babbitt. But, I can be here about 15
more minutes--15 or 20 more minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think, then, what the Chair will do is
simply say that we will submit our questions in writing to all
of you, and if we could receive your responses early on, I
would very much appreciate it.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Secretary Glickman. I would also say, Mr. Dombeck, I will
have him remain, the Chief of the Forest Service, if you would
like to have that?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would appreciate that very much. And, if
Ms. Browner has to leave, if someone could remain to answer
questions for you?
Ms. Browner. Certainly.
Secretary Babbitt. And, I will leave Jim Douglas as my
proxy.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, thank you very
much.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order.
Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the way
you are handling all these votes, and I appreciate the
witnesses' understanding. I think the only person who really
understood the votes was Dan Glickman, having served in this
body for about 18 years.
I have one question: It was stated that about 55 million
acres of land are candidates for prescribed burning and we're
doing about 1 million acres a year and we'd like increase that
to 2 million. How many additional acres, however, are being
added to that figure by the same forces of nature that have
caused this present situation? Per year, how many additional
acres might be added? I'm trying to figure out how we're really
making progress on this, because I am sure there are additional
candidates for that category.
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, the--and we will try to get--I can't give
you a specific acreage, but we will try to be as specific as we
can on a written response. But, what I can tell you is that
from the standpoint of the 191 million acres in the National
Forest System lands, our goal is to treat up to 3 million acres
per year. And, at that rate we would be where we want to be by
2012.
And, as Secretary Glickman mentioned earlier, our target
this year, this current year that's ending the fiscal year
ending tomorrow?--today--we had planned on doing 750,000 acres,
and we reached 1 million. The reason we were able to exceed our
targets is because we had a fairly easy fire year, the weather
conditions, and we had additional resources we could deploy in
a--to deal with some of the problems, rather than--we were
blessed with an easy fire year from the standpoint of
suppression. I guess I can't speak for Interior on acreage.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Douglas. For the Department of the Interior, I would
say the same thing that Mike has said: We will provide more
detailed figures for the record. But, you're correct, when
there is wildfire--natural ignitions--a lot of times those are
occurring in areas that we would otherwise be treating with
management-ignited fires at some point. Of course, not all.
And, take for example, the fire that is just happening right
now outside Sacramento, that's clearly an area that we wouldn't
be burning deliberately, certainly under those kinds of
conditions and circumstances. So we couldn't count that as a
fuel-treatment acre.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.005
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Douglas, excuse me.
Mr. Douglas. I'm sorry.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you state your name for the record?
Mr. Douglas. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm Jim Douglas with the
Department of the Interior.
So there is a combination there of some of the natural
ignitions certainly will count against those acres.
Mr. Kildee. OK. Well, get the figures both for BLM and the
Forest Service about how many acres, just by the same forces of
nature, might be added each year, so we'll see how much
progress we are making hopefully by 2012. I assume you have
factored that into that expectation for 2012?
Mr. Dombeck. Yes, the challenge is a net gain.
Mr. Kildee. Right. Knowing quite well that they are quite
different, and I know they are horribly different and--but the
fires that are occurring in Malaysia, have you studied what
they have done wrong over there, and are they in turn studying
what you are doing right over here?
Ms. Lavin. Yes. I'm Mary Jo Lavin from the Forest Service.
Yes, we have looked at those acres, and we have looked at the
problem in Indonesia. We have actually four teams that have
gone in the past, from the early 1990's. We have had several
teams that have gone over and provided training for them in
fire-fighting. We actually had a combination four-person crew
that went over recently--just returned 2 days ago--that
included three members from the Forest Service and it also had
a person from Interior. What we did was provide training for
them, as we have in the past, for their management as well as
their crews. We know what they're doing that is a problem;
that's a decision of their government to continue those
practices.
Mr. Kildee. I appreciate your answer. I have been very
concerned about that and I encourage you to continue to do what
you are doing. I think it's very important.
If I could ask just one additional question--I have in my
folder here, this is probably to Sally Shavers; is she still
here? It says, ``Projected non-attainment counties for the PM
2.5 and ozone revised,'' and I don't see any source of where
this--is this from EPA or not? Are you familiar with this
document?
Ms. Shavers. No, sir, I'm not familiar with the one you
have. I know there is a projected list, but those are not based
on----
Mr. Kildee. I think--could you take a look at the one there
and see if that's from EPA. I always like to know the source
of--there's no authority on here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me ask counsel.
Ms. Shavers. No, sir, that's not ours.
Mr. Kildee. It's not yours. OK, all right.
Ms. Heissenbuttel. Staff provided that for the information
of the Members.
Mr. Kildee. Who provided that?
Ms. Heissenbuttel. We received that from the American
Petroleum Institute.
Mr. Kildee. From the American Petroleum Institute. OK. I
think it's very important, Madam Chair, if we could give the
source for these things, because EPA putting it out and
American Petroleum Institute, they might have a different
perspective or different way of counting. I appreciate that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In my desire to make sure that the
Committee was afforded as much time as possible while Mr.
Dombeck was here, I neglected a responsibility of mine and that
is to make sure that all the witnesses are identified and that
they are all sworn in. And, so, I wonder if you could stand and
raise your right hands please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can we start for the record with the
identification of the witnesses with Mr. Dombeck? Mr. Mike
Dombeck. And then next is----
Ms. Lavin. Mary Jo Lavin.
Mr. Dombeck. She is Director of Fire and Aviation of the
Forest Service.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes; and then next?
Ms. Shaver. Sally Shaver with EPA, Director of the Air
Quality Strategies and Standards Division.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Douglas. And, I'm Jim Douglas of the Department of the
Interior in fire policy.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. And while we knew who you were,
we wanted to make sure that the record was very clear.
So with that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Browner said that the forest fires would be exempt from
the standards, or that that period of time when the fire was
burning would be exempted and that something would be worked
out similar to that on prescribed fires. Why, and I know she
said it just made common sense, but why is it being exempted? I
mean, it happened?
Ms. Shaver. What we are doing--we have a natural events
policy which was published in 1996, which for wildfires that
are under active suppression, we discount those data where
standards are violated because those were not controlled; they
were not instigated by man and that kind of thing. What we're
looking at in the policy, and we've not finished with that yet,
is some--if you are in accordance with the land management
plans which are part of the--go through the NEPA process--and
you've addressed the air quality issues, then we don't envision
there will always be air quality standard violations. In fact,
if you manage the burns appropriately, there probably won't be.
In the event that the weather conditions might change, or in
the event that we didn't follow through correctly on the burns,
we didn't follow the prescription for the fire, then we would
say that there might be some--there could be a violation at
that point in time. Then the appropriate response would be
taken to that. However, if you're following the prescription,
and you get an air quality violation, then we don't think that
there should be a non-attainment designation based on that. And
that's the type of policy that we're trying to put together
right now.
Mr. Pombo. Are there other natural events that are not
controlled by man that are exempted as well?
Ms. Shaver. Yes, the natural events policy addresses dust
storms as well as volcanoes, including the wildfires.
Mr. Pombo. What about weather patterns, unnatural weather
patterns? Is that also exempted as well?
Ms. Shaver. No; of course, the unnatural weather patterns
would be a part of the dust storm aspect, but then that's based
on whether the soil conditions and the wind conditions in that
area would constitute an unusual event.
Mr. Pombo. I wanted to ask the Forest Service, I know, Mr.
Dombeck had to leave, but how are the wilderness areas--and
this I guess would involve Interior as well--how are they going
to do prescribed fires in those particular areas?
Ms. Lavin. We will continue to do prescribed fires,
regardless of location, but particularly, since you asked, on
the wilderness areas, as we have in the past. We will use
primarily natural causes but we do have the authority, and will
use as we have in the past, management ignitions, if that would
be more appropriate. We will look to follow the same
regulations that we have followed in the past; there will be no
change, because these are the Federal fire policy or the new
air quality policy.
Mr. Pombo. Why is it preferable to allow a fire to burn,
whether it's natural or man-made, than to do mechanical
thinning?
Ms. Lavin. I'm sorry, sir, I didn't hear the last part of
your question.
Mr. Pombo. Why is it preferable to allow a fire to burn,
whether its natural or man-made, in preference to mechanical
thinning or other management techniques?
Ms. Lavin. Right. There are times when it isn't preferable.
What we do is in the preplanning process, in the planning
process, and looking at it ahead of time, and looking at what
is the best way to manage those resources, we make options and
make those choices. There are times, for example, when we
cannot use fire as an appropriate tool because the biomass is
so great that we would start a catastrophic fire ourselves. And
that is basically what the situation that you have in
Indonesia, which was the question asked earlier.
We must follow a prearranged plan, and that plan tells us
what are the most effective ways to manage that resource. And
in times, in fact, in about 50 percent of the lands that the
Forest Services manages across the Nation, we feel that we will
need to use mechanical treatment prior to our introducing a
regular regime of prescribed fire.
Mr. Pombo. About 50 percent?
Ms. Lavin. About 50 percent nationally. In some of the
States in the West--for example, the State of Montana--we know
that they have told us there that only 10 percent will be able
to use fire as the first means of managing those resources. So
we will work our way toward using fire, low-intensity fire,
which is a more natural process than the mechanical treatment.
Mr. Pombo. It seems like in the last several months a real
emphasis has been placed on controlled burns, on fire; and
logging the forests, cutting out the trees of any kind, has
been decreased dramatically in recent years. How do you go
about making that deci-
sion as to when it's best to let something burn or to light a
fire versus allowing someone to go in and thin the trees?
Ms. Lavin. Those decisions are made on a site-specific
basis. So they are made as a local decision.
In the planning process, when you're looking at the
prescribed fire, or you're looking at the land management plan,
you're involving the public. That's the advantage that we have
over the wildfire, which doesn't involve anyone when it
actually happens. So, in the planning process we're making
those decisions, but making those decisions with the local
``experts,'' and I'm putting quotations marks around that, as
well as the public who are living there who have very expert
opinions about the place where they live. So we're making those
decisions together on what is the best way to treat that
particular area.
Mr. Pombo. So those decisions will be made locally and they
will not be made back here?
Ms. Lavin. Very definitely. They have to be made locally.
We can make general policy, and we do, from a national basis,
but when we actually look at implementing that policy, that is
a site-specific, local decision involving--especially in the
planning process--involving all the publics.
Mr. Pombo. Madam Chairman, I have just one additional
question for the Department of Interior. One of the issues that
has arisen around the forest over the past several years has
been the issue of endangered species within those particular
forests. How is it going to be handled to go into a particular
forest and light it on fire with the endangered species that
may exist there, or the potential habitat? One of the issues
that has been raised quite a bit in recent years is that, even
though the species may not be there currently, it's potential
habitat--and I think most of the forests that we've talked
about are potential habitat--for an endangered species.
Mr. Douglas. Let me address that by also addressing the
last two questions you asked as well.
All of the work on land management practices, forest
management practices, is done in accordance with the planning
process. So, whether it's harvesting of timber or burning or
managing for a particular wildlife species or for recreation,
whatever, it's all based on land management planning, and all
of the Federal agencies have roughly similar land management
planning practices. So, in the course of that planning, we
would consider all of the resource management issues involved,
including endangered species: what's there now, what the
habitat is, what it needs to survive, what's in the area, that
sort of thing.
We would look at, in particular with relationship with
fire, the role in that particular area that fire has
historically played in maintaining and sustaining a healthy and
natural system there. In many cases, those endangered species
depend on a particular vegetative forest type that's driven by
fire in order to survive. So there's not necessarily a direct
conflict between an endangered species population or an
endangered species habitat and the use of fire, and in fact, we
may want to use fire to maintain suitable habitat for that.
So, the answer is: through the planning process, through
the analysis of scientific information, other management
constraints, including socio-, and political, economic
constraints, we'll look at what our resource options are, what
makes sense from an ecological standpoint, what makes sense
from other land management standpoints, and take appropriate
management actions. It may be a combination of fire, use of
mechanical treatments, depending on what our constraints are
and what we're trying to manage for.
So, endangered species becomes one of the factors that are
considered. It's not the only factor; it fits in there along
with everything else.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me ask the
Forest Service, if 50 percent of the public forest land in the
country is deemed to be unsuitable for prescribed burn, what
would be the percentage you estimate in the State of
California.
Ms. Lavin. I can't answer that with exact percentages, Mr.
Doolittle. I can do that by checking with our region and I will
get back to you in writing.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. And, you might break it down, too, by,
you know, the sections of the State: the Sierra Nevadas, for
example. The area that's on fire now, which I believe is Yuba
County, is that an area that is deemed unsuitable for
prescribed fire?
Ms. Lavin. Well, it would be unsuitable for the Federal
Government to be doing prescribed fire there because those
particular lands that are involved in the two large fires in
California, I believe, are on private land that is protected by
the State of California.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. What about the public lands in that region?
Do you know their suitability for prescribed burn that are on
public land?
Ms. Lavin. I can't speak to them specifically. I looked at
the details of the two fires and I questioned the ownership of
the fire because I saw that they were in--that the fires were
in 60- to 70-year old timber with a high accumulation.
I can't answer that, but they are the factors that we would
use as we look at those and get the specific figures for you.
We would look at what was the fire regime in that area, and I
would be asking the region to tell me what, how they had
planned to treat that area.
We have an interesting study that our research people have
developed and that is a simulated exercise. We did it on one of
the forests in California following the Huffer fire, so it was
on the Lassen National Forest. And we looked at that, what was
the historic land cover, and we have that data across the
Nation for all of the forests, national forest lands. And we
looked at what is the current land cover there, and we saw that
with the current land cover, for example, with fire having been
suppressed in that area, that the fire intensity, the length of
the flame, for example, currently with the present ground cover
would be much greater than it was historically when fire was a
natural part of the process.
And, so it's that kind of use of research, use of the
expertise that is local to that community, that we'd use in the
planning process, and that we will use in getting back to you
and giving you an answer on the question relative to the Sierra
Nevadas.
Mr. Doolittle. For a long time the Forest Service and the
experts behind it believed that suppression of fire was the
appropriate public policy. Is that not the case?
Ms. Lavin. That's very much the case, Mr. Doolittle. We
also--I know I used to work for the State of Washington, before
I came to the Forest Service--came into the Forest Service--and
I know that the State agencies, for example, used to call their
divisions of fire or their programs, ``fire control,'' because
we thought, at that time, that we could control fire.
Yellowstone taught us a lot of important lessons, and then
we have learned a lot since that time. And, I'm hopeful that we
will continue to learn in the process. We have learned a lot of
things about fire. We didn't realize in the past that they
had--that fires were like floods--and that you had regular,
recurring basis for both events.
Mr. Doolittle. You brought up Yellowstone. It's my
understanding we do not manage the forests on national
parklands. Is that correct?
Ms. Lavin. Let me ask Mr. Douglas to answer your question
specific to the national parks, although I just was out there
last week and saw both the national park and the Bridger Teton
National Forest, and there is a difference in the way we
manage. But let me turn that question, if that's all right with
you, sir, over to Mr. Douglas to answer.
Mr. Douglas. Yes, Yellowstone National Park is a National
park, of course, but the same basic rules apply. And that is:
There are land management, resource management plans, that are
done and they're based on the underlying purpose of that land
unit. In the case of the national park, it's not managed for
resource production in the same way that many national forests
are; it's managed more for its natural conditions. So they're
probably going to have different fire policies, fire
strategies, and land management strategies than they are
adjacent. But they're all going to be based on, in both cases,
what is the historic fire regime; what works best for restoring
and sustaining healthy natural systems there.
Mr. Doolittle. So, do they remove understory on National
parks?
Mr. Douglas. If it's appropriate to do so. One of the
things we have to remember is that a forest is not a forest, is
not a forest; and the kind of forest we're talking about in the
greater Yellowstone area is much different than we're talking
about further west in the inland West there. Ponderosa pine----
Mr. Doolittle. Well, let's talk, in the Yosemite area, for
example?
Mr. Douglas. In the Yosemite area? Well, if things were
going normally, and that is, we hadn't suppressed fires, as you
point out for so long, we wouldn't have to go in and
mechanically remove because fire would have--low-intensity
frequent fires would have--removed a lot of that understory. We
believe, in many cases--and this is what's going on in Sequoia
Kings Canyon National Park right now--that we're able to, with
judicious use of fire, and I think they're doing that as we
speak, remove some of that understory with fire. If there are
cases in which it is too thick, it's too close to structures or
other high-value resources, we'll go in and do some kind of
removal in order to facilitate the reintroduction of fire. But,
ultimately, we want--the goal is--to place fire back in there
in a role it played historically.
Mr. Doolittle. Is it not, though, indeed, the case that in
much, at least in California, if not--well, we've heard 50
percent of the Nation--that they, the forests, are so choked
with over-growth now that you could not safely use prescribed
burning as a way of clearing out the understory?
Mr. Douglas. And, that's exactly, I think, what both
Secretaries said earlier today, which is: We need to use fire
along with mechanical treatments to get back to a point where
fire can safely be used. In some cases we can go straight to
fire. In many cases, I think, that's what the Forest Service
has been talking about with the 50 percent number; some
mechanical treatments are necessary before we can use fire. In
some cases we're always going to use mechanical because of the
proximity to the communities, and so on. So we need to use all
of those tools, not any one by themselves.
Mr. Doolittle. Here's the question I've never had a
satisfactory answer to. Let me pose it to you, or any of you
there. It's my understanding, from testimony we've had before
this Committee and others that I sit on, that the annual rate
of growth on forests exceeds the annual removal of timber by
like four or five to one. And my question to you is one: Do you
accept those figures? And, two, if you accept those figures,
how can we ever prevent catastrophic forest fires from
occurring when we talk about some mechanical thinning? You'd
have to quadruple the size of the Forest Service and have
emergency regulation to hire logging teams to go in and log
beyond historical standards to ever even hope to catch up with
this. And, I'd like to know how you see us getting out of this
dilemma.
Mr. Douglas. I don't know the specific number that you're
referring to, but I will say if you think about back before at
least European settlement of this continent, there was a
balance: Trees grew and either they died and fell down or they
were burned or some combination thereof.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, let me just jump in on that note. I
mean, why do we assume that these were not managed before
European settlement. We know for a fact the Indians managed the
forests. And is there any reason to believe they weren't
managing the forests before Europeans arrived?
Mr. Douglas. There's ample evidence that indigenous peoples
where in fact using fire to a great degree. My point, simply,
is that our--certainly European--settlement has increased the
amount of human intervention in the forest. But my basic point
is that fire has always been there in one way or another
consuming fuel.
And, going back to your observation earlier, Mr. Doolittle,
we thought it was prudent policy for many, many years to put
those fires out before they burned very much of that fuel, so
we're left with a lot that under other circumstances would have
been consumed by fire. We clearly have a problem of too much
fuel. What we clearly need to do is remove some of it
mechanically, where that's the prudent thing to do, and get
fire back in there as soon as possible. It's cheaper; it's more
ecologically sound whenever we can do that; and we need to use
a combination of tools to do that.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, but I'm still not, Madam Chairman,
I'll be finished here in just a minute. When we're growing four
to five times annually in the forest what we are harvesting,
the approach the administration is taking is so minuscule
compared to the problem. In fact, you've thrown roadblocks,
frankly, every possible way you could in the harvesting of
trees, as we saw with the Emergency Salvage Law and how that
was implemented. And, I'm just amazed how you could--why isn't
this a catastrophic problem that we're facing, when we're
growing annually four to five times on these forests what we
are harvesting? Am I missing something? Aren't we compounding
almost geometrically the problem?
Ms. Lavin. Mr. Doolittle, I can't speak to those numbers
either that you give us in the growth rate because that's not
my field of responsibility, but let me answer the question that
we're distinguishing here. The 50 percent acres that we're
telling you are the 50 percent of the acres that we're talking
about as being not able to treat are limited to those that we
know have a problem that needs fuel treatment, not the total
number of acres that the Forest Service is managing. So when
the Forest Service speaks of that, we're talking about 50
percent or 20 million acres. We're talking about those acres
that need treatment that we know of. The timber you're talking
about as growing is green and growing timber, and although
there have been very intense fires--and there is no question
about that--which have involved green and growing timber, we
usually count the green and growing as an opportunity, as a
break in the fuel. So, what we're talking about as needing
treatment are those acres which include trees that are a
problem or a biomass that is a source of fuel for us, that it's
very dry; it's tinder dry, and that's what we're talking about.
Mr. Doolittle. My point is is that in forests, when they
get so overloaded with growth, they begin to die. And there you
have--and it's strewn throughout the green and growing--you've
got the dead and dying. And I mean the forests in the central
Sierras are just chock-full of all of this. I doubt that you
could use prescribed burning in any area of the central Sierra
forests, and you'd have to commission--we'd put everybody to
work in the central Sierra and then some if we did the job that
needed to be done, but all I hear is, ``We're going to do some
thinning and some prescribed burning.''
I mean, it sounds like a very, you know, Marquis of
Queensbury-type rule, and we've got a crisis out there, and
we're growing four to five times annually the amount of timber
that we're harvesting. How can we ever hope to catch up? And I
still haven't heard the answer. I've got a panel of experts
there, and you're not responding.
I think the Chairman will back me up on those figures that
we heard. It is four to five times annually. Let's assume for a
minute that's true. Tell me how the administration's approach,
its very careful, methodical thinning, how that's going to
respond to this problem.
Ms. Lavin. Mr. Doolittle, I know that in the Forest Service
that we have an action plan that will involve planning at the
local level that will get us to 3 million acres of prescribed
or fuels-treated; we will get to 3 million acres per year of
acres treated for fuels by the year 2003, and that we're
recommending that we continue that for the next 20 years. We
know that by the year 2012 we will have, give or take a year,
we will have reached a treatment of the 40 million acres that
we have identified as being the most critical.
We know that this year we were able to move ahead because
of weather conditions and also that by having fewer fires to
suppress--wildfires to suppress--we were able to move ahead and
treat 1 million acres. We know that this exceeded the amount of
acres that were lost to wildfire or engaged in wildfire by
quite a substantial amount. We have today--the current morning
report said we have, in the Forest Service, had 146,770 acres
burned, and we know that was in wildfire. We know that we far
exceeded that in the amount we were treating with prescription.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, how many million acres have you
identified that need treatment across the country?
Ms. Lavin. How many? Your question was how many acres have
we identified that needed treatment?
Mr. Doolittle. Yes.
Ms. Lavin. We have identified approximately--I believe we
have identified approximately 40 million acres.
Mr. Doolittle. So you've got 40 million acres that need
treatment, and you're only doing 3 million a year. And what's
happening in all those hundreds of millions of acres that
aren't quite as critical, but that are increasing the timber
supply year after year after year, in excess of what's taken
off? Isn't that out there compounding, building up
geometrically? That's my point. How can 3 million acres
possibly be doing the job?
Ms. Lavin. We think that that is an amount that we in the
Forest Service can handle safely and then can handle
productively.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, you may be able to handle it safely
and productively--I don't mean to be argumentative, but my
point is these forests are overchoked with growth, and, you
know, your response isn't meeting the need. Am I the only one
that sees that, or do you see what I'm talking about?
Mr. Douglas. Mr. Doolittle, I think that the fact that you
had three Cabinet-level officials here today speaks for the
fact that the administration does take this very seriously.
Secretary Babbitt, in his tenure as Secretary, has been
speaking out strenuously on these issues because of the urgency
of the situation.
We are looking at from now until--in the Interior--from now
until the year 2001, almost tripling the amount of treatments
that we will be doing. That is an enormous increase in the
amount of activity, and it speaks for the urgency which we see.
When we talk in the Department of the Interior about 55
million acres needing treatment, that doesn't mean that 55
million acres need to be treated every year. What that means is
that's the amount that needs to be treated on the cycle in
which naturally there would be some kind of fire occurrence. In
some cases that may be every 3 to 5 years; in other cases it
might be every 80 to 100 years.
So all of that rolled together in the Department of the
Interior means that we should be trying to treat something over
2 million acres year. We're not there yet. We're trying as hard
as we can to get there, but we're certainly doing a lot more
than we did in the past. And I think that we view this as one
of the most critical land management problems that we have out
there, and that's why we're here today, to tell you where we
are and how we hope to be doing better at it.
Mr. Doolittle. I do respect that and that your numbers are
increasing, but I don't think they're increasing anywhere near
the point where they need to be. It's probably an order of
magnitude or two different than what you have in your reports,
and I would ask, Madam Chairman, that the Committee's staff
ought to propound further questions and line these things up. I
just--it seems to me that there's no way this response can meet
what the need is.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. My first question is, EPA has
organized a Federal advisory committee under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act to develop recommended policies to
address prescribed burning. It's noted that the committee is
made up of Federal and State officials, with but one or two
representatives from the private sector. One of the
representatives is from the Sierra Club, and they certainly
don't represent private landowners. Why was this committee set
up with no input from our vast resources of the private sector
and private landowners?
Ms. Shaver. Originally, when we set up this group, it was a
followup to the natural events policy, and it was to primarily
address the issue on the Federal lands. And there has been much
more interest in, ``Does this apply to the private lands?'' And
the way the State and Federal partnership works, we didn't want
to preempt the States' prerogative to address the fire issue on
the private lands within their States, so we're trying to
address the Federal land issue first. We may extend some of
that to the private lands, but we will not do that without
involving those stakeholders as well. So we're trying to
approach this in a piecemeal fashion, and that's why it's
shaped the way it is.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Well, I guess I don't
understand your answer when you look at the size and scope of
this problem. I think you're saying that you're not dealing
with private land, but private landowners who manage huge
forests have a lot of information that Government could use.
And when you only use State and Federal employees, you're
really missing out on a huge resource of people who do this for
a living--people who make a profit at it, people who do just as
much research and care just as much about their future and
probably do more about it than public land does, from history.
And I guess I just--as someone who's been in State
Government for 19 years and now in the Federal Government, and
in local government 8 years before that--I mean, every time we
look for inno-
vative answers we bring in the private sector, who are
professionals, too, and don't have any stake but can give a lot
of advice. And to set up an advisory panel of just public
people, I think, is very short-sighted.
Ms. Shaver. And I appreciate that, and that was not our
intent. Like I said, this particular advisory committee that
was set up was to address the implementation issues for ozone,
particulate matter and regional haze, and when it was initially
set up--it's already up to 85 members--we couldn't get all the
stakeholders for the ag-burning issues as well as the private
forest issues, and so we would like to work with those
stakeholders separately. So that's one of the reasons we had
broken it up the way we have. It was just the sheer numbers of
it.
We will be running any policy that this sub-group develops
or recommends by the larger subcommittee, but, certainly, we do
intend to seek broader stakeholder involvement from the private
sector before the policy would be extended to them.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Well, I would hope; I would
hope that is the case, but I think you're passing up a huge
resource--even academia; it doesn't appear academia was
included.
The next question is--I think Congressman Doolittle just
expanded on the scope and immensity of this problem, and I was
on the western tour as an easterner a few weeks ago and saw the
amount of the forest that was burned--the 100,000 acres. It was
pretty awesome, and then when you saw the huge amount of the
forests we flew over in choppers, where one-third of the forest
is dying, and I was told another third of it probably will die,
and the fuel load that's there, and the problem and the
immensity.
I guess I would suggest to all of you, your budget
requests, in my view, do not represent even asking for what is
needed to begin to address this problem. And you know, from my
19 years in State government, I always judged departments on
their budget requests, what they asked for, if they really were
serious about solving a problem, and it's my view that your
budget requests are very inadequate to address this problem,
and you're giving us lip service.
Mr. Douglas. Sir, I respectfully disagree. I believe that
the budget we've submitted to the Congress in 1998 and what
we're proposing internally in the administration for future
years now is pushing the envelope in terms of our ability to
actually use those dollars effectively. We're pushing
aggressively, and as you know dollars are not easy to come by,
both within the Administration side and our ability to get
dollars into the President's budget, and then the
appropriations committees, in living within the ceilings that
they are living within, have made them available to us.
I think that dollars are not really our problem at this
point. We do have some other resource constraints. We need,
badly, more skilled people--ecologists, fire fighters,
planners, economists, and so on, to do a lot of the analyses we
need. We need to get, basically, our capabilities up.
I think the dollars, from everything that we've seen, and
we've been working together between the two departments very
closely on this, are coming along. But we can't turn on a dime,
you know, and I think that we need to be careful about pumping
too much dollars in and seeing those not used as wisely as they
ought to be. So, I'm very optimistic on the dollar side right
now.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. I'll yield to Congressman
Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. You know, let me just say to you that that
testimony flatly contradicts what we heard in Sonora, where we
heard the Forest Service officials testify that money has been
sharply reduced for the timber sale program, for example, and
therefore the sales cannot be prepared as they used to be and
that is resulting in less timber being cut.
So, how do you--I realize you're with the Interior
Department, not the Forest Service, but we see this going on
fairly widespread in the central Sierras and I cannot, you
know, hearing that the budgets are being increased--they're not
being increased; they're being cut back. Now there's always
plenty of money once we have the forest fire. We'll spend
whatever it takes to fight it; that's great. But, boy, don't
get the timber sale program going because that's looked upon as
an undesirable program, and we've got to cut back to save money
on that.
Mr. Douglas. Let me let the Forest Service answer that
specific question, but I want to clarify. I was referring to
dollars that we're requesting for fuels management through the
fire program, not other land management dollars that may, in
one way or another, relate to this particular program. That was
the nature of my answer.
Mr. Doolittle. OK.
Mr. Douglas. I'll let the Forest Service talk about the
larger issue.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I'm on Mr. Peterson's time.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. Go ahead; you can respond.
Ms. Lavin. Mr. Peterson, Mr. Doolittle, I would like to say
that I represent the full budget of the Forest Service, but I
do not. I represent a major portion of that budget, but that
portion is in fire, and I would agree with Jim Douglas that in
fire it is not a question of adding additional dollars when
we're looking at the prescribed fire program.
We are very concerned that we do not have enough people and
we do not have the expertise, so we're looking at other ways in
which we can increase that expertise. We're working with the
State of Florida, which is going to testify later. We're
working with the State of Florida to work on having improved
training for both the State and the Federal people who will be
conducting prescribed fire.
Remember that we always look at the fact that all of the
prescribed fire program is for sustainability of our forests,
and that's the only reason that we look at the fire program or
work toward that. And it does involve timber, and it does
involve timber management.
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania. I agree with the Congressman
from California, though, that if we're going to deal with the
forests appropriately, it's not just fighting fires and
prescribed burns. It's also managing that resource and making
sure that land that has three-times the stems that it should
have is adequately addressed. I mean, there's a whole lot to
this, but I know we have a huge anti-cut-down-a-tree group that
thinks cutting down a tree is some sinful thing and that we
shouldn't do that; and they're part of the problem, but we all
have to deal with them.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, gentlemen.
I want to say that we have two votes up; one is on House
Resolution 255, ordering the previous question, and then we'll
have a vote following that on the rule. And after that we will
return, and I will ask my round of questions then, so I need to
have this panel of witnesses remain. But I will say that our
Committee will be temporarily recessed for 30 minutes, and that
will give you a chance to get something to eat. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order. I thank
the panel for waiting. Like I say, this does take a fair amount
of patience to work in this body and to become a part of it
through your willingness to be witnesses, all of you, and I
thank you very much for your patience.
I do want to say that one of the reasons that the Chairman
called this hearing was our--and I want to direct this
particular statement and question to Mrs. Shaver. One of the
reasons that the Chairman called this hearing was because,
while we have heard Ms. Browner testify that agricultural
burning--and we heard her testify to this in the Ag.
Committee--agricultural burning would be exempt from the
standards, as well as--now we're hearing today--that prescribed
burns by the Forest Service would be exempt.
And while that would normally, one would think, give us a
fair amount of comfort, our concern is that it puts a lot more
pressure on our point-source emitters, such as our utilities
and private industry. And that's why we're so concerned,
because of the--in fact, this weekend I was in Denver giving a
speech, and they are claiming that they are impacted by the
smoke and smog that is coming in from southern California.
And so it looks like, certainly in areas up in the
Northwest where I come from that need to be protected because
of their wilderness qualities and because of the national parks
up there, it looks like it's going to severely impact our
western part of the country.
And I have some photographs here that I wanted to enter
into the record, and I do want to say that for record, as
Chairman, as I enter these photographs, that I will attest to
their accuracy and to what I testify; I will attest to that
under the penalty of perjury.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The first photograph--these photographs
have to do with the prescribed fire that was done in the fall
of 1996 by the Department of the Interior. This was the Coggins
fire in the Whiskeytown Recreation Area near Redding,
California.
Are you familiar with that fire, Mr. Douglas?
Mr. Douglas. Only in very, very general terms. I know
they've been doing some treatments in the park there and have a
series of burns that they have done and will be doing, but
that's as much as I know at this point of the specifics.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, the photos were taken on September 19
of this year, and this is the first photograph, and I think you
have a copy of the photos there.
Mr. Douglas. Right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mrs. Cubin, do you have a copy of the
photos?
Mrs. Cubin. No, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Photo No. 1 shows the edge of the fire area and the
adjacent underburned area, while photograph number 2 shows a
portion of the fire area, and it does not appear that any fuels
were removed before the prescribed burn. And these photos
clearly show that there's a lot of small trees growing
underneath the larger trees, creating ladder fuels. These
photos also show that the fire killed many of the larger trees,
as you can see in photograph No. 3 and photograph No. 4.
What was the prescription for this fire?
Mr. Douglas. Ma'am, I can't tell you precisely the
prescription at this point. I'm not familiar with that. I'd be
happy to provide that for the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Douglas. I will tell you that it's my understanding
that this fire was conducted within the prescription--it did
not go out of prescription--and the purpose of the fire was to
achieve ecological benefits. And, of course, what happens when
you have fire is that some trees are killed, some trees are
damaged. That's part of the natural events within a healthy
forest. And so it's not surprising to us that some trees would
die.
It looks to me--and we can get, certainly, more details for
you on this particular fire--it looks to me like it burned
hotter in some areas than in other areas, and perhaps there
were some localized hot spots that killed a few more trees in
one spot than it would have in another area. And, again, that's
what would have happened naturally, that fires do not burn
uniformly across the landscape, but they spot, they burn
intensely, then they die back.
And so we would expect to see this as a natural kind of
occurrence. If the fire had been started, say, by lightning
instead of by management, you'd see the same kind of pattern of
just a variety of effects throughout the forest. You know, some
big trees die; some big trees don't die. And that's the point
of trying to use fire in a place like this; it is to re-create
the kinds of natural conditions that occurred for so many
hundreds of years in that type of forest.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, this is my major concern because we
do have a ladder fuel situation here, and it would create a
tremendous potential for an explosive fire which really messes
up our air quality standards. In fact, just September 25 of
last week, we saw another eruption in this same area of the
fire, which created an awful lot of smoke and haze and extended
over a long, very wide area.
So, that, combined with the fact that we may be creating
more fuel that is more explosive, while still trying to contain
our ambient air quality emittents, is creating a conflict that
I worry about greatly in the Northwest.
I also want to show--is there a graph there? Yes, air
quality graph.
Mr. Douglas. Madam Chairman, if it would be all right with
you, I think it would be helpful for us to provide some further
information on this particular fire for the record----
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
Mr. Douglas. [continuing] and perhaps we can provide some
information to interpret each one of these pictures and help
the Committee understand what the park's objective was.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I appreciate that, and I'll look
forward to it.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. For Mrs. Shaver--as you can see, the little
red dots on that map indicate the national parks and the
wilderness areas where these class I standards will likely be
imposed.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The next graph shows--Bill, can you show
her the next graph? The next graph shows the 100-mile radius of
control of the air quality out from those national parks,
wilderness areas, and which may be imposed in our class I
areas.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And then the next graph then shows the 250-
mile radius that is also being talked about for imposition out
from these areas, and, as you can see, that covers most of the
United States.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now the 100-mile radius really impacts the
Northwest and has a pretty serious impact across the Nation,
but the 250-mile radius for a class I impact would be most of
the Nation. So, we're seriously concerned about the impact of
prescribed fire, agricultural fires, and point source
emittents.
Mrs. Shaver, one of my concerns, too, is our elderly people
who, a lot of times, in the summer time, turn off their air
conditioners because they can't afford to pay for the
additional utility bills. And we're almost defeating ourselves
when we realize that a lot of our older people die in the
extreme heat. And so while I think it's laudatory that we're
trying to help the asthmatics and, of course, the younger
children with respiratory afflictions, we tend to ignore our
elderly, I think, with this program.
And the reason that we see the combination here in this
hearing of the natural resources, plus your proposed rules, is
the fact that we are very concerned about the point source
emittents that normally would have come in under your
standards, but with prescribed fires or runaway fuel fires,
which can happen with the fuel load that you've heard Mr.
Doolittle and various other people talk about, our forests are
at a point now where it's not easy to control those fires at
all, and so that is our major concern.
And with that, I'd like to just give you the time necessary
to address that.
Ms. Shaver. Well, I guess there are two issues. One, of
course, is the regional haze rule, which addresses primarily
the class I areas, and as a part of that particular rule the
State and locals would be able to establish a baseline which
would incorporate the natural role of fire. And then,
certainly, in terms of making progress on improving visibility
over the long time--say 10 to 15 years--then they would work
from the baseline, which incorporates the role of fire.
Certainly we are concerned about the health of our
children, as well as the elderly, and certainly the health of
everyone, but particularly those sensitive populations. That's
why we are working with the States as part of this policy to do
smoke management programs which mitigate the public health
impact of these prescribed burns, and we think with adequate
planning and proper operation and implementation of these
plans, for the most part you will not see significant air
quality violations under those conditions.
Where we do have the data now, we have not seen that, but,
certainly, we will be placing our monitors in the high
population areas and, in fact, working in those areas to make
sure that we meet the air quality standards as best we can,
which is, of course, the purpose of the policies that we are
developing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you give us a little more information
on your smoke management policy and program?
Ms. Shaver. Well, a lot of the States already have very
good smoke management programs, and I think you'll hear from
Mr. Peterson a little bit later about the smoke management
program that they have in Florida, where they burn a
significant number of acres each year and where they have not
had violations of the particulate matter standard. There are
other States, like Oregon, which have a good smoke management
program as well.
And so these programs account for the meteorological
conditions. There's a mechanism for authorization of the burns
and certainly provisions for training of this kind for the fire
managers. So, we're looking at those smoke management programs
being implemented in advance of the burns, and certainly in
cooperation with the land management planning, as well as the
burn plans that occur.
So, I think that with the adequate planning up front, and
the organization there and the cooperation, that we will be
able to meet the air quality standards on a consistent basis.
In terms of where we might not be able to, or where the
meteorological conditions change and a fire gets out of
control, you do have a violation of the air quality standard.
We certainly don't want to penalize the point sources in that
area for that condition, and that will be another aspect of the
policy as well. Whether it's a part of the designation or non-
designation process, if you will, that will certainly be an
aspect of it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So then there will not be a cumulative
effect that will be imposed on the point source emitters?
Ms. Shaver. We will not be penalizing the point source
emitters for something that happens under the prescribed burn
policy. That's correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And that would also be true of agricultural
burning, I take it, based on Ms. Browner's testimony in front
of the Ag. Committee.
Ms. Shaver. Right. We are not targeting agricultural
sources. We are working with USDA's agricultural air quality
task force to address the ag-burning issue, and that will be
taken up with that committee the end of October. That would be
the first time that's been discussed with that group, that's
basically made up of agricultural stakeholders, and we are
working with them on the ag-burning aspect of the policy.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, while you do offer us some degree of
comfort here, nevertheless, there's a basic, philosophical
concern that I have, and that is that the government feels that
their activities may be worthy of exemption, while private
industries' activities may not be, and I think we're moving
into some dangerous territory here. And we've taken the
blinders off of justice, perhaps, and I'm very concerned about
that, but I do appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Shaver. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do want to say that I've received a
letter from the mayor of a little town in Idaho--Salmon,
Idaho--and I, without objection, will enter that into the
record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And so I'd like to now turn the mike over
to Mrs. Cubin, from Wyoming.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. To avoid any
redundancy, since I've just very recently arrived, I will, if
it's all right, submit questions in writing. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. One more question that I wanted to ask was
about wood-burning stoves. Will that be exempted at all?
Because that can create a national cumulative effect, or a
regional cumulative effect.
Ms. Shaver. We have some wood-burning stove policies. I'm
not familiar with the specifics of those, and, actually, some
of those are occurring at the local levels; there are local
policies or regulations concerning those. I would be happy to
answer the question for the record regarding that, but the wood
stove policy would not be covered by these policies we've been
talking about today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK; forest fires are allowed, but wood
stoves are not.
Ms. Shaver. No, I did not mean to imply that. I'm sorry. I
just said that the policies that we are talking about today
would not cover wood stoves.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK, let me--perhaps I didn't hear it
correctly. Let me ask it again. With regards to the imposition
of standards for emittents from smoke, forest fires are allowed
and they would be exempted, but wood stoves would not be
exempted, right?--although it's basically the same emittent.
Ms. Shaver. No ma'am; I did not mean to imply that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Imply what?
Ms. Shaver. That forest fires were exempted and that wood
stoves were not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Prescribed forest fires are exempted.
Ms. Shaver. No, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well----
Ms. Shaver. Wildfires that are not part of a prescribed
burn are exempted under the natural events policy. Actually,
they're not exempted. We're just saying that where you have
wildfires that are burning out of control, they're covered by
our natural events policies. Any violations of the standards
that occur because of those are not used in determination of
whether or not an area is designated ``non-attainment.''
OK, under the prescribed burning policy, we're saying that
you have to be in accordance with your plan, your smoke
programs, and this type of thing, and we don't anticipate that
there would be air quality violations because of a prescribed
burn. In the event that there was, or something like that, then
we would address that situation. We would not penalize that
area in terms of non-attainment designation, where a fire got
out of prescription, or something like that, as long as you
were following the prescription as it was designed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So what we're talking about, then, is the
designation of an area rather than----
Ms. Shaver. That's correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Within that area, if a
prescribed fire should occur and it creates an air quality
situation where it violates the standards, then everything in
that region would have to shut down because of the prescribed
burn or the natural wildifire.
Ms. Shaver. Not if you're not designated non-attainment.
No, I don't think that's the case. You would not require those
sources to be shut down.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I will--I don't think we're
connecting on the same frequency here at all, but I----
Ms. Shaver. I understand, and I apologize for that. I'd be
happy to try to answer in writing or try again now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. I think through most of this hearing we
understood that prescribed burns conducted by the Secretary of
Interior or Secretary of Agriculture would be exempt; that
would be permissible. And as I heard in the Ag. Committee the
other day, those fires--prescribed fires for agricultural
fields--would also be exempt--or allowed. Are we having a
problem with the word ``exempt?'' Is there something I'm not
seeing here?
Ms. Shaver. Well, exempt is not a word, I guess, that I
would choose to say in those things. I guess what I would say
is, where a State has a smoke management program in place and
where the land management agencies have done their land
management planning, where they have done their burn plans,
they've gone through the NEPA process, and where those are in
place and are being followed, then the agency would be--in case
there is a violation under those circumstances where those
plans are being implemented--then we would not count those data
toward non-attainment designations.
Now if a State did not have a smoke management program in
place, if they did not follow the burn plans, or cases like
those, then we would still have our ability to designate those
areas as non-attainment. So, I would say it's not a free ticket
to strike matches. There needs to be a lot of planning done up
front. There needs to be a lot of evaluation of the need for
that, how to do that, and to make sure it's done in compliance
with the planning that we're talking about.
So that's why I'm concerned about the use of the word
``exemption.''
Mrs. Chenoweth. So we are--so EPA will be asking the land
management agencies to perform an EIS on their smoke management
program, on their prescribed burn programs?
Ms. Shaver. I may let them answer that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Douglas.
Mr. Douglas. Yes, what this is predicated on is going back
to something we talked about before the break, and that is
everything needs--all of our actions need to be based on land
management plans. The planning process is a multi-tiered
process. It starts at the most general level. A strategic level
would be a forest or a national park or a BLM area and then
gets progressively finer as we're talking about smaller and
smaller pieces of ground, and maybe particular activities,
types of functions.
That planning process is subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act. Whether or not an EIS, itself, is
done, it is subject to NEPA and an environmental compliance is
done. An environmental compliance involves public participation
and evaluation of environmental consequences, of different
alternatives, and a finding of whether or not there's
significant environmental impact, and so on.
So, we don't necessarily do an EIS in every case, but we
follow the National Environmental Policy Act in ensuring that
the environmental consequences are identified, of the various
alternatives, and that the one selected is appropriate. That
underlies, then, our--in the case--if we're bringing this
specifically back to fire--underlies our management decision to
use fire in certain circumstances: ``Yes, that's appropriate.
This is how we're going to manage that fire.'' We get into the
prescription that we're going to use, weather conditions, fuel
conditions, and that sort of thing.
Those are all of the types of things that we're committed
to is that we will go through planning processes and take every
step we can to minimize our emissions--burning techniques,
times of year, meteorological conditions, and that sort of
thing, in order to keep from putting more than absolutely
necessary into the air.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Douglas, I think you're right, because
it is a major Federal action. And let me ask you, have you done
an EA or an EIS under NEPA on the other prescribed burns?
Mr. Douglas. Absolutely. There's always environmental
compliance. Environmental compliance doesn't mean that there's
necessarily an EIS done, but the NEPA is followed and the
appropriate findings are made. In major cases, it results in an
EIS. In smaller actions, it's an environmental assessment, but
environmental compliance is done in each and every case.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Ms. Shaver, is the EPA prepared to do an environmental
impact statement, especially if you impose the 250-mile radius
criteria on all of these areas? As you can see from the
overlays there, that decision is a major Federal action
requiring an EIS. Has EPA, or is EPA preparing to do an
environmental impact statement on this, on the new standards?
Ms. Shaver. On the new standards? I'm not----
Mrs. Chenoweth. On the environmental impact of the new
standards.
Ms. Shaver. I'm not sure I can answer that today.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I think that the courts have said, any time
there's a major Federal action by an agency that there must be
an EIS, so could you let us know?
Ms. Shaver. Sure.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Mrs. Cubin, do you have any other questions?
All right, I want to thank this panel very much for your
patience and for your time. I, again, apologize for all the
votes that have taken us away. This is no way to run a railroad
sometimes, I think, but it happens, and it's the best system in
the world. But, thank you very, very much. And I will be
submitting additional questions to you, and the record will
remain open for about 3 weeks. Thank you very much.
I want to call the next panel of witnesses up. Mr. Earl
Peterson, Florida State Forester, chairman of the National
Association of State Foresters Fire Committee in Tallahassee,
Florida; Mr. William Dennison, Plumas County Supervisor, Board
of Supervisors, Quincy, California; Mr. Robert Mutch, Missoula,
Montana, and Dr. Robert Pearson, Radian International LLC in
Denver, Colorado.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your patience, but Mrs.
Cubin and I will make up the difference. These are the days
toward the end of the year when things get a little wild out
there, but you are contributing to a very, very, very important
record, and I thank you very much for your expert testimony.
So before we get going, I wonder if you wouldn't mind
standing with me and taking the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. We'll begin with Mr. Earl Peterson. Mr.
Peterson.
STATEMENT OF EARL PETERSON, FLORIDA STATE FORESTER, CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS FIRE COMMITTEE,
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. Earl Peterson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I look forward
to sharing with you some observations about the use of fire as
a management tool, both in Florida and nationally.
As the director of the Florida Division of Forestry, I'm
involved--my agency's involved--with the management of over 1
million acres of land in Florida, purchased by the Florida
taxpayers to ensure that some of the unique ecology enjoyed by
the citizens and the millions of visitors who come annually,
each year, will be there for generations to come.
Without hesitation, I can say that one of the primary
contributors to the current State of Florida's wildlands has
been fire. In Florida, we call the use of fire as a management
tool ``prescribed fire.'' And like a prescription issued by
your personal physician, the medicine is aimed at curing a
specific problem, while at the same time it can and often does
have side effects. We must work to minimize those as they
affect the other parts of the body. The trick is to make sure
that these side effects are not worse than the cure. So too,
with prescribed fire.
Fire's role on State and private lands in Florida has been
that of the sculptor, molding and shaping the system over many
thousands of years. As a result, many of the flora and fauna
have come to depend on periodic fire for their existence. If
this element is excluded, the result will be a system that is
far less diverse in both plants and animals. In addition to
this, many of the timber species that the forest industry
depends upon shall disappear and will not survive.
Many other forest and grassland ecosystems also evolved
with fire, including much of the southeastern pine forest, as
well as many coniferous forests in the western United States.
Recent research has also indicated a larger role for fire in
regenerating hardwood species, such as oak. Each type of forest
evolved with dif-
ferent types and intensities of fire, so prescriptions must be
carefully matched to forest type. In some instances, prescribed
fire would not be the preferred tool for management on many of
these stands.
Floridians place such a high importance on prescribed fire,
that in 1990, the legislature passed statute 590.026, the
Florida Prescribed Fire Act; you have copies in your packet.
The law provides civil liability protection for responsible
prescribed burners. You also have an article in your packet
from the Journal of Forestry, May 1992, that explains this act.
This means that as long as the burners adhere to the law and
associated administrative code, they cannot be found civilly
liable for the potential negative effects of their prescribed
burns, including smoke.
The South's fire heritage has allowed it to lead the Nation
in promoting and practicing the art of agricultural and
prescribed burning, and Florida leads the South, as well as the
Nation, in prescribed fire activities. In 1996, Florida burned
2.2 million acres, most of it under canopy, and issued over
118,000 permits to reach this objective.
We're also cognizant of the fact that we're graced with
both a favorable climate and topography to accomplish the
mammoth amount of prescribed burning that is necessary to keep
up with the rapid vegetative growth on our wildlands. In areas
where mountainous terrain tends to trap smoke from wildfires
for days, weeks, and months at a time, the amount of burning
done in Florida could not be accomplished there.
Coupled with this, the policy of fire exclusion over the
past 75 years has resulted in an enormous fuel accumulation
from downed timber, insect, and disease attack. The future of
fire in these areas seems to be almost an impossible task.
Because of this we have, curiously enough, tended to place the
responsibility back in the hands of fire to solve these
problems. Once the fuel loads get to the point where we can no
longer control the wildfires they start, the system is swept
with catastrophic fires that can leave the land scarred for
centuries.
In short, we have two choices in managing our wildlands:
exclude fire until the system is overloaded and disaster
strikes, or manage both wildfire and prescribed fire in a
balanced system. Floridians have chosen the latter solution. In
addition to the prescribed fire act of 1990, almost all of our
67 counties have passed resolutions or ordinances in support of
prescribed fire. In March of this year, Governor Chiles and the
Florida Cabinet named the week of March 11 Prescribed Fire
Awareness Week.
There are mechanical and chemical methods that can
duplicate some of the positive effects of prescribed fire.
Reduction of fuel load to reduce the potential negative effects
of catastrophic wildfires can be accomplished to some measure
by thinning the overstocked forests. This process is very
labor-intensive and in some instances can be very costly, and
there isn't a market, always, for the material which is to be
removed, in the way of poles and firewood. However, such
methods may be necessary where prescribed fire has not been
used as a regular management tool, and fuel loads are too high
to allow for immediate reduction by fire.
The negative side effect of prescribed fire is the impact
resulting from smoke. You are aware, as you've heard here
today, of EPA's plan to revise the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and the visibility standard. These changes to the
standard could have a significant impact on the use of
prescribed fire, depending how the EPA intends to treat the
contributions made by prescribed fire.
We believe the intent of the Federal Clean Air Act is to
prevent the deterioration of air quality from human causes.
Since fire is part of the natural system, as pointed out
earlier, and necessary for the survival of our wildlands, we
believe that the resulting smoke should be considered natural
and excluded from consideration if these is an exceedance of
the standard.
Prescribed burn practitioners are trained to reduce the
impacts of the smoke from prescribed burning to a minimum. This
will not eliminate the possibility of exceedance of the air
quality standards or the visibility standard, but we believe
the number of potential problems will be held to a very
minimum. The reason for this is simple. Prescribed
practitioners understand that the future of fire depends on the
good will of the general public and their responsible use of
this important tool.
It is important to note that in some of the areas of the
country, there is a limited public tolerance of smoke from
prescribed fires, and this has led to efforts to limit or end
the practice. Many of these decisions will be in the hands of
State air quality agencies, along with other State agencies.
NASF and its member State Foresters are working and will
continue to work with State and Federal air quality officials
to craft regulations that will allow this ecologically
important management tool to continue.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Earl Peterson may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson.
And we'd like to hear now from Mr. William Dennison, our
Plumas County Supervisor. Mr. Dennison.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DENNISON, PLUMAS COUNTY SUPERVISOR, BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, QUINCY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dennison. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and staff. I
appreciate your tenacity to stick with this today. I've
submitted a written statement for the record, if you would,
please.
My goal is to convey to you both support and concerns for
the utilization of prescribed burning on national forests and
national parks. Our support is based on the belief that
prescribed burning must be reintroduced into the national
forests if we're to attempt to restore their health. You've
heard a lot about that today.
The concern is that prescribed burning will be utilized in
northern California without first removing heavy fuels. The
photos which you showed earlier today speak to that concern
that we have. My written testimony contains statements about
the amounts of material that must be removed prior to
introducing fire, in our neck of the woods, at least.
Next, we find it difficult to believe that the new PM2.5
requirements under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
can be met if prescriptive burning is used on as many areas as
necessary to make a difference in our forest health,
particularly without emphasis on mechanical removal of fuels
prior to burning. We've had to curtail open burning in parts of
Plumas County to even meet the PM10 standard, and without
significant amounts of prescriptive fires to date.
If National Ambient Air Quality Standards are broken by
prescriptive fire, based on recent announcements by air
management districts and now the proposed EPA regional haze
requirements, there is good reason to believe that it will
businesses and individuals who will suffer financially when the
standards are violated. We have statements from our air
management district that use of wood stoves, in fact, in our
area, already are under jeopardy.
In addition Madam Chair, I have included testimony in my
written statement based on the July 30th Huffer fire on the
Lassen Volcanic National Park that sheds uncertainty on the
Department of Interior's ability to effectively control fires
through their current management of prescriptive, natural
fires. We've listed six pollution and financial issues about
the Huffer fire that should be addressed through a review of
that policy.
A recent quote that covers our point most succinctly was
made by Neil Sampson, president of Sampson Group, in a recent
magazine article in which he said, ``Fire introduction is
supported by a broad array of scientists, foresters, and
conservationists . . . but it's not as easy as it sounds, and
to simply propose lighting fires on most western forests is
irresponsible and destructive.''
We're concerned that there are some within departments and
agencies who will peddle the medicine without revealing the
costs. I'm talking about the real costs of the fire
prescriptions if they're administered in a way that will
maximize the goal of obtaining healthy forests that will give
the less prone wildfire effect, while assuring that air
pollution and escaped prescriptive fires do not impact our
citizens, as you suggested they might.
We are on the right track with the reintroduction of fire,
but let's recognize and resolve at least five conditions that
have been posed by the Quincy Library Group, which prevent the
immediate use of prescribed fire at large enough scale to
address the hazard areas, at least where I live.
First, the QLG says the current high fuel loads make it too
dangerous to use prescribed fire in any but the most favorable
conditions, and even then it takes only a small weather change
to put those out of limits. To be within acceptable limits, we
must first reduce fuel loads.
Second, they say the continually reduced availability of
expert fire managers makes it more difficult than ever to
manage prescribed fire safely and effectively.
Third, the historic rate of prescribed fire usage is about
10 percent of the treatment required, and that has been done on
the easiest terrain and the least hazardous fuel areas.
Fourth, major components of the current fuel load are
unnaturally thick stands of small fire ladder trees--that you
talked about--that carry ground fires up into the crowns and
kill the large trees that would otherwise be nearly fireproof.
The lower material, again, must be removed.
Fifth, the QLG says, significant increase in the use of
prescribed fire comes into direct conflict with the air quality
standards. In the long run, this conflict must be addressed in
a way that provides those benefits and processes that only fire
can supply.
Meanwhile, the Quincy Library Group has said that it will
take at least 10 decades--I'm sorry--at least a decade of
thinning and other fuel treatment by non-fire means to make it
feasible to employ prescribed fire at whatever level is found
to be necessary for sustainable, long-term health.
In summary, we share the urgency to reintroduce fire into
our forests. At the same time, there are problems with
prescribed fires in both national forests and national parks,
and conflicts with NAAQS. We respectfully submit that the
issues we've emphasized are not new, but they are important and
worthy of consideration before the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture launch into the prescriptive fire program in
northern California.
As noted by Congressman Peterson, the private sector needs
to be involved in this process as well. We also emphasize that
we do not wish this testimony to in any way cause a stumbling
block. We would rather have this as an open door to relate
problems, and in which we can work together toward a reasonable
use of prescriptive fires. And if I could answer any questions
later, I'd certainly be pleased to do so. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dennison may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Dennison.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Mutch.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MUTCH, MISSOULA, MONTANA
Mr. Mutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm very glad to have
the opportunity today to meet with this Committee, and
especially to talk about the critical importance of combining
silvicultural prescriptions, thinning, timber harvest, and fire
prescriptions to restore the health to the forested ecosystems
of the western United Sates.
I base my observations today on 38 years in the Forest
Service, 17 years at the fire laboratory just over the mountain
from Idaho in Missoula, and 21 years in operational fire
management.
A recent survey conducted by Forest Service research has
indicated that 5 million acres are burned annually in the
United States by Federal, State and private prescribed burners.
Three-and-a-half million of this 5 million acres, or over 70
percent, occur in Mr. Peterson's southeastern part of the
country.
When one considers the area managed by just the Federal
agencies, an annual nationwide prescribed fire program of just
5 million acres for all burners is woefully inadequate. This is
especially true in the West, where the prescribed fire programs
of Federal agencies have been extremely modest in the past.
Let's cut to the chase by referring to this first bar
graph. This graph depicting wildfire acreage burned in the 11
western States managed by Federal agencies between the years
1916 and 1996 should be of concern to everyone in this room,
and it should be of concern to the American taxpayer. Look at
this almost perfect U-shaped curve. For decades, Federal
agencies went before Congress and said, ``Give us more money
for bigger and better fire departments, and we will continue to
reduce the area burned by wildfires.''
That strategy worked very well for several decades until we
hit the point of diminishing returns in the middle of the
1980's, when widespread drought, insect epidemics, and our
natural fuel accumulations reached a critcal point. And we can
see an escalating problem in wildfires at the latter part of
this century equal to what was occurring during the early part
of the century, 1900 to 1919.
The next graph shows very clearly what a forest looks like
after being affected by what some have called the grand
ecological experiment, the attempted exclusion of fire from
fire-adapted ecosystems.
Here is the same camera point on the Bitteroot National
Forest between 1909 and 1989 and photographed periodically over
those many years. One can easily see, in that upper left-hand
photograph, the low intensity surface fires that would have
characterized that kind of open forest with one-foot flame
lengths, historically.
Compare that upper left-hand photo with the photo in the
lower right-hand corner, taken in l989, with dense understory
thickets of Douglas Fir, the ladder fuels that you have talked
about earlier, and are contributing to crown fires today with
flame lengths of over 100 feet.
If you had a home in the Bitteroot Valley, would you want
it in that site pictured in the upper left-hand corner or in
the lower right-hand corner? Or if you had a daughter or a son
fighting fires in the West, would you want them fighting fires
in the upper left-hand photograph, with open, grown, low-
intensity fire conditions, or would you want them fighting fire
in the photograph illustrating today's sorry state of affairs?
The next poster will show you current and projected
prescribed fire programs of the four Federal agencies. The
agencies know that an expanded burning program is necessary,
and we've heard that testimony today. And several are
projecting a doubling or tripling of their program by the year
2000 and an increase beyond the year 2000 that's already been
discussed.
But this increase in prescribed fire, Madam Chairman, will
not be easy, and a double standard impairs the ability of
agencies to increase prescribed burning easily. Perhaps we will
have some time later to examine this double standard in more
detail.
I would like to conclude with the last poster now, with six
lessons learned that can be applied in dealing with the
declining forest health issue in western forests.
First, most forest ecosystems' plants and animals are
adapted to recurring fire. The beautiful elk herds in the
Selway Bitteroot wilderness in Idaho are dependent in large
part in their diet on red stem ceanotheus. The germination of
red stem ceanotheus seeds is triggered by fire that cracks the
seed coat so that the seed can imbibe moisture and germinate.
Mechanical treatment will not do anything for those beautiful
elk herds in the Selway. They evolved with periodic fire.
No. 2, it is not a question, as we know, of if a fire will
occur. The question is only one of when and where. Fires will
occur, and there will be smoke.
No. 3, we can either pay now for a more balanced program of
fire prevention, fire suppression, and prescribed fire use, or
we can pay a dear price later, as we have been paying recently,
for escalated losses of people, property, and their natural
resources in uncontrollable wildfires.
Four, and most importantly, silvicultural prescriptions,
thinnings, harvest cutting, and prescribed fire must be
integrated on a much larger scale to restore the health of
fire-adapted ecosystems. This will require many strategies,
including removal, to accomplish this objective. Many stand
conditions, as we've heard today, are so highly flammable as a
result of fire exclusion that prescribed burning without prior
silvicultural treatment would be tantamount to igniting a
conflagration. We need both--mechanical treatment and
prescribed treatment.
Five, fortunately, silvicultural cutting treatments
designed to maintain healthy forests, often will pay the way
for followup hazard reduction treatment by burning.
And, finally, the buck needs to stop here. Risks for
expanded prescribed fire projects must be shared among all
stakeholders: agencies, the politicians, and the public.
That concludes my verbal testimony, and I thank you very
much, Madam Chairman, to present these issues to the Committee
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mutch may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Mutch.
The Chair now yields to Mr. Schaffer, from Colorado, to
introduce our next witness.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm pleased to
introduce Dr. Robert Pearson. Dr. Pearson is a scientist in the
area of western region air quality, and has been for the past
25 years. In fact, he served as an appointed member of the
public advisory commission to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission for 4 years. I'd like to mention that Dr.
Pearson received his Ph.D. in remote sensing of natural
resources from Colorado State University in Fort Collins,
Colorado, and Dr. Pearson, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. PEARSON, RADIAN INTERNATIONAL LLC,
DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. Pearson. Thank you, Congressman, and I might add that I
was doing my graduate work in the College of Forestry and
Natural Resources at CSU in Fort Collins. So, while I'm not a
forester, I do have a fair acquaintance with some of these
issues.
The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was set up
by Congress as a result of the 1990 amendments to the Clear Air
Act. The public advisory committee of that Commission was the
group that I was appointed to by Colorado Governor Romer. We
spent 4 years reviewing the science that had been collected on
the subject of regional haze in the West, including new
visibility data gathered specifically for the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission.
The public advisory committee then formulated policy
recommendations for the Commission to consider. You may recall
the Commission was made up of the Governors of eight western
States, plus tribal leaders of several Indian tribes.
Throughout the conduct of this scientific study for the
Commission, every interest group was represented, including
environmental groups, the Federal land managers of the Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park
Service.
On June 10, 1996, the Commission published its findings in
its report, entitled ``Recommendations for Improving Western
Vistas.'' This report discusses in detail the scientific study
that was done and the recommended control strategies for all of
the categories of sources of air pollution located throughout
the West. One area of much study and discussion by the
Commission was the subject of today's hearing, the impact of
regional haze on class I areas from the use of fire in forest
management, commonly called prescribed burning.
I'm here today to relate some of the information we learned
as we struggled to craft a workable regional haze improvement
plan for the West, as required by the Clean Air Act. Forest
fires, either intentionally set or accidental, release
quantities of fine particles made of carbon and other elements
in the smoke. These fine particles cause several impacts on air
quality.
First, the concentration of fine particles in forest fire
smoke may cause the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, recently adopted by EPA, to be violated near the
fire. In addition, the fine soot particles in the smoke will
affect visibility by both scattering and absorbing light. At
times, smoke containing fine particles travels hundreds of
miles and across several States.
I can vividly remember seeing the effects in Denver of
several California wildfires, and also the 1988 wildfires in
Yellowstone. These effects were much reduced visibility and a
smoke smell in the air.
During the Commission's study of western regional
visibility, we also saw photographs taken at Hopi Point at the
Grand Canyon when a small wildfire on the South Rim of the
canyon was brought under control and extinguished. Even such a
small fire, which lasted only a few hours, filled the canyon
with smoke. The point is that even a small fire in or near a
class I area can cause dramatic effects on visibility and the
concentration of fine particles in the air, similar to the
effects seen at long distances from large fires.
The Federal land managers, the Forest Service, and the
National Park Service, in particular, told the Commission that
they intend to dramatically increase the number and extent of
prescribed fires over the next several years to, quote, ``catch
up from many decades of fire suppression,'' close quote, by
reducing the amount of fuel available to burned by wildfires in
the Nation's forests.
The Commission analyzed the effects of this increased use
of fire as a forest management tool and concluded the effects
on regional visibility could easily wipe out the gains made by
all other sources categories combined, and that would include
point sources as well as mobile sources. They also include
power plants, copper smelters, cars, trucks, and area sources
such as fugitive dust.
Note in the Commission's report, they combined all fires,
both man-caused and wildfires, into a natural category for our
analysis, and that's shown by slide 3, attached to my written
testimony. Such natural causes contribute almost half of the
visibility impairment in the West.
To some extent, then, the Commission report is biased by
considering smoke from intentional man-caused fires as, quote
``natural,'' close quote. This also, in effect, exempts the
smoke from prescribed burns from being considered against your
goal in the Clean Air Act of remedying man-caused sources of
visibility impairment.
The point is that all of our hard-won incremental
improvements in regional visibility across the West could be
overwhelmed by the increased use of fire as a land management
tool by Federal land manager agencies, even though their
contribution is considered, quote, ``natural.''
One other point needs to be made in this regard. The EPA
has recently proposed a set of regulations to protect and
improve regional visibility in the U.S. One provision of
current law, as well as in the proposed rules, allows the
Federal land manager of a class I area to identify a source or
some group of sources, some distance away, which could be
impacting visibility in the class I area--and Madam Chairman,
you were getting at this point a little while ago.
The State in which the source is located would then be
required to evaluate the allegedly offending sources for the
retrofit of air pollution control technology. In effect, this
gives the Federal land manager land use control over lands
outside of the wilderness area, despite the fact that
wilderness legislation passed by Congress specifically
prohibits the establishment of buffer zones around wilderness
areas.
The Federal land managers have the authority to trigger
clean-up activities on all other sources, while at the same
time increasing their own air pollution activities through
increased prescribed burns. This apparent ``Do as I say, not as
I do'' philosophy of the Federal land managers suggests a
double standard for allowing Federal agencies to emit fire
smoke at will, but at the same time requiring others to spend
large sums of money to reduce their emissions even a small
amount.
While this may sound far-fetched, it has been going on for
some time in northwestern Colorado. The Forest Service manager
of the Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area accused the Hayden power
plant of polluting wilderness areas some 30 miles away. The
State of Colorado----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Pearson?
Mr. Pearson. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wonder if I could interrupt you.
Mr. Pearson. Sure.
Mrs. Chenoweth. We have to run for a vote--and this is very
interesting testimony. I am very sorry. We only have about 3
minutes left to scoot over there, but we look forward to your
continuing when we get back.
Mr. Pearson. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. There's just one vote. It's on a motion to
rise, meaning they want to go home.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. But we're obligated to make the vote, and
so we'll run right over and be right back.
Mr. Pearson. I understand; thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The hearing will come to order--my golly,
we're going to get down to business here. We'll resume with the
testimony of Dr. Pearson.
Mr. Pearson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me just
conclude with a couple of final comments.
The point I was making when you had to leave for the floor
vote was that Federal land managers can indeed influence land
use policy outside of their wilderness areas, and I was trying
to make the point in concert with the earlier maps that you
showed with the red circles around the class I areas, that
indeed that is the case right now in Colorado.
In the Yampa Valley in northwestern Colorado, there is the
Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area, and the Forest Service which
manages that area has accused the Hayden power plant at Hayden
of polluting the wilderness area some 30 miles away. The State
of Colorado Health Department, along with the Forest Service
and the Colorado utilities conducted a $3 million scientific
study to determine the sources of visibility impairment in the
wilderness. The recently released results of that study show
that the Hayden Power Plant was only a minor contributor to
visibility impairment in the wilderness.
Despite this evidence, however, the source owners have
committed to spending over $100 million to reduce the emissions
from that plant. All the while, the Forest Service can go ahead
and conduct prescribed burns or allow wildfires to burn at will
to reduce forest fuel levels in and near the wilderness area.
The other Federal land managers can do the same in other areas.
There's also an irony here that we need to keep in mind,
and that is that there's a great concern now about global
warming, and fires release carbon as carbon dioxide. It is to
be noted that if you burn the forest, you're putting the carbon
that is locked up in those trees back into the atmosphere, thus
possibly exacerbating the global warming issue. And also, by
removing some of this material from the forest, you're reducing
the forest's ability to lock up carbon that they would be
putting into wood over the next several years.
While I'm extremely concerned that prescribed burns will
hamper and even possibly prevent our attainment of the goal
that you set for us in remedying man-caused effects of
visibility impairment in the West, we recognize that forest
fires can and will occur. Therefore, the Federal land managers
must take this into account and work out other options for
reducing timber in the forest, while still helping us achieve
the class I visibility requirements set out in the Clean Air
Act.
And with that I will say thank you, and answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Pearson, and the Chair
recognizes Mr. Schaffer for questions.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you.
Dr. Pearson, my first question deals with the second issue
that you touch on, which is the ability of land managers of
various sorts, with respect to the Forest Service, in
particular, to have some impact on the operations of various
human activities in other jurisdictions. You mentioned the
Mount Zirkel incident, which I'm familiar with. To what extent
does occur throughout the rest of the country?
Mr. Pearson. Well, I'm most familiar with Mount Zirkel, but
I'm sure that it has happened elsewhere. Let me say that the
Federal land managers' authority in this regard is written into
the Clean Air Act as an advisor capacity, but the most recently
proposed EPA rules on regional haze make it an out-and-out
right, if you will, of the Federal land managers. So, again,
I'm most familiar with Mount Zirkel, but I'm sure it can and
has happened elsewhere, and will probably happen more with
these new authorities.
Mr. Schaffer. I want to go back to the questions that I
asked of Carol Browner at the EPA with respect to the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. She said, when I asked,
that the findings of that report were somehow built into the
new air quality standards, and with the contemplation of a 400
percent increase in prescribed burning, as one who served on
that Commission, I'd like to get your perspective on whether
the findings of the Commission were acknowledged by the EPA.
Mr. Pearson. Well, they acknowledge that such a study took
place, but they do not in any way, in any major way, anyway,
incorporate the findings of the Commission into their proposed
regional haze rules. And, in fact, I testified in Denver a week
ago before EPA on this very rule and made that comment, that
they ignored the Commission's findings across the board when
they drafted these rules.
So, I don't know how Carol Browner can say that the
Commission's findings are incorporated in the rule, because
they simply are not.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you think it's appropriate that those
secondary standards for visibility should be as stringent as
the primary standards that are intended to protect human
health?
Mr. Pearson. Oh, not at all. And, in fact, when the Clean
Air Act was first passed by Congress many years ago, the
primary standards of the health standards were given much more
significance because they are based on protecting human health,
whereas secondary standards, those protecting human welfare,
must have a lot more flexibility and ability of parties to meet
them in an economical and feasible way. So, no, they're not
intended to be at all equivalent, and I agree with that.
Mr. Schaffer. I'd like you to discuss, if you would,
Secretary Babbitt's assessment that the costs of prescribed
fire versus the costs of mechanical removal--let me find this.
He said that prescribed fire is by far the least expensive
method of treating hazardous fuels. He said that the average
national costs run about $20 to $30 per acre for fire, while
mechanical fuel reduction or multiple treatments can cost $500
to $1,500 per acre.
Can you comment on that from your scientific perspective
and background?
Mr. Pearson. Well, I don't really have any background in
the cost of burning a forest versus going in and doing
mechanical removal. Let me just say that if one chooses to burn
the forest and pollutes the environment as a result, then
someone else, presumably private industry, has to then reduce
their emissions at a huge cost to make up for this added smoke
from the forest. So I think one needs to look at those costs as
well.
Mr. Schaffer. And one last question, just from an air
quality standpoint. Are the EPA's new standards and proposed
rules reasonable?
Mr. Pearson. It depends on who you ask. I think in some
regards they are and in other regards they are not, in my
personal opinion, and----
Mr. Schaffer. That's what I'm after.
Mr. Pearson. [continuing] we could get into a discussion as
to which is which.
Mr. Schaffer. From your perspective.
Mr. Pearson. Well, in terms of the PM2.5 standards, I think
they're probably needed to protect human health but not at the
levels set by EPA, they are too stringent. In terms of regional
visibility, that is a goal that Congress set to improve
regional haze, primarily in the West. And while that is a nice
thing to do and we all strive to do that, and we're working
very hard in that regard, let's do it in balance with other
objectives--economic objectives, removing fuel from the forest,
and so forth.
So we need a balanced program, and that is indeed why the
Commission, the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
was set up by the Congress to look at these various aspects and
weigh them into a balanced program, which we did. EPA now
chooses to ignore our recommendations.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer. That's very
interesting.
And I'd like to ask Mr. Dennison, do you agree with
Secretary Babbitt's assessment of the cost of prescribed fire
versus the cost of mechanical treatment in the forest?
Mr. Dennison. Thank you for asking that. I do have some
background in that, having done some of that sort of removal
after I retired. I don't know where those figures might have
come from. The $20 to $30 per acre had to have been on a
national average, and I think he mentioned a national average.
That would include, then, a lot of acres where you didn't
really have to do very much; you torched it and you let it
burn, across grasslands and areas like Florida, possibly, but
certainly not in California. So, I don't know where they could
do that in California for that.
On the other end they noted, I believe, that it was $500 to
$1,500 an acre for mechanical removal. I know that in
California, under service contracts that the Forest Service
have had, they've had as high as $275 per acre. Currently,
those service contracts--and by service contracts I'm talking
about the removing of the biomass without any other material,
just trying to get that fire load down--those service
contracts, the last I checked, were around $100 to $125 per
acre, so, not near that figure.
In addition, though, Madam Chair, I think it's important to
note that if we have contracts that are strictly contracts to
do the end product job, what we call merchantable product
sales, where you remove the small trees and you remove the
biomass together, those are net income to the Federal
Government. And so that gives them some extra money, then, to
use on prescribed burns if they wish to later on. So I would
question those figures, at least based on where I'm from.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Dennison. I just introduced
a bill to that effect, the Stewardship Contract----
Mr. Dennison. That is very much needed. I'm aware of that.
We tried it once about 20 years ago, and we couldn't get enough
cooperation from anybody, but I look forward to that being in
effect.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Good, good.
Mr. Peterson, I want to ask you, could you--what do you see
as the biggest threat to the continued use of prescribed fire
down there in Florida, or any place?
Mr. Earl Peterson. Madam Chairman, we have a unique
situation in Florida, as I mentioned. I think the biggest
threat would be, of course, the concern for public health and
the public perception of people who are not familiar with the
history of prescribed fire, who might have moved into the area
from outside of the area; so, I think those would be the
biggest threats.
Prescribed fire, or controlled fire, as it used to be
called, has a long history in Florida, generally accepted as a
part of the landscape, as a part of the strategies there. But
these two issues will impact its future.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see. Could you tell me why your office
and the State in general felt it was necessary to develop and
pass the Prescribed Fire Act in Florida?
Mr. Earl Peterson. Yes. It was thought necessary because,
No. 1, prescribed fire is very central, as I said earlier, to
Florida--both to the ecology, the ecosystem. Many of our
species are not only fire tolerant, they're fire dependent.
And then, of course, with the massive amount of people
coming in who are not familiar with all of that, it was just
thought it needed to be done because prescribed fire needs to
go forward as a part of the management tool in Florida, and we
needed to protect its proper use from civil liability, if done
properly.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Dennison, you noted there are data which show the
amounts of fuel which should be removed prior to the use of
prescribed fire. Could you give us an example of that?
Mr. Dennison. Yes, as a matter of fact, one of the people
who provided data--and it was also in Mr. Babbitt's testimony,
his written testimony, at least--researcher Wallace Covington.
He referred to that particular person, who does studies at
North Arizona University, conducting studies there in order to
determine means of restoring ponderosa pine forests through
prescriptive fires. He reported in a recent study that in order
to put a forest stand of trees back into a normality where they
could use prescriptive fires, that he removed 5,500 board feet
per acre, and as much as 5,800 tons per acre of unmerchantable
slash and duff.
That unmerchantable slash and duff is something that in
California we utilize for chips and co-generation in developing
energy. So, those are the types of materials that we think
ought to be removed. Now those are in certain stands. They
wouldn't be the same volume everywhere, but that was an
example.
In addition, in northern California, there's Wheelabrator
Shasta Energy Company, who does have co-generation plants who
do utilize those unmerchantable materials and do convert it to
electricity. Their forester, Steve Jolly, has done studies and
finds that they remove about 30 to 35 tons per acre prior to
prescriptive burning. Putting that into something maybe we can
grasp a little bit better, the large vans that the chips are
in, that's about--oh, probably one to one-and-a-half truckloads
per acre of material, a lot of material that has to be removed.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How big is that co-generation facility down
there in Shasta Power?
Mr. Dennison. I think it's a 5-megawatt, and we have five
of them in California and are ready to utilize some of those
materials if we have them available to us. In addition, we have
ethanol plants that now are looking to come into our area, as
well, that can utilize some of this same material that can be
removed prior to prescriptive burning.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The pine needles and that type of thing?
Mr. Dennison. Well, that gets in there inadvertently. They
can take anything. Of course, what they do is they chip the
material in the woods, blow it into a van, haul it in, then,
into the facility, and then burn it at that plant.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wanted to ask Mr. Mutch, can the agencies
significantly expand prescribed fire programs and still
safeguard air quality, in your opinion?
Mr. Mutch. It seems like a conflicting dilemma, the choice
of the words you used, but my answer to that question based on
reality is, yes, we can. And I base that on quite a few
different examples of research that are going on around the
West today.
For example, the Westar Group, which is a combination of 14
directors of the western States' air quality bureaus, are on
record as saying that a large increase in prescribed fire can
mitigate against future wildfire smoke. The same thing applies
as my point three on the board here: pay now in a more balanced
program, or pay a dear price later in wildfire smoke emissions.
For example, the wildfire called the Silver Fire in
southwest Oregon in 1987, burned over a period of 58 days.
Research has shown that it released 53 million pounds of
respirable particulate--in other words, particulate matter less
than 10 microns--into the atmosphere over a 58-day period.
The wildfire smoke, in my view, is the bad smoke. That
doesn't mean that prescribed fire smoke is good smoke, but it
is better smoke because we can time the period in which it is
emitted; we can burn under certain wind directions and speeds
to avoid smoke-sensitive areas. We operate under smoke
management plans in our burning programs, and all of this
prescribed burning, as you know, is done in concert with smoke
management plans in the States to apply best-available control
measures to minimize the amount of smoke and emissions into the
air from prescribed burning.
Another study I will cite, Madam Chairman, is some work
that's ongoing in Oregon between the Forest Service, the Oregon
Department of Forestry, and DEQ in Oregon, that's showing, with
data, that probably a great increase in prescribed fire over a
period of years will ultimately reduce the total emissions from
wildfires and prescribed fires in the future.
When you look at what's happening in the Blue Mountains of
eastern Oregon and the Boise National Forest, we're seeing one
wildland smoke episode after another from wildfires covering
multi-State areas under conditions that are totally random and
beyond our control.
Let me just conclude by saying I might take a different
stance than what we heard from the EPA today under this premise
that the wildfire smoke is the bad smoke. We might say that
wildfire smoke should not fall under a natural events
exemption, which we heard about. The wildfire smoke is not
stringently regulated like prescribed fire smoke.
I would say that Federal agencies should be penalized for
the wildfire smoke they put into the atmosphere, because that's
the bad smoke, and there should be some leniency addressed to
the prescribed fire question so that we can ultimately reduce
total emissions by a more rounded program of prescribed fire.
Mrs. Chenoweth. That's very interesting. Is there a logical
way that one can tell whether a fire is caused by man or by an
act of nature in time to impact other air emittents? I mean,
sometimes, doesn't it take days and weeks to determine how a
fire started, whether it was caused by man?
Mr. Mutch. Take days and weeks in terms of fire cause?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Mutch. We know pretty well from fire reporting where
the fire starts and what's gone on in that area in terms of
human activity and lightning storms. We know very carefully--
you know, 95 percent or better, probably--whether fire is
caused by lightning or by people.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting, gentlemen. Your testimony
has been very instructive, and I thank you so much for your
patience today. We are putting together a very, very important
and interesting record, and I thank you for your personal
contribution, the contributions of your associations and
companies that they have made by having you be willing to come
to Washington and participate in this hearing.
Mr. Schaffer, do you have anything you would like to add?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes. You know, it's interesting. I don't
represent Idaho, but I had a chance to fly over the Boise
National Forest with the Forest Health Subcommittee, and it was
remarkable how often some of the wildfires there stopped in
this remarkable straight line. And it was not as a result of
previous burning as much as it was a result of sound forest
management and thinning, and so on.
So this concept you mention of good smoke versus bad
smoke--you know, it's abundantly clear to me that in many areas
of the country it's possible to prevent forest fires with no
smoke by just applying the sound practices that forestry has
taught us, and realizing that the taxpayers throughout the
country have billions of dollars worth of resources that can be
utilized and harvested in a responsible way to maintain the
integrity of the environment and improve critical habitats and
prevent erosion in many cases, as we saw in the Boise National
Forest, and so on.
I understand the necessity of controlled burns in some
cases, but this notion that we hear today from some that
controlled burning is always preferable to sound forest
practices is a silly notion, I think, and, unfortunately, one
that has seeped into the Department of the Interior and
Department of Agriculture and is being excused in many ways by
the EPA in a way to make the administration look more
responsible on paper than they actually are in reality.
That's my comment. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Mutch. May I respond to that, briefly?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Mutch. I would certainly say that you're exactly right,
and I began my testimony by saying that the combination of
mechanical, pre-commercial thinning, harvests, and all of those
other tools must be done in concert with prescribed fire when
necessary.
And I also would have to add to your comments that many of
the vistas and landscapes that the public of this fine country
enjoy are based on an evolution of plants and animals with
periodic fire, and many of the functions of ecosystems are very
carefully associated with the periodic occurrence of fire in
these ecosystems, whether it's the germination of plants or the
control of brown spot disease in longleaf pine, fire, for
evolutionary periods of time, has interacted with these plants
and animals.
So, you're exactly right. It's a program that's needed of
balance and thought and judgment and wisdom. And we need
mechanical thinning; we need harvests; we need the use of that
material for economic benefit to the people of this country, at
the same time that we afford those people some of the vistas
that they enjoy in our wildlands that are there partly because
of fire, not because we kept fire out.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much and--yes, Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Earl Peterson. Madam Chairman, I would be remiss if I
didn't say that I hope as we proceed through this process,
which is very important because of all of the issues we heard
here today, that we're not talking about just Federal land
management issues. There's an enormous private sector out there
who has some of the same concerns, some of the same needs.
There are other public land management agencies that are
State and local who have these issues, and then everything from
the fuels to the history to the strategies are different, so a
one-size-fits-all, or a Federal blanket, shall we say, should
not be one that we take for granted here. There are a lot of
variables in this mix.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I agree with you, and I thank you for that
contribution.
I also want to say that the visionaries in this country,
people like the individuals who built co-generation facilities
when PURPA first came into being--the vision of being able to
use the fuel load is a very good one and especially in this day
when we're facing deregulation and throwing the production of
energy out onto the free mar-
ket system, which I like, so long as we have an even start. I
think those visionaries have got to be commended.
And it's my personal concern to see to it that those co-
generation facilities always have the fuel available to them,
and I just wish we had more of those facilities, because they
can produce power from a renewable resource that helps clean up
our forests and gives us the ability to have the right kind of
prescribed fire conditions. So my hat is off to them.
I appreciate all of your testimony. As I said, it's very
instructive. I have more questions for you, but I have been
instructed that--your bacon is saved at this minute, because
not only do we have a vote, but this room needs to be used by
other people.
And so, we will be submitting our additional questions in
writing. The record will remain open for 3 weeks, and if there
are no other questions or comments this hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Mutch. Thank you for inviting me.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject
to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. Dan Glickman, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to appear today before this Committee to
discuss the Administration's fire management policy with
Secretary Babbitt and Administrator Browner. I want to
highlight three issues in my testimony today and submit with
Secretary Babbitt and Administrator Browner some further
technical background for the record. First, I want to talk
about how our resource conditions have changed because of past
fire suppression policies. Then I want to discuss how we have
changed our policies to address emerging problems, including
the Forest Service's Fire 21 Agenda. And finally, I want to
highlight some accomplishments of the Department of Agriculture
in meeting changing demands.
The Federal Government has a long-standing tradition and
record of fire management. 100 years ago, the creation of our
National Forests was inspired by the need to protect forest
resources from slash and burn logging that was decimating
productive lands and threatening rural communities in the upper
Midwest and far west. In 1911, after the Forest Service had
begun serious fire suppression on Federal lands, the Weeks Act
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to work cooperatively
with the States to fight fires across ownerships. Today the
Forest Service, in partnership with several Federal agencies,
operates the most advanced, innovative, and effective fire
fighting organization in the world.
Changing resource conditions
For 50 years we have had the technology to fight fires with
incredible effectiveness. Our national policy, championed by
Smokey Bear in one of our most successful public education
programs, was to quickly and effectively put out fires. It is
ironic, but we are now paying the price for our success.
Fire is a natural part of any terrestrial ecosystem in the
country. In some areas such as southern California, wildfire
came through on an average of every 10 years. In the ponderosa
pine forests of the intermountain west, fires burned in 30 year
cycles. In the east and the Pacific Northwest, some forests
burned once in 100 years. In every case, fire was a regular
part of the ecological process. While we have known that fire
was a natural occurrence in wildlands, we recently began to
understand that it is necessary.
Today, the legacy of seven decades of fire suppression is a
changed landscape. Forests where young seedlings were regularly
thinned out by periodic fire are now thick with small diameter
trees that outstrip the sites' moisture supplies and soil
nutrients. These dog-hair thickets are especially subject to
drought, disease. and ultimately intense wildfires that wipe
out nearly the entire stand. Other forests where fire resistant
trees used to be the dominant species are not crowded and
sometimes replaced by trees not native to the area. The result
is changed habitat undesirable species mixes, and increased
susceptibility to fire. Even rangelands show the evidence of
fire suppression with exotic plants, over abundance of
sagebrush, and the encroachment of shrubs and unpalatable
plants. In all cases there is simply an incredible accumulation
of fuel in the form of needles and organic material on the
forest floor, woody shrubs, overstocked stands of small
diameter trees, and deadfall trees lying on the ground that
exceed the levels necessary for soil formation native habitat,
and forage.
These conditions have led to a serious change in wildland
fire activity. Since the 1920's wildfire has typically claimed
400,000 to 500,000 acres of national forests each year. From
1920 to 1987--a period of nearly 70 years--fire never burned
more than one million acres per year. However, in the past 10
years, we have had four years during which more than one
million acres have burned.
These unnatural, fire-prone, forest conditions exist on 39
million acres (20 percent) of our national forest system. This
fact, combined with the tragic loss of 34 skilled firefighters
in 1994, is why Secretary Babbitt and I have taken such an
aggressive role in changing fire policy in the Administration.
Contrary to some claims of critics, our changed policy is not,
I repeat, not to simply put a match to the forests. Our policy
changes involve mechanical forest treatment, budget structure
changes, new planning priorities, personnel training, new
research, carefully planned prescribed burns that continue to
include air quality considerations, and dozens of other
initiatives to meet this challenge.
To meet the changing needs for the 21st Century, the Forest
Service has integrated the concepts of the Federal Fire Policy
Review into a program we call Fire 21, which realigns and
emphasizes our priorities. The four commitments of the Fire 21
Agenda are: 1) Putting firefighter safety and public safety as
the highest goal; 2) Supporting the role of fire in restoring
and sustaining healthy ecosystems; 3) Supporting the
integration of fire management into land management planning;
and 4) Improving fire and aviation accountability within the
Forest Service.
One of the most important steps necessary to returning fire
to the landscape after 70 years of fire suppression includes
removing small diameter trees which can be tightly packed,
susceptible to fire, and serve as fuel ladders that allow low
intensity ground fires to burn up into the treetops. Old growth
trees that have survived dozens of fires over several centuries
are threatened by these intensely hot crown fires. At lease
half of the 39 million acres that are potentially subject to
damaging wildfire need some kind of mechanical fuels treatment
before fire is reintroduced. The Senate Interior Appropriations
Report for fiscal year 1998 includes $50 million for this type
of fuels management, an increase from $29 million in 1997.
Another important step is providing the resources to
implement prescribed burns in the very narrow windows of time
when weather, moisture levels, treatment objectives, air
quality, and other factors converge to allow a carefully
controlled burn across a discreet area. In 1996, the Forest
Service treated 532,000 acres. In 1997, we have burned nearly
one million acres. By 2005 we hope to treat 3.5 million acres
annually, so that by 2015 we will have addressed nearly all of
the 39 million acres that need fuel management and fire
reintroduction. The fiscal year 1998 Senate Interior
Appropriations Report moves hazardous fuels management funding
out of the fire preparedness function into a fire management
operations account to ensure that it is available to
supervisors who are managing fire through prescribed burns and
fuels treatment. This will increase our ability to restore
ecosystems with fire management techniques.
There is another changing condition which has nothing to do
with out past fire management policies, but has a very
significant impact on future fire policies--the growing
wildland/urban interface. As more people recognize the beauty
and value of public land, more people are locating homes in and
around it. Many of these people choose to live in wooded
environments with trees that grow right beside their houses.
This has become a very significant challenge for the Forest
Service; how to balance the risk of suppressing wildlife with
the risk of reintroducing and managing fire. We do not have all
the answers to these questions, but we are working very closely
with our partners, especially the state foresters, to develop
appropriate balance between federal responsibilities and
private responsibilities for total fire management across mixed
ownerships. We have developed an education program with local
firefighters using radio announcements and other venues to
teach homeowners the importance of managing fuels such as
shrubs and trees next to their homes.
Through Fire 21, the Forest Service is changing the
fundamental skills and training of federal fire fighters.
Instead of focusing exclusively on fire suppression, the new
fire management workforce will have training that allows them
to serve as a resource to forest supervisors who need to
reintroduce fire to the ecosystem. Comprehensive fire
management will include fuels evaluations, collaboration across
ownerships, land management planning, prescribed fire
implementation, and fire and vegetation monitoring. Our people
will be trained and equipped to fight fires as effectively as
ever, but their skills will reflect the changing demands of a
comprehensive fire management program.
We are also making progress in addressing one of the most
controversial aspects of an aggressive program of prescribed
burning--smoke management. Unlike some, we do not see air
quality standards as an obstacle to the use of prescribed fire.
Rather, these regulations recognize the importance of
protecting air quality in carrying out management activities.
We are working with the Environmental Protection Agency and
State air quality regulatory agencies to develop practical
policies to mitigate and manage visibility and health
impairment from smoke emissions. We are encouraged that other
governmental entities, such as the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission, recognize that air quality is affected by
smoke not only from prescribed fires but also from wildfires
and that a strong prescribed fire program can have much less
impact on air quality in the long run.
Through Fire 21, the Forest Service is also changing the
fundamental skills and training of federal firefighters.
Instead of focusing exclusively on fire suppression, the new
fire management workforce will have training that allows them
to serve as a resource to forest supervisors who need to
reintroduce fire to the ecosystem. A total fire management
program will include fuel evaluation and treatment,
collaboration across ownerships, land management planning,
prescribed fire implementation, and fire and vegetation
monitoring. Our people will be trained and equipped to fight
fires as effectively as ever but their skills will reflect the
changing demands of a comprehensive fire management program.
Accomplishments
Finally, let me explain a few of our accomplishments in the
overall fire management area.
The outstanding track record of fire suppression will
continue. The federal fire fighting agencies have consistently
suppressed 98 percent of all wildfires during initial attack.
The remaining 2 percent of the fires account for most of the
loss of life and total acreage burned. However, even as we
shift to broaden our management objective, we intend to
maintain our capability to stop most fires before they threaten
people or property.
Our cooperation with the states will also continue. Through
the USDA cooperative fire program, we have loaned state and
local governments more than $800 million dollars in surplus
federal property for use in fire suppression during our long-
standing partnership. With the support of Congress, USDA
provides approximately $17 million in cost-share grants to
strengthen the state programs and an additional $2 million,
through the states, to help train and equip volunteer
firefighters in rural towns across the United States.
The Forest Service is a world leader in fire behavior and
fire management research. We have extensive expertise and
research underway on the effects of fire on vegetation and
wildlife, smoke management, impacts of harvesting on fire
risks, and opportunities to create markets for small diameter
trees--especially in California and the Southwest. While there
is almost always a market for the mature large diameter trees,
we need to make sure there is a capacity, and hopefully market
demand, to facilitate the removal of smaller diameter trees. We
cannot afford to sell off traditional forest products and leave
behind trees that have traditionally been ``non-merchantable''
because this will not address our fire management needs and
will leave the forest in worse condition.
Finally, we have working and will continue to work with the
Environmental Protection Agency to address the complex
questions of airshed management in fire dependent ecosystems.
We are on a work group with the Department of Interior and
state land managers to develop recommendations for an EPA
policy on wildland fire emissions. The Forest Service is
committed to incorporating public health and environmental
quality considerations into its fire management plans. Air
quality criteria will continue to be incorporated in fire
prescription and smoke management plans. USDA's partnership
with EPA is a strong one--across many program areas--and we
look forward to its further growth.
Summary
I am very excited about the new directions in fire
management. We have recognize the trend of ecological changes
and dramatically changed direction. Our changes are keeping
firefighters safer, restoring the environment, enhancing
wildlife habitat, protecting streams and forests from intense
and damaging fires, and managing air quality. The Forest
Service and its federal partners continue to be leaders in
developing a total fire management strategy that protects both
people and the environment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4511.084