<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:50377.wais]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REGIONAL HAZE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-100
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-377 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
RICK HILL, Montana ---------- ----------
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado ---------- ----------
Bill Simmons, Staff Director
Anne Heissenbuttel, Legislative Staff
Jeff Petrich, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 16, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Schaffer, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement of................... 5
Statements of witnesses:
Joslin, Robert C., Deputy Chief, United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service................................ 63
Matlick, Don, Director, Smoke Management, Oregon State
Department of Forestry..................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
McDougle, Janice, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
accompanied by Denny Truesdale, Acting Director, Fire and
Aviation Management, U.S. Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture................................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Omi, Dr. Phil, Director, Western Forest Fire Research Center. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Pearson, Dr. Robert L., Project Manager, Radian International 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Seitz, John, Director of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency............................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Walcher, Greg, President, CLUB 20............................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Additional material supplied:
Committee Briefing Paper, Regional Haze...................... 67
Finneran, Brian R., ``Oregon PSD Strategy to Address Forest
Health Prescribed Burning,'' U.S. Dept. of Agriculture..... 73
Land Management Considerations in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems.... 82
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REGIONAL HAZE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen
Chenoweth [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
regional haze and national forest management. Under rule 4(g)
of the Committee rules, any oral or opening statements of
hearings are limited to the chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner and
helps members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other
members have statements, we will admit them into the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. Today the Forest and Forest Health
Subcommittee convenes for an oversight hearing on the
interrelationship of the forest services fire and vegetation
management policies and the EPA's proposed regional haze rule.
This is a very timely and important issue, and I want to thank
my colleague, Representative Bob Schaffer from Colorado, for
requesting this hearing. And I do want to say Mr. Schaffer will
be joining me later at the hearing. We are moving into
appropriations bills and it is a time in this body when you
can't always depend on being able to keep to your schedules. So
I know that Mr. Schaffer will be here just as soon as he can.
Last September the Resources Committee examined the impacts
of the Environmental Protection Agency's national ambient air
quality standards for particulate matter on the Forest
Service's use of fire as a management tool.
I, for one, was not convinced by Administrator Browner's
insistence that EPA's new standards would not have an impact on
the land management agencies' use of fire or that fire
emissions would not result in Clean Air Act violations when
fires burning on Federal lands produce smoke in quantities that
violated the EPA's requirements for particulate matter or haze.
In addition, although EPA has made the same assertion with
regard to the proposed regional haze rule, I found no mention
in the proposed rule that smoke from fires will be treated
differently from any other sources of particulate matter
emissions. This may put an undue burden on our industries and
on our farmers.
The proposed rule for regional haze addresses our quality
conditions on both the worst and the best days. For many class
I areas, particularly remote wilderness lands, smoke from wild
fires and prescribed fires burning on Federal lands is likely
to be the single greatest contributor to poor visibility.
Unless the EPA can account for all fires on Federal lands,
and distinguish their effects from all other combustion
sources, there is no assertion that States will not be held
accountable for smoke emissions from those fires. Instead, they
will be forced to overregulate non-Federal sources to make up
for unaccounted emissions from Federal fires.
The EPA has admitted that at this time the agencies do not
have sufficient data to accurately determine when forest fires
are the source of the haze. This fact alone should be ample
cause to delay promulgation of a final rule.
Finally, I believe the agencies do know how to effectively
manage wildland fires to minimize the amount and effects of
smoke. However, the Forest Service's current prescribed burning
policies, which do not adequately consider the use of
mechanical methods to reduce fuels, and the agency's reluctance
to salvage dead and dying timber to improve forest health, lead
me to conclude that they are unwilling to take those necessary
steps.
The ultimate goal should be to manage our forests
effectively and to manage as much as possible the amount of
smoke produced--and the resources lost--when fires do occur. I
look forward to hearing today from our witnesses how we can
best accomplish this goal.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Cogress from the
State of Idaho
Today the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
convenes for an oversight hearing on the interrelationship of
the Forest Service's fire and vegetation management policies
and the EPA's proposed regional haze rule. This is a very
timely and important issue, and I thank my colleague, Mr.
Schaffer from Colorado, for requesting this hearing.
Last September, the Resources Committee examined the
impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's national
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter on the
Forest Service's use of fire as a management tool. I, for one,
was not convinced by Administrator Browner's insistence that
EPA's new standards would not have an impact on the land
management agencies' use of fire, or that fire emissions would
not result in Clean Air Act violations when fires burning on
Federal lands produced smoke in quantities that violated the
EPA's requirements for particulate matter or haze. In addition,
although EPA has made the same assertion with regard to the
proposed regional haze rule, I have found no mention in the
proposed rule that smoke from fires will be treated differently
from any other sources of particulate matter emissions.
The proposed rule for regional haze addresses air quality
conditions on both the worst and the best days. For many Class
I areas--particularly remote wilderness lands--smoke from
wildfires and prescribed fires burning on Federal lands is
likely to be the single greatest contributor to poor
visibility. Unless and until EPA can demonstrate that it can
account for all fires on Federal lands--and distinguish their
effects from all other combustion sources--there is no
assurance that states will not be held accountable for smoke
emissions from those fires. Instead, they will be forced to
over-regulate non-Federal sources to make up for unaccounted
emissions from Federal fires. EPA has admitted that at this
time the agencies do not have sufficient data to accurately
determine when forest fires are the source of the haze. This
fact alone should be ample cause to delay promulgation of a
final rule.
Finally, I believe the agencies do know how to effectively
manage wildland fires to minimize the amount and effects of
smoke. However, the Forest Service's current prescribed burning
policies, which do not adequately consider the use of
mechanical methods to reduce fuels, and the agency's reluctance
to salvage dead and dying timber to improve forest health, lead
me to conclude they are unwilling to take the necessary steps.
The ultimate goal should be to manage our forests
effectively and to minimize, as much as possible, the amount of
smoke produced--and the resources lost--when fires do occur. I
look forward to hearing today from our witnesses how we can
best accomplish this goal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. When the Ranking Minority Member arrives, I
will recognize him for any statements that he may have.
And now I look forward to introducing our first panel of
witnesses: Dr. Robert Pearson, project manager of Radian
International; Dr. Phil Omi, director, Western Forest Fire
Research Center; Don Matlick, director, Smoke Management,
Oregon State Department of Forestry, and Greg Walcher,
president of Club 20.
As I explained in our first hearing, it is the intention of
the chairman to place all outside witnesses under oath. 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 believe all of the witnesses were informed of this
before appearing here today. They have each been provided a
copy of the Committee rules.
And now if the witnesses will please come forward and stand
and raise your right hand, I will administer the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me remind the witnesses that, under our
Committee rules, you need to limit your testimony to 5 minutes
for your oral statement. But your entire statement will appear
in the record. We will also allow the entire panel to testify
before I start questioning you. The chairman now recognizes Dr.
Robert Pearson.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT L. PEARSON, PROJECT MANAGER, RADIAN
INTERNATIONAL
Dr. Pearson. Thank you Madam Chairman. Again, my name is
Dr. Robert Pearson. I'm an air quality scientist with Radian
International in Denver and we are an environmental consulting
firm working around the world. And I also hold a post of
adjunct professor teaching air pollution classes in the
graduate school of the University of Colorado at Denver.
I am appearing before you today to discuss the air quality
impacts of the practice of using prescribed burns to reduce
vegetation in our Nation's forests. And Madam Chair, it is
again a pleasure to appear before you, as I did before the full
Committee last September. So thank you again for inviting me.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Dr. Pearson. First, a short bit of history. I was appointed
by Governor Romer of Colorado to the Public Advisory Committee
of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission which is,
as you know, established by Congress pursuant to section 169(b)
of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The commission
spent 4 years and more than $8 million reviewing the science of
western regional haze and the causes thereof.
On June 10, 1996, the commission issued a report,
``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas.'' It detailed a
consen-
sus program for improving regional haze in the West. Now we
have the EPA proposing a set of regulations last July that
allegedly tried to achieve the same goal, but, unfortunately,
they have ignored the report prepared by the commission in
writing their rules, and I'll get to that in a moment.
They also ignored a study that was done about 3 years ago
by the Academy of Sciences looking at western regional haze and
some of the remedies thereof. So we have now an agency, EPA,
looking at controlling regional haze by focusing their control
efforts on a very small number of sources, that being
stationary sources, and essentially ignoring, for control
purposes, mobile sources, and in the case of the hearing today,
land management practices of the Federal land managers. And
that's the purpose of my concern and comment this morning.
The commission in their report detailed several
recommendations with regard to area sources, sources of
fugitive dust, prescribed fire, mobile sources, and emissions
crossing the border from Mexico. Again, the EPA rules don't
contain any mention of any of these concepts and instead focus
their entire weight on stationary source control and giving
more authority to land managers to regulate sources outside of
Class I areas.
It is apparent to me as an air quality scientist that EPA
has chosen to take a narrow perspective of improving western
regional visibility. This is in stark contrast to the
commission and it is also in stark contrast to the way Congress
handled the passage of the 1990 amendments. As you may recall,
Madam Chair, the House Bill, section 707, contained several
provisions which were removed in the final bill that was
adopted by both the House and the Senate and became the 1990
Amendments to Clean Air Act. And instead, section 169(b) was
inserted in its place.
EPA is following provisions of the stricken House language
instead of the final House bill. And we think that you should
remind them that the Act of Congress does not contain all of
the programs that they are choosing to put into their proposed
rules.
We now have the Federal land managers who by all respects
are looking at a vastly increased program of prescribed fire to
control the buildup of wood and other biomass in the forests.
Secretary Glickman and Secretary Babbitt both testified before
the full Committee last September that the Federal land
managers are going to drastically increase the use of
prescribed burns in the forests. And Secretary Glickman also
testified that on half of the lands managed by the Forest
Service, they are going to have to do mechanical treatment
before they can do the prescribed burns.
The point that I think is being missed here is that fire
should be the last resort for removing material from the
forests, not the first resort. And yet when we talk to the
Federal land managers, that's their full intent, to use fire
and fire only. The problem with fires, of course, is you get a
lot of smoke from it, and we're concerned in the West that that
smoke, as reported by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission is probably the single largest source of regional
haze in the West. And if the prescribed fire burns are done in
the way that the Federal land managers intend, they will
completely overwhelm all other control efforts on stationary
sources, mobile sources, and everything else. So all our good
work is going to be wiped out by the Federal land managers and
their prescribed burning plans.
We now have EPA taking part in the process, by
Administrator Browner of the EPA saying before the full
Commmittee last fall that the EPA intends to exempt ambient air
quality measurements for fine particles on those days when
fires are taking place. So it's not only the Federal land
managers; we have EPA saying that we have an absurd outcome of
EPA insisting that fine particle pollution be cleaned up on
only the cleanest days, but on the worst days when we have the
fires, EPA will exempt the rules.
This leads me to my final statement, and that is that the
regional haze rules could trigger even more stringent controls
on stationary sources to make up for the impact of the Federal
land mangers' actions.
Madam Chairman, thank you very much and I am available to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pearson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. That was very interesting. Thank you, Dr.
Pearson.
The Chair welcomes and recognizes Mr. Schaffer, who has
arrived. And I wonder if Mr. Schaffer would like to introduce
the next witness, Dr. Omi. Or do you have a statement for the
record?
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I do, and in fact
I will submit--I am not sure who I have missed so far but
I'll--Dr. Pearson, OK.
First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
hold the hearing on the relationship to the EPA's proposed
regional haze rule and Federal land management practices. This
is an important issue that deserves further consideration by
the agencies and further input into how to implement programs
designed to improve air quality and visibility while managing
Federal lands for forest health and resources.
I'd like to introduce Dr. Omi, professor and director of
the Western Forest Fire Research Center, WESTFIRE, at Colorado
State University. Dr. Omi bring 28 years of experience studying
fires, five of which he worked as a seasonal firefighter. The
WESTFIRE center focuses on collaborative research to assist the
agencies with fire and fuels management. I appreciate Dr. Omi's
work and the center's important contributions to our
understanding of the role of fire and management on forested
lands.
Thank you for appearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaffer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Schaffer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado
Thank you Madame Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity
to hold this hearing into the relationship between EPA's
proposed regional haze rule and Federal land management
practices. This is an important issue that deserves further
consideration by the agencies and further input into how to
implement programs designed to improve air quality and
visibility while managing Federal lands for forest health and
resource production.
I am pleased to introduce three highly qualified witnesses
from my home state, and one from the Oregon Department of
Forestry that compose our first panel.
First Dr. Robert Pearson, an air quality scientist for
Radian International and adjunct professor of air pollution at
the University of Colorado, Denver will testify as to his
involvement with the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission. His long and distinguished background and
experience will surely be a benefit to us all and I thank him
for being here.
Dr. Philip Omi, professor and Director of the Western
Forest Fire Research Center (WESTFIRE) at Colorado State
University. Dr. Omi brings 28 years of experience studying
fires, five of which he worked as a seasonal firefighter. The
WESTFIRE center focuses on collaborative research to assist the
agencies with fire and fuels management. I appreciate Dr. Omi's
work and the center's important contributions to our
understanding of the role of fire and management on forested
lands. Thank you for appearing today.
Mr. Don Matlick is the Smoke Management Program Manager
Oregon Department of Forestry. He brings a unique perspective
to the table today. Oregon has successfully managed state
forests with a combination of methods while maintaining good
air quality standards. Thank you for traveling such a long
distance to testify today. I look forward to hearing about
Oregon's successes.
Last but certainly not least, Mr. Greg Walcher, President
and Executive Director of Colorado's Club 20. Mr. Walcher
brings the experience of a large consortium of individuals,
business leaders and elected officials from Colorado's Western
slope with him here to Washington. Club 20 held a seat on the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) advisory
committee. Mr. Walcher and his organization have followed this
national issue from a local and state perspective. I thank Mr.
Walcher for coming today and look forward to his valuable
insight.
I also would like to recognize our witnesses from the EPA
and the Forest Service. We appreciate your appearing before the
Subcommittee today and we appreciate your willingness to work
with staff to bring us up to speed on this difficult issue. I
welcome your comments, and hope that you will consider
seriously the issues brought up today.
Thank you Madame Chairman.
STATEMENT OF DR. PHIL OMI, DIRECTOR, WESTERN FOREST FIRE
RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. Omi. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer, and thank you, Madam
Chairman, for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. I am
going to dispense with much of the introductory material in my
statement and try to cover the high points, as we have been
instructed to summarize.
I'd like to focus on, first of all, tradeoffs between wild
and prescribed fires. In any given year wild fires may burn
anywhere between from 1 to 7 million acres of forest and range
lands. These fires may have the greatest impact on visibility
in all airsheds, but, as we have heard, concern today is with
Class I areas.
The economic impact of these fires can be substantial. In
the last 10 years we have had several $1 billion fire seasons.
Although the losses from the recent--or actually the ongoing--
1998 florida fires may not be known for some time, I have heard
cost and damage estimates ranging from $300 million to $.5
billion. The Oakland Hills fire in 1991 destroyed 3,000 homes,
killed 25 people, and produced over $2 billion in costs and
losses. Most of these expenditures are in a reactive mode, I
should add.
Of the elements comprising a fire's environment--that is
fuel, weather, and topography--only fuels can be managed
effectively to reduce the severity of the eventual wildfires.
The vast variety of fuel treatments fall into the following
broad categories: disposal onsite--for example, prescribed
burning, redistribution onsite, physical removal, vegetation
type conversion, and isolation. Prescribed fire is receiving
much attention because it mimics natural fires' processes, and
treatment costs are relatively low compared to other
alternatives. Previous studies in California have documented
that prescribed fires can produce comparable fuel hazard
reduction but at 1/10 the cost per acre as mechanical
treatments.
Ultimately, a combination of mechanical removal followed by
prescribed fire may be the optimal treatment sequence for many
areas, especially those located at safe distances from human
population centers. In such cases, the mechanical treatment
could be used to prepare the fuelbed for safe burn execution
while also providing potentially useful raw materials for wood
products. Unfortunately, in many areas throughout the rural
U.S., markets aren't well developed for the small diameter
trees and removable biomass that add to fire hazards when left
behind in the forest.
Further, I am finding through ongoing research for the USDA
Forest Service that there are important knowledge gaps
associated with efforts to reduce wildfire severity through
prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Thus, no single
treatment is a panacea that will work in all situations. There
are no silver bullets here. But each can play an important role
if carried out in concert with a systematic and integrative
planning process.
Other potential solutions look beyond the technology of
fuel hazard reduction. Promising examples include conversion of
forest biomass to ethanol, creation of defensible space around
homesites and subdivisions, and citizen slash-mulching
programs. With adequate incentives, community partnerships can
be formed with industry and government to help develop
sustainable forestry initiatives that reduce fuel hazards while
reviving the forest products sectors in places where it's
declining.
Another possibility involves forestry stewardship projects
that promote fire-safe environments while providing a
sustainable base of local employment. Last year Dr. Dennis
Lynch, now professor emeritus at Colorado State University,
appeared before this Subcommittee to promote stewardship
contracts for forest restoration on national forest lands. I
refer you to his written testimony on March 18, 1997 for
further details.
Ultimately, solutions to wildfire management will require a
coalition of diverse interests working toward solutions at
local levels. Scientists, environmentalists, business, and
local leaders will need to reach consensus on necessary
combinations of treatments that will satisfy human needs
without compromising clean air mandates and requirements.
Perhaps the biggest task involves educating the Nation's
populace about the importance of fire and forest management.
Fires have burned in North American forests for thousands of
years. By contrast, forests have been managed in our fire
environment for only a short time period. Many residents have
not come to grips with the risks of living with fire, in spite
of the evidence that forests have burned with regularity. If
past experience is any indicator, we are learning that we
cannot keep fire out of our forests forever. The trick then is
to manage the forest, so that we can safely endure and learn
from its consequences.
More tolerance will be required for fire in the forest and
prescribed smoke in the atmosphere. Revisions in air quality
standards may need to be considered. But the largest obstacle
may be our own unwillingness to revise how we fulfill human
wants and needs from the forest environment.
This concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer
questions from Subcommittee members.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Omi may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Doctor.
The Chair now recognizes Don Matlick, director of smoke
management for Oregon State Department of Forestry in Salem,
Oregon to testify. I've been looking forward to your testimony,
Mr. Matlick, because I've heard a lot about your program and
I'm glad that you have joined us today. Mr. Matlick.
STATEMENT OF DON MATLICK, DIRECTOR, SMOKE MANAGEMENT, OREGON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
Mr. Matlick. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. I am Don Matlick of the Oregon
Department of Forestry and the smoke management program
director for the agency, and we do regulate forest land burning
prescribed fire on Federal, State, and private forest lands
within the State.
And I have been asked by Committee staff to share
information with you on the topic of the Oregon approach to
managing and regulating forest land prescribed burning on
Federal lands in the northeast section of our State. The
process was developed in the past few years using an
interdisciplinary team of Federal land managers and air quality
regulators. The final approach was well accepted and supported
by the members of the group. The group used a new approach to
address the concerns of the land managers and the air quality
regulators. And I believe the approach we used and the final
agreement have been successful at balancing the need to conduct
an increasing amount of prescribed burning for forest health
reasons, while simultaneously protecting air quality in the
northeast section of the State.
The background of the problem is that the forest health of
the northeast section of Oregon became a major concern in the
1980's when many thousands of acres were showing signs of poor
forest health. Forests that were too dense had an improper
balance of trees species, and an extended drought during the
1980's were all contributing factors to a major portion of the
forest being under stress. Very significant tree mortality was
occurring.
There was also a very significant increase in the amount of
wildfire in the area, burning many more acres than the historic
average. And the type of wildfire also changed, resulting in
many more severe fires. Large crown fires became a more
frequent event.
Federal land managers in the northeast section of the State
decided that, in order to restore and maintain the forest
ecosystem in northeast Oregon, prescribed fire would have to be
used significantly more than in the past. The Federal land
managers wanted to increase their use of prescribed fire about
four-fold, from about 30,000 acre per year to about 120,000 per
year of prescribed fire. They felt that prescribed fire would
have many desirable effects upon the forest ecosystem--reducing
the density of the trees, selecting for the more desirable
species, and restoring a more natural forest stand structure.
The problem then became, what do we do with the smoke?
The resolution process was that we had a group of people
come together that dealt with the problem, and, to summarize,
the final resolution of the problem really became finding a new
frame of reference than the frame of reference we'd been
dealing with in terms of air quality regulation. That new frame
of reference was the group's recognition that by doing more
prescribed burning we would eventually have less wildfire and
wildfire smoke in the future. The parties did recognize this
tradeoff. The group also recognized that smoke from prescribed
burning could be managed so it is less of a problem than the
unmanageable smoke from wildfire. And to the best of my
knowledge, this was the first time this tradeoff recognition
had occurred in a regulatory process.
The final agreement incorporated several key points. First
was no net increase in total emissions, a key element being the
use of wildfire emissions plus prescribed fire emissions. We
weren't just dealing with wildfire emissions alone. What we
want to do is maintain a total amount of emissions at or below
the historical averages.
And an annual emissions level was established for the use
of prescribed fire on Federal lands in the northeast sections
of the State, and the emission limit was developed using
historical wildfire and prescribed fire emissions and then
compared against a natural emission level.
And we did establish a mandatory smoke management program
for Federal lands in the area, which includes daily forecasts
and burning instructions issued by trained meteorologists,
designed to keep smoke from populated areas. Daily reporting of
prescribed burning is required by Federal land management
agencies.
We also established real-time air quality monitoring . And
in the agreement Federal land managers agreed they would use
non-burning alternatives in the restoration process when
appropriate, instead of prescribed fire, and also use emission-
reduction burning techniques when possible.
The conclusions that I think are worthy here are, when
emission producers and regulators agree there is a problem,
they can often solve the problem locally, if there is
significant flexibility within the national rules and
guidelines.
And the second one is regulatory agencies should encourage
the development of new thinking and new processes at the local
level which best meet the local needs. The regulatory agencies
then should be prepared to accept those local solutions.
Just two comments, one about the Federal land management
policies. We do support the fire and vegetation policies. We do
hope, though, that the full range of alternatives for
restoration can be incorporated and not rely too heavily upon
just prescribed fire. And we would encourage the final regional
haze rules to allow local solutions.
With that, I would wind up my testimony. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matlick may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Matlick.
The Chair yields to Mr. Schaffer to introduce Greg Walcher.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to
introduce another Coloradan. Greg Walcher is president and
executive director of Colorado's Club 20. Mr. Walcher brings
the experience of a large consortium of individuals, business
leaders, and elected officials from Colorado's western slope
with him here to Washington. Club 20 held a seat on the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Advisory Committee. Mr.
Walcher is in his organization, has followed this national
issue from a local and State perspective, and I thank him for
coming today and look forward to his valuable insight.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Walcher, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GREG WALCHER, PRESIDENT, CLUB 20
Mr. Walcher. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer, and thank you, Madam
Chairman. We appreciate very much your continued leadership on
this issue which we think is vitally important in the West.
Club 20 represents, among its membership, 20 counties west
of the continental divide in Colorado along with 75
incorporated towns, 42 chambers of commerce, several dozen non-
profit associations, and literally hundreds of businesses and
individuals.
I've got a fairly lengthy written statement that I hope
would be included in the Committee's record. And just in
summary ,I'll say that our communities believe that fire is a
vitally important management tool on the public lands and
definitely has it's place in the tool box. And we believe that
the EPA's regional haze rules will create serious conflicts
that make it very, very difficult to implement fire in the way
that it ought to be a part of the mix.
If you cap emission all over the West at the current level
and then require a reduction of one deciview, as the EPA
suggests, and increase the amount of fires being set by Federal
land managers, something else is going to have to be reduced.
And that creates inevitable conflicts, as you mentioned in your
opening statement, with agriculture burning, with factories,
with power plants with all the human activities, mobile sources
and others.
It is especially unfair in the West, and you both know as
well as I do the perspective of people all over the West is
that this is about politics, not about air pollution. If
Congress were serious about reducing air pollution, they would
have begun this process in places like Pittsburgh, Baltimore,
and Los Angeles, which are polluted, not in places like the
Grand Canyon.
But that's where we are today anyway, and our fear is that
the forest is the big loser in this process. You held a hearing
in May on the health of forests in Colorado, and particularly
in the Aspen trees, and as we were talking at that time, this
issue is closely related to that--for the simple reason that,
if you create conflict between the forest and other economic
uses in the West, the forest is going to be the big loser.
Trees don't pay taxes and they don't vote. So, in the end, you
wind up with that kind of a conflict.
The Federal Government--the Secretary of the Interior has
admitted that some advance clearing is going to be needed
before much of the prescribed burning that's planned can be
done, and yet that isn't the direction we are headed at all.
We're headed in fact in the opposite direction. By Executive
Order, we're stopping the clearing of materials all over the
West. We're putting almost a complete end to the timber
industry in my State and submitting ever-shrinking budgets in
the timber program of the Forest Service. So the actions and
the words don't match what's coming from the administration.
The solution isn't all that complicated when you get right
down to it. The U.S. Forest Service obviously needs to reduce
the smoke coming off of these prescribed fires. In Colorado,
we've followed with great interest the Oregon program. And
Colorado has tried, for a couple of years now, to require the
Federal Government to reduce the amount of smoke coming from
prescribed fires. And 2 years in a row our General Assembly
passed overwhelmingly a bill that would have done that--a bill
that would have said, when the Federal Government seeks a
permit from the health department to set a prescribed fire,
that the health department then would examine what the Forest
Service's plan was and make sure that they have considered the
lower-smoking alternatives before they do that.
Two years in a row Governor Roy Romer vetoed the bill,
which we thought was irresponsible and inexcusable, but the
writing is on the wall. Federal land managers are going to be
held accountable by the public for air pollution that they
create. And if they are not going to do that administratively,
then Congress is going to have to reign them in. Congress ought
to amend the Clean Air Act to simply require in prescribed
fires that smoke be reduced to the maximum extent possible.
To put it simple, if the Federal Government is going to
continue to be the single largest episodic contributor to
regional haze--as we know from the $8 million, 4-year study is
the case--then smoke management has got to be part of the deal.
Because the public is not going to tolerate continuing to
regulate all of the other pollution sources in our society
while the Forest Service--with impunity--torches the landscape
and darkens our skies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walcher may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Walcher.
The chairman yields to Mr. Schaffer for questions.
Mr. Schaffer. I've got a number of questions. First, let me
start with Dr. Pearson. Let me just ask, do you agree with the
findings of the Grand Canyon study?
Dr. Pearson. Most of them, yes. I do have a little bit of a
concern, however, that the commission could have gone a little
bit further in recommending controls for some of the mobile
sources, and certainly in the case of the hearing today with
regard to prescribed fire and smoke from forest fire management
practices.
The commission wrestled with that issue and, as you
certainly well understand, that's a very contentious issue. I
think the commission could have gone a bit further on that
regard, but certainly the commission did a very good job
pointing out that smoke from fires is the No. 1 cause of
regional haze in the West. I agree with that. We just didn't
really come down to a good way of handling that within the
commission process.
Mr. Schaffer. The Grand Canyon report offered a number of
recommendations. To your knowledge, did the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency use the commission's report during the
formulation of its proposed regional haze rule?
Dr. Pearson. Well, if they used it, they must have used it
as a door stop, because certainly we don't see much of the
recommendations of the commission within the body of the
proposed rule. The EPA rule is certainly focused almost
entirely on stationary sources, and that was not what the
commission's recommendations were at all. The commission
recommended a very balanced approach, and EPA has not adopted
that at all.
Mr. Schaffer. And in your testimony you indicated that, if
new regulations were adopted, efforts of the Grand Canyon
commission would be overwhelmed by land management plans of the
Forest Service.
Dr. Pearson. Absolutely.
Mr. Schaffer. What would your recommendation to the EPA be
as far as implementing any new rules on regional haze?
Dr. Pearson. Well, certainly provide a much more balanced
approach. Recognize what the real sources of regional haze are
and don't exempt forest management practices carte blanche. We
recognize that forest fires will happen and prescribed fires
are a necessary tool, as has been mentioned by the other
witnesses on the panel. But let's put that in perspective and
make sure that we have done everything we can to reduce the
impact of those fires on the regional haze and make sure that
source category is properly addressed, along with mobile
sources and everything else in the West, so that we have a very
balanced approach. That was the commission consensus, and I
think that's the way EPA should proceed. To date, they are
choosing not to do so.
Mr. Schaffer. How about the land managers? What can they
learn from the Grand Canyon study?
Dr. Pearson. Well, the land managers can learn that the
result of their fires is going to be the No. 1 source of
regional haze in the West. And they then carry a
responsibility, as has been mentioned, to do what they can to
reduce that impact on regional haze. And to the extent of the
testimony that we heard last September from Secretary Glickman,
Secretary Babbitt, that they are going to increase their
prescribed fires without impunity, if you will, I don't think
they've gotten that message. And somehow you and Congress need
to tell them that, if they are going to be burning the forests,
they need to understand the impacts of that and do what they
can to control the impact of that on regional haze.
Mr. Schaffer. The States are obligated under the
implementation plans to come up with some suitable remedy--
well, if they're in a non-attainment area and have these Class
I lands. Being a Coloradan, I assume you are somewhat familiar
with the two attempts of the Colorado legislature to impose
essentially a State standard just to try to hold the EPA to
some level of accountability and responsibility.
What would have been the practical impact, from your
perspective, of the State legislation, had it been permitted to
become law?
Dr. Pearson. Well, as Mr. Walcher mentioned in his
testimony, the practical impact would have been that the forest
managers in Colorado would have had to consider the smoke
impacts when they set fires. Again, that bill was not signed by
the Governor, so it's not law in Colorado, but had it been
signed, they would have had some requirement to consider the
results of their actions.
Mr. Schaffer. Greg, I'd like to ask you just about--other
than the legislation that was proposed in Colorado now twice,
is there any other role of State governments that you might
suggest to us by way of recommendation that we may be able to
encourage here from Washington?
Mr. Walcher. My understanding is that the Grand Canyon
Visibility Commission report, which you were asking Dr. Pearson
about a minute ago, more or less created or recommended
creation of a State-level process as opposed to heavy-handed
Federal regulations from the EPA. Obviously, that is a
considerably better approach because the pollution problems are
different in different States. And so we think that Congress
ought to tell the EPA, while you require that they redraw these
regulations, you ought to tell the EPA to leave the State alone
and let the States manage the smoke the best they can.
In Colorado we would have had a chance to require, had that
legislation become law--as I believe it will next year, by the
way--had that become law, we would have required the Forest
Service in getting a permit to set a prescribed fire to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of State officials that they
have considered lower smoke alternatives first. And in our
State that means, for the most part, taking out the big logs
first before you burn. I guess it's coincidence perhaps that
the bigger the tree, the longer it smokes and the more haze it
contributes. That's the same tree that also has economic value.
And so in our State, as you well know, the public is not
very pleased with the concept of torching trees that have
economic value while you pay five bucks a piece for two-by-
fours in the lumber yard. And so that problem is different in
different States. So my recommendation for Congress is to let
the States regulate by the issuance of permits. The Clean Air
Act already makes that requirement of the Forest Service. The
difference is that some States have standards and some States
don't, as you mentioned.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
Dr. Pearson, you said something that--your testimony was
very good, but you said something that really startled me. You
indicated that the Congress struck section 707.
Dr. Pearson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And replaced it with section 169(b)?
Dr. Pearson. That's correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But the EPA is following section 707 which
was stricken by this body?
Dr. Pearson. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you explain in as much detail as
possible exactly how section 707 is being implemented. Be as
specific as you can remember.
Dr. Pearson. Madam Chair, as you know, that section was
before Congress back in 1990, so it's been quite a while, but
I'll give you the best of my recollection.
There was also a similar section 709 in the Senate bill
that was being debated at the same time, so there were parallel
provisions. Those sections, as you may recall, contained
requirements for best available control technology analysis of
stationary sources, final visibility rules in 1 year after
passage of the bill, a regional haze plan, criteria for
reasonable progress, and a methodology for measuring
visibility.
All of those provisions were in the sections that were
deleted from both the House and the Senate bill and replaced
with 169(b) which, among other things, set up the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission to study all these issues--best
available control technology and the rest--and then bring a
recommendation to the EPA on how to address those issues. So
what really happened was, in deleting those sections from the
bills Congress said, well, maybe we don't have the right
answers here before us in Congress; let us have a regional
consensus approach, i.e., have the commission look at these,
and thus bring a recommendation to EPA after a regional
deliberation on these issues.
That's the best of my recollection on what was in those
sections, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you have anything else you would like to
add with regards to that subject matter?
Dr. Pearson. Just that I think the Congress needs to
reassert once again that section 169(b) is in the statute that
was passed by Congress and that EPA fully should consider the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission, as you required in section 169(b). Apparently, they
are choosing not to do so, and you should remind them of your
intent when you passed that section.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Pearson, you also testified as to the
de facto enforcement of buffer zones around Class I areas.
Congress explicitly prohibits the establishment of buffer zones
around wilderness areas. Can you expand on what you mean by
buffer zones in your testimony?
Dr. Pearson. Certainly, and let me give just a quick
overview. The Clean Air Act, as it exists, allows the Federal
land manager of Class I areas--mainly the Forest Service--to
identify sources of impact on the Class I wilderness area in
terms of visibility and other air pollution problems. If there
is a source outside the Class I area that is impacting the
Class I area, they can then require the State or EPA to study
the impact of that source through a best available technology
type of analysis. And, indeed, that has happened in Colorado
and the Mount Zirkel wilderness areas, as I pointed out in my
testimony.
So, in effect, what the Federal land manager can do is
trigger a formal investigation of sources outside of the Class
I area or even outside of Federal lands, for that matter, and
their impact on the Class I area itself. This is at the same
time that the Federal land manager can go ahead with prescribed
burns at will and essentially pollute the air over a forest,
but still pointing the finger outside the forest, insisting
that they be cleaned up. We think it's a ``do as I say, not as
I do'' type of approach that should be remedied.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wonder how large the buffer zone would
have been in the Mexican fires?
Dr. Pearson. Well, the smoke from the Mexican fires,
indeed, did come into Denver. I can remember it vividly. And so
we're talking almost a thousand miles, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Matlick, you testified as for the need
for balance between prescribed burns and air quality issues.
What could the Forest Service learn from your experience in
Oregon with regard to this matter? Let me also ask you, how
important is the role of timber harvesting and mechanical
thinning in your plan?
Mr. Matlick. Madam Chair, I would, I guess, defer here to a
report of a blue ribbon committee put together by Governor
Kitzhaber here several years ago. They reported in 1995, and it
was 10 distinguished multi-disciplined scientists that
essentially looked at that problem about the whole problem in
northeast Oregon and what should be done with the forest health
issue.
And they, to summarize, felt that restoration treatments,
including thinning and fuel reduction, could reduce the risk of
loss from insects and fire on large areas of the forests. And
they went on to identify specific types of forests that could
benefit the most and gave a recommendation in terms of
prioritizing the implementation of that. But their view, to
paraphrase, was that an awful lot of the acres are overstocked,
have very excessive fuel densities, and that to rely heavily on
just prescribed fire would essentially shortchange the
restoration process, and that an awful lot of mechanical
treatment of fuels and thinning of green trees and salvage of
dead trees where it would help the ecosystem restoration is a
vital and key component.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very good.
Dr. Omi, you testified that the only way to manage fire is
to manage fuels and this is a followup to the question I asked
Mr. Matlick. Can you elaborate on what types of fuel
management, in your opinion, would be suitable? What are the
relative costs of performing the different types of activities
and do you have a per-acre comparison? You testified that even
modest increases in prescribed fires will affect visibility and
air quality, and how do you mitigate against those risks? Now I
asked you a lot of things, but I'm very interested in your
opinion.
Dr. Omi. Yes, first of all, with respect to the different
types of treatment, in my testimony I outlined broad
categories--that is, disposal onsite, redistribution onsite,
physical removal, vegetation-type conversion, and isolation--
and within those categories there are a multitude of other fuel
treatment alternatives: hand piling, tractor piling, mechanical
crushing, or mastication and burning, dozer chaining, jackpot
burning, chemical desiccation and burning, to name just a few.
The appropriate treatment really depends on the site and
the land management objectives in the area. In terms of cost
relative to fire, the studies, of course, have focused
primarily on implementation of a burn which shows dramatic
differences between the cost of prescribed fire relative to
other mechanical ways of treating the land.
The big cost factor with mechanical treatments relates to
the hardware that is required and fuel and site concerns.
That's why in my testimony I indicate that--in California
anyway--that prescribed fire costs were one-tenth the cost of
mechanical removals. I think that, again, those are
generalizations that have to be considered for each
particular--the site adaptations have to be considered at each
location.
The final point that I would make is that pristine air--I
think we have the wrong idea of what it should look like in
this country. Pristine air prehistorically had considerable
smoke at different episodes in different times in the past.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Dr. Omi, I just have one more comment or
statement. If we could reduce the fuel loads by mechanical
means and those fuels had a value in the marketplace, then
could you still say that under those sets of circumstances we
let logging contracts out, that prescribed fire and the
relative costs would be one-tenth of removal by mechanical
means?
Dr. Omi. Again, that was just an average cost and the
answer to your question is, I don't think you can make that
statement. I don't think that mechanical thinning or logging
would necessarily be appropriate for certain areas; for
example, national park areas and wilderness areas, where access
may be prohibitive and where administratively those types of
treatments might not be feasible.
In multiple-use areas, lower elevation areas, where there
is a market for those raw materials, I think that potentially
those situations represent kind of, as we often say, a win-win
situation for removal of fuels and also for restoration of
economies that depend on those wood products from the forest.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Mr. Schaffer?
Mr. Schaffer. I'd like to followup a little bit on that. I
was interested to hear testimony about the long history of
disturbances in the interaction between humans and forests. Do
you consider the past 100 years of fire suppression to be a
form of management?
Dr. Omi. Well, it's definitely a management decision to get
all fires aggressively and try to keep them as small as
possible, and that was dictated or mandated in the 10 AM policy
back in 1935. And I think that it was a well-intentioned policy
to try to manage fire in the Nation's wildlands. I think that
now, with the benefit of decades of implementation and
hindsight being the way that it is, we raise questions about
the efficacy of that. It is a management treatment. I would say
yes.
Mr. Schaffer. Does that policy contribute to the risk, the
type, and severity of fires today?
Dr. Omi. Again, generalizations are dangerous but in
certain areas I think that the record of the literature shows
that especially in low elevation areas, some of our long needle
pine systems--ponderosa pine in particular in the western
States--there has been a buildup of fuels that contributes to
more severe wild fires and to that extent even greater smoke
episodes in those areas.
Mr. Schaffer. So, humans continue to really influence the
forest through either action or inaction today as a result of
our past policy over the last 100 years, say?
Dr. Omi. I'd say that is a good characterization.
Mr. Schaffer. EPA considers wildfires to be natural. Do you
agree? We'd have fewer wildfires if the Forest Service would
harvest more timber?
Dr. Omi. I'm not sure I'm drawing the connection that
you're trying to make there but--I don't think that the two
policies are closely linked within the agency. For many years
the----
Mr. Schaffer. I know they're not linked with any agency;
I'm looking for the truth, though, which is different.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Omi. Well, I think that we could do a lot of fire
management and improve land management through harvest of
materials. I don't think that it's always appropriate in every
situation and there are areas where fire is the optimal
treatment.
Mr. Schaffer. You testified that little is known about the
relationship between fire and its impacts on air quality. Would
further study into that relationship assist land managers and
air quality experts?
Dr. Omi. I think so. I think we're relatively in infancy in
terms of our understanding of fire effects on all of the biota
as well as the abiotic environmental influences, like the air.
Mr. Schaffer. You suggested the Grand Canyon study leaves
certain gaps in research and just the general contribution to
our knowledge about science in forestry and fire management,
and so on. Can you provide some examples where further research
is needed?
Dr. Omi. I think we need a better idea of the impacts of
the individual projects. I have just recently been invited to
join the Grand Canyon study. So I'm relatively new in terms of
understanding what they have proposed, but I think that the
models have indicated that we have information gaps about the
effect of single projects in site-specific area and we need
more information about those individual treatments.
Mr. Schaffer. I have more questions than that yellow light
allows me.
[Laughter.]
I applaud WESTFIRE Center's work. How did you work with the
National Park Service and how did that contribute to taxpayers
saving? And just tell me more about the role WESTFIRE will play
in the future.
Dr. Omi. Over the years we have accumulated a substantial
data base on the occurrence of wild and prescribed fires in the
National Park Service and Department of Interior land, and
through that effort, we have identified the factors that
contribute to high-cost projects and low-cost projects. We've
developed a computer program that helps the decisionmakers
screen project requests from the field and identify those costs
which may be wasteful or inefficient.
Just because a project falls outside an acceptable range
doesn't mean that it's not a desirable project, but our effort
has helped the Park Service manage their costs. And we think
that we've helped the Park Service save hundreds of thousands
of dollars in terms of their prescribed fire and fuels
treatment program.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Greg Walcher, I have some questions for
you. Twice your legislature passed legislation--oh, Mr. Kildee,
you are here. I am so glad. Do you have a statement that you'd
like----
Mr. Kildee. I'll be very brief, Madam Chairman. Thank you
very much.
My staff and I have been interested for several years now
in the differences between the effects and values of mechanical
removal and controlled burning and concern about air quality.
With the fires in Florida right now, are you studying the
effect upon air quality in Florida with the number of fires
down there to try and get some information and data to try to
help you elsewhere?
Dr. Omi. I'm not studying those fires particularly, because
I'm in Colorado, but I have been following the reports on that,
and I know that smoke plume from the Florida fires was reported
to be seen over the Atlantic Ocean 200 miles downwind. And I
know that there have been reported episodes of people's health
being adversely affected by that smoke. Specifics, I'm not
privy to at this point.
Mr. Kildee. So the people in forestry and the Forest
Service are trying to learn from what is happening in Florida
right now?
Dr. Omi. I believe so. Every fire episode, from my
perspective, provides a learning opportunity, and sometimes the
pill is difficult to swallow, but we're still in a learning
mode about fire and forest management.
Mr. Kildee. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Walcher, you're back on the spot again. You've
testified to the fact that twice your legislature passed
legislation to give the States more control over their air
quality. Could you explain that legislation and why did
Governor Romer veto it? What was in his veto message?
Mr. Walcher. Well, first of all, let me say I think it
would be difficult, if not inappropriate, for me to try to
decipher the Governor's veto message. It makes very little
sense to those of us who followed the legislation and tried to
get it adopted. I do know that in the Governor's office there
was a substantial ongoing discussion over the use of timber as
a management tool as compared to fire, and so the politics of
the issue are sort of a big picture discussion over whether not
the timber industry is an appropriate management tool. That I
think actually has very little to do with the use of fire and
its effect on air pollution. I think it's sort of a timber
versus anti-timber kind of debate going on there.
What the legislation would have done, though, would have
put Colorado squarely where it needs to be and where all States
ought to be, which is in the process of regulating air
pollution in their own State in a way that can consider
properly the different kinds of species and different types of
smoke that they create in different types of forests. There are
instances where prescribed fire, as I testified earlier, is the
right management tool. And as Dr. Omi was suggesting, there are
some areas where timber is an inappropriate management tool.
What we need to be able to do is to examine what the Forest
Service considered in making a decision to set a prescribed
fire, and determine whether or not they adequately considered
all of the alternatives for reducing smoke. If there is an area
where more smoke will be created unnecessarily because bigger
logs could have been taken out mechanically ahead of time, and
the Forest Service has declined to do that, either because the
timber budget wasn't big enough or because they were getting
lobbying from some interest groups that are opposed to timber
or whatever reason, this would have been a tool whereby the
State could say, well, that's fine, but we're not going to let
you burn it until you do a better job of considering the smoke
management angle.
That is an appropriate role for the States, and it is a
role explicitly authorized by the Clean Air Act which, as you
know, unique among Federal statutes, requires Federal agencies
to obey State laws on clean air issues. And so it would have
been quite appropriate and proper for the State to do that, and
I believe that our State is going to enact legislation like
that and I think probably other States will, too.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you explain your concerns with the
legal authority for the new regulations that you addressed in
your testimony?
Mr. Walcher. Yes, and I don't want to suggest to you that
I'm an expert on this because I'm not a lawyer. But it seem
fairly clear to me when Congress created the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission and funded it to the tune of
half a million dollars over a period of time, clearly it is the
intent of Congress that the recommendations from that
commission be considered and implemented. So for the EPA to
just completely ignore that entire process, obviously, ignores
the spirit of congressional intent, if not the letter.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you, Mr. Walcher, explain the
distinction between Administrator Browner's previous statement
that land managers are not exempt from regulations but simply
the data from those fires is excluded? Could you explain that?
Mr. Walcher. In the mind of laymen all over the West, it is
a distinction without a difference, and again, you're asking me
to interpret foreign languages, which I'm not very good at, but
people around the West don't understand that. If you cap
emissions at the current level and require that they be reduced
across the board by some percentage, someone is going to have
to reduce the air pollution. So whether you exclude the data or
exempt the fire, or whatever semantic words they want to use,
the effect is that the people that reduce the amount of
pollution are going to be private sector people and Federal
land managers are given a bye.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting.
Mr. Matlick, you've heard testimony from Mr. Walcher about
2 years in a row Colorado passing legislation that would
require a State permit from the Forest Service before any
prescribed burns, and then the States of course could make the
final determination on how it would affect their area. Has the
Oregon legislature considered that type of legislation or have
you recommended it to the Oregon legislature?
Mr. Matlick. Representative Chenoweth, we've been in that
business now since 1972, and in western Oregon when we
recognized that smoke from prescribed burning in western Oregon
was getting into the valleys and the larger population centers,
and the Oregon legislature passed a bill in 1971 to become
effective in 1972 to establish our smoke management program,
which does regulate and essentially permit prescribed burning
in western Oregon at that point in time--and that does include
Federal land lands--now since then, we've established and
incorporated and grown the program into other areas of the
State, but we are doing that now, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I probably didn't make myself clear. I
guess the legislation that Colorado passed required that the
Forest Service obtain a permit before embarking on a prescribed
burn. So it was not a generic permit within a plan. Has Oregon
ever considered asking the Forest Service to get a permit from
you, as you would any other private entity?
Mr. Matlick. In the essence of regulating the smoke from
the prescribed burn, we have said that the Forest Service, if
they follow our instructions that we put out daily for burning,
essentially, that is a permit to burn that day. So we might say
you can't burn within 50 miles upwind of Portland, and if the
Forest Service follows those distance and tonnage and all the
lighting instructions that we give, essentially that is a
permit, although we do not actually write them a permit.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Thank you very much. I want to
thank this panel for this very interesting testimony, and we're
not through with you yet. We still have a lot of questions that
we will submit to you in writing and may be back in touch with
you by phone. But thank you very much for your valuable
contribution to hopefully being able to begin to solve this
problem soon and making sure that the commission's work is
recognized by the agency. Your testimony was very instructive
and very informative and thank you, all four of you, very much.
This panel is dismissed, and the Chair will now call the
next panel of witnesses. We recognize Mr. John Seitz, Director
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in the
Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC; Janice
McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry,
U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
and Denny Truesdale, Acting Director, Fire and Aviation
Management, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
I would ask the panel to remain standing and raise your
right hand to swear.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. We'd like to open testimony by hearing from
Mr. Seitz.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SEITZ, DIRECTOR OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND
STANDARDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Seitz. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee, for inviting me here today to testify on EPA's
proposed rule to improve our Nation's visibility.
As you know, there has been extensive documentation that
virtually all of our national parks and wilderness areas are
subject of some degree of regional haze visibility impairment.
Haze is caused by pollutants that are emitted to the atmosphere
from a number of industrial sources and transported at long
distances. These emissions, after being transported, impact
some of our parks and wilderness areas designated for special
protection under the Clean Air Act and are referred to as Class
I areas.
We also know that the causes and severity of regional haze
vary greatly between the East and West. The average standard
visual range in the western United States is 60 to 90 miles, or
about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range under natural
conditions. In the East the average range is 15 to 30 miles, or
about one-sixth to one-third of normal range. One of the major
challenges dealing with regional haze is that the cause of this
problem is not often one point source or one pollutant, but
pollutants emitted from various sources over a large
geographical regions.
In the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress set
the national goal for visibility, and I quote, ``For prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' As you know, in the 1990
amendments Congress reinforced this goal by directing EPA to
attack the regional haze problem.
In response to the 1990 amendments, the EPA established the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to address
impairment on the Colorado plateau, and as mentioned earlier,
in June 1996 they submitted their report to the agency. Under
the 1990 amendments, 18 months after receiving that report, EPA
was to propose the regional haze rule. And last July, in
conjunction with the promulgation of the revised ozone and PM
standards, EPA proposed the regional haze rule and took public
comment. The rule is based upon the recommendations of the
Grand Canyon Transport Commission, the 1993 National Academy of
Science report, as well as information from our Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee. The public comment period on this rule
closed December 5, and the agency hopes to finalize the rule in
the fall.
Madam Chairman, my written statement contains detailed
discussions of various provisions of this rule. But for the
purpose of my oral statement, I would like to discuss some of
the specific issues related to fire policy and air quality.
First, I would like to stress that EPA recognizes the
importance of fires as a natural part of forest and grassland
ecosystem management. Fires release important nutrients into
the soil; fires reduce undergrowth and debris on the forest
floor; and we know that prescribed fires--or fires managed
correctly--are important management tools for keeping forest
and grasslands healthy. They also help reduce large,
catastrophic burns such as situations we've recently seen in
Florida and Yellowstone.
Obviously, fires produce fine particles that can pose
threat to human health and contribute to visibility impairment.
In recognition of this and the need to ensure that the fire can
be addressed correctly, we worked hand-in-hand with the Forest
Service and the Department of Interior in developing the
Federal Wildfire Management Policy and Program Review in 1995.
In response to this process, the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Interior adopted a policy that all future
managed burns must be done in an environmental-friendly way,
particularly paying attention to air quality. EPA subsequently
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a special
work group comprised of experts from the Department of
Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense,
State forest managers, State and local air pollution experts,
to develop this policy.
In May of this year, EPA issued the Interim Air Quality
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire. This policy encourages
land managers and owners to work cooperatively with State and
local pollution control officials to conduct integrated
planning to successfully manage fire. Consistent with the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission recommendations, it
outlines basic components for smoke management programs and
urges the States to adopt these measures. This interim policy
complements EPA's 1996 policy on natural events by ensuring the
States which implement effective smoke management plans, yet
occasionally experience avoidable smoke intrusions, are not
penalized.
In conclusion, we expect that our regional haze rule, when
finalized, will establish a framework to improve visibility in
national parks and wilderness areas. I want to be clear that we
have not made final decisions on this rule and we will consider
all public comment before finalizing the rule. Our goal is to
ensure that our final rule achieves the congressionally
mandated improvement in visibility and does it in a common-
sense way. At the same time, we intend to continue working
closely with the Federal land managers, State and local
governments, and other interested parties, to ensure that
emissions from prescribed and wildland fires are handled in
such a way as to minimize air quality problems and maintain
healthy forests and wildland.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seitz may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Seitz.
The Chair now recognizes Janice McDougle for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF JANICE McDOUGLE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND
PRIVATE FORESTRY, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY DENNY TRUESDALE, ACTING DIRECTOR,
FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. McDougle. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of
the Committee.
I am Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for State and
Private Forestry with responsibility for fire and aviation,
forest health, and cooperative forestry programs. I am
accompanied by Denny Truesdale, who is acting as our National
Director for Fire and Aviation Management. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today.
In October 1997, Bob Joslin, Deputy Chief for National
Forest System, testified before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on the agency's history in air management.
He talked about our research program, our role in the new
permit review for regulatory agencies, and how proposed changes
might affect Forest Service programs. I have submitted a copy
of that testimony to your clerk to be entered into the record
along with my comments.
The Forest Service fire management program, including
wildfire suppression and fuels reduction efforts, affects air
quality. Our air quality objective is to reduce the long-term
cumulative smoke impacts from all types of fire. The full
effect of the regional haze rule on Forest Service programs is
difficult to project until a final rule is promulgated and each
State and tribe develops is own implementation plan, and
related smoke management plans.
We appreciate EPA's efforts to integrate wildfire
suppression and prescribed fire in their policies, and believe
that EPA is developing a common-sense approach that will
provide a logical context for us to carry out our goals in
restoring ecosystems, caring for the land, and serving people.
Fire plays an important role in ecosystems; it is a
natural, inevitable part of ecosystems in most forested areas
of the country. A number of forest and brush types across the
United States reflect fire-adapted ecosystems, and I have two
maps that I can share with you to illustrate that.
In the 1995 Interagency Fire Management Policy Review, the
Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior recognized
the significant role that fire plays in these fire-adapted
ecosystems, and the departments called for substantial increase
in the use of planned or prescribed fire as a management tool
to restore forest health.
The Forest Service has two primary responsibilities related
to air quality. We protect air quality-related values,
including visibility in Class I Federal areas, and we manage
national forest system lands in a manner consistent with
regulations implementing the Clean Air Act. Part of our Class I
area protection includes integrated air quality monitoring.
The Forest Service manages 88 congressionally designated
Class I Federal areas with special air quality protection
standards. Formal monitoring information from these areas is
used to review permit applications for new major point sources
of air pollution, to determine the impacts of existing sources
of air pollution, and to identify trends nationally.
The Forest Service has estimated that as much as 40 million
acres of national forest system land could be at risk for high-
intensity wild fire. The administration and the Congress have
increased funding to reduce this fire hazard. I will submit
those maps--a record of the map--that show generally where the
fire-adapted ecosystems are located. The acres at risk are
within those systems and reflect the variety of fuel conditions
where fires have been suppressed and excluded. Fires are more
likely to burn with high intensity, increasing a threat to
natural resources, property, fire fighters, and the public.
The forest service is currently inventorying stands to
determine the resources at high risk, the fuel conditions that
exist, the likelihood of a fire starting in that specific
location, and the cost of treatment. The Forest Service
decision to ignite a prescribed fire is based on localized fuel
and weather conditions and the availability of personnel and
equipment. Prescribed fire plans identify the conditions and
resources required to meet the desired objectives, including
smoke management. If all smoke management plans are in place
and the prescribed fire can be conducted consistent with those
plans, the agency completes the burn and monitors the effects.
Mr. Seitz discussed the policy and proposed rule changes.
The Forest Service supports the recommendations of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and EPA's natural events
policy, which considers air quality impacts of wild fire as a
natural event, and EPA's interim policy on wild land and
prescribed fires that apply to all wildland fires on public
lands, integrating two public policies: (1) to allow fire to
function, as nearly as possible, in its natural role, and (2)
to protect public health and welfare by mitigating the impact
of smoke on air quality and visibility.
Madam Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McDougle may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. McDougle.
Mr. Truesdale, you are here accompanying Ms. McDougle. You
do not have prepared testimony, I take it?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
When the Colorado general assembly was considering
legislation that Mr. Walcher discussed earlier, did the EPA
provide any testimony or input to the Colorado general assembly
on the matter?
Mr. Seitz. I am not aware of whether we did or did not,
Congressman. I can get back to you for the record on that.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
The EPA did not provide formal input or testimony to the
Colorado General Assembly on the legislation discussed by Mr.
Walcher in his testimony. However, the EPA does support state
efforts to implement state smoke management programs that apply
to all uses of fire as a wildland management tool, including
its use by Federal land managers (FLM). The EPA has always
supported the right of states to control sources of air
pollution within the boundaries of their states. Section 118(a)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires all Federal agencies
engaging in any activity that results in the discharge of air
pollutants to comply with all Federal, state, interstate and
local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air
pollution in the same manner as nongovernmental entities.
Additionally, Federal agencies must ensure that their actions
do not hinder the state's efforts to attain the NAAQS under
either the general conformity or transportation conformity
rules, or both.
Mr. Schaffer. Did you have any input with the Governor?
Mr. Seitz. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Schaffer. Do you have any opinions about the Colorado
legislation?
Mr. Seitz. Just from what I've heard in the previous
testimony. Again, I think it is the position, as the gentlemen
indicated, as long as State rules and regulations treat Federal
parties in an equitable fashion with other members of the
sector--in other words, they're neutral--that if the
requirements said that all fire that is burned must comply with
these requirements, then, under the Clean Air Act, Federal land
managers would also be required to comply with that.
Mr. Schaffer. Has the EPA been conducting meetings with--
I've heard eight Governors among western States regarding this
implementation of regional haze standards?
Mr. Seitz. Well, it's a difficult question. We were at the
table through the entire Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission deliberation, took part in that, and as noted in
earlier discussion----
Mr. Schaffer. How about right now? Are there any organized
efforts, meetings with eight Governors in the West?
Mr. Seitz. I think you're referring to the letter we just
received that came in from Governor Leavitt of Utah in
referring to an effort that took place between the eight
Governors, the industrial community, and some environmental
groups. The agency was not part of any of those deliberations.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask about this--well, first of all,
over in the Agriculture Committee we had a similar hearing on
this particular matter and other EPA regulations that you in
your prepared remarks--I don't know if I heard it in your oral
statement here--said that, as we know, that EPA revised
national ambient air quality standards for group level ozone
and particulate matter. These standards have the potential to
prevent as many as 15,000 premature deaths each year. We
debated that point in the Agriculture Committee just a few
months ago. I can't cite names or quote institutions that they
may have been from, but they were sufficiently credentialed as
scientists, experts in the area.
So the EPA has no credible way of substantiating the claim
that these new standards would prevent as many as 15,000
premature deaths. Do you agree or dispute that?
Mr. Seitz. I stand by the analysis the agency did.
Mr. Schaffer. How did the agency conclude that it can save
15,000 people from premature death?
Mr. Seitz. Congressman, I would be pleased to provide for
the record the information on that, but you're asking questions
concerning the PM fire standard, and I came here prepared to
talk about regional haze and fire.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
The EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to
assess the potential costs, economic impacts, and benefits
associated with illustrative implementation scenarios of the
revised national ambient air qualifier standards (NAAQS) for
ozone and particulate matter. It should be noted that, as
established in the Clean Air Act, decisions to set or revise
air quality standards are based on health effects information,
and not on cost or other economic considerations. Therefore,
the RIA was intended to inform the public regarding the
potential costs and benefits that may result when the revisions
to the NAAQS are implemented, but these estimates were not used
in the NAAQS decision-making process.
The estimate of approximately 15,000 premature deaths
prevented is based primarily on a published study [Pope, C.A.,
III; Thun, M.J.; Dockery, D.W.; Evans, J.S.; Speizer, F.E.; and
Heath, C.W. Jr. (1995), Particulate Air Pollution as a
Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults.,
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med 151:669-674.] regarding the
relationship between long-term exposure to PM and mortality.
This study was reviewed thoroughly by the independent Clean Air
Science Advisory Committee and judged to satisfy various
criteria for use within the standard-setting process. Pope et.
al. developed a ``concentration-response'' relationship between
median ambient PM concentrations and mortality. The
concentration-response relationship allows the estimation of
changes in a health effect (in this case, mortality) given a
change in air quality. A second step in estimating the
reduction in premature mortality was to predict changes in
ambient PM concentrations resulting from the new NAAQS. To
generate this data, the Agency performed air quality modeling
on a county-specific basis for all counties in the continental
United States. The predicted air quality changes were used in
conjunction with the concentration-response relationship and
population statistics specific to each county to predict the
reduction in premature mortality associated with the new PM
standard. These county-specific estimates were then summed to
provide a national estimate.
Mr. Schaffer. Is premature a day, a year, 10 years?
What's----
Mr. Seitz Congressman, I'd be pleased to get back to you on
the record for that.
Mr. Schaffer. That would be useful, I think, because it's
how you opened up you comments and established the need for
regulation as you go through the rest of your comments.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
Evidence from epidemiological studies indicated that some
portion of the deaths attributable to exposure to particulate
matter could be on the order of years, while some may be
premature by only a few days. Researchers in this area note
that it is possible that the reported deaths might be
substantially premature if a person becomes seriously ill but
would have otherwise recovered without the extra stress of PM
exposure. In the PM criteria review, EPA recognized that
quantification of the degree of lifespan shortening associated
with long- or short-tenn exposure to particulate matter is
difficult and requires assumptions about life expectancies
given other risk factors besides PM exposure, including the
ages at which PM-attributable deaths occur and the general
levels of medical care available to sensitive subpopulations in
an area. Because of these uncertainties, EPA found that it
could not develop, with confidence, quantitative estimates of
the extent of life-shortening accompanying the increased
mortality rates that have been associated with exposures to PM.
Mr. Schaffer. Also, the issue of deciview's came up. How
did we arrive at the measurement of deciviews when it comes to
measuring haze or visibility?
Mr. Seitz. A deciview is a metric that is used to measure
visibility improvement. It is merely a tool that is used to
tell what the relative improvement in visibility is. Under
Section 169 of the Clean Air Act, it is a visibility
improvement section of the law and it is a metric that is used
to derive from measured values on an improved network--
monitoring network--that measures the relative improvement in
visibility. It was proposed and we took comment on that metric
as well as other metrics.
Mr. Schaffer. What is the relevance of the deciview
standard to public health, for example--the 15,000 premature
deaths for example? Does an improvement of 1 deciview--how many
premature deaths does that prevent?
Mr. Seitz. The metric for the deciview was put in the
regional haze rule for the visibility improvement and as a
metric of visibility improvement.
Mr. Schaffer. So, it's the visibility we're interested in
just making the air look nicer, I suppose.
Mr. Seitz. The visibility improvement under 169, as I
mentioned, directs the agency to implement regional haze rules
to improve the visibility in these wilderness areas. A benefit
from the reductions of this, as you indicate, particularly in
the eastern----
Mr. Schaffer. Are there any correlation between any kind of
restrictions regulations? Any kind of reductions that might be
required from an industrial source that would have a measurable
reduction of say 1 deciview? Say, in other words, if you
require a power plant that might be located or suspect of
contributing to regional haze, if you regulate that power
plant, is there some expectation or measurement or level of
accountability that that will improve the visibility by 1
deciview, for example?
Mr. Seitz. Well, if you're getting to the point of the
relevance between accountability and the emissions reductions
in the power plant and the deciview improvement, it isn't quite
that simple. As the rule proposes, the deciview is used as a
goal. It is a planning target of goal.
For instance, if the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission combined initial reduction strategies in their
report, they would not achieve a deciview. They would probably
achieve about a half a deciview. But it is not the one
reduction from the one power plant, but is indicated by----
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask----
Mr. Seitz. If I could finish the answer. It is a
combination of the reductions from the industrial sector, as
well as automobile and the combined emissions.
Mr. Schaffer. You stated that the advantage to the public
is a perceptible, visible change that you and I might notice.
One deciview is what is noticeable by the average human eye, I
understand. If the management plan or the implementation plan
is not expected to improve visibility by more than 1 deciview,
what public goal does it serve?
Mr. Seitz. It serves the public goal set forth in the Clean
Air Act which says that the reduction strategies that are put
in place must be cost-effective. In addition to visibility
improvement, the Clean Air Act, and, I believe, the current
Congressional Research Service review of the rule identified
this flexibility that basically Congress directed us to make
reasonable progress toward improvement and visibility.
Reasonable progress is measured in terms of control
strategies. Cost effectiveness is one of the measures that is
put into place.
Mr. Schaffer. So, it's measured in terms of controlled
strategies rather than natural improvement?
Mr. Seitz. The accountability within the State
implementation plan for a given source is the emission
reduction strategy in the applicable State rule or State
regulations. The goal, as far as in our proposed rule, we took
comment on putting in place, a long-term strategy of 10 to 15
years, accompanied by State rules that will change the emission
reductions to a given source. The goal and whether or not the
plan achieved the visibility improvement are reviewed on a 3 to
5 year basis is what we're taking comments on.
The relationship of the goal then, let's say it's one after
10 years and we're 5 years in and we're only at a half, if, in
fact, the strategy is still intact from the standpoint that the
industrial sector, the automobile sector or all of the plan
that the State put in place is still valid, then the issue is
to do more planning and analyze what the problem may be. It
does not direct that you go back and control these sources
more.
The metric is used as a management tool to see how you're
doing toward the long-term which could be 20, 30, 40, years.
Congress didn't define an end point. A timeframe is merely a
metric used to measure progress.
Mr. Schaffer. Are there any State implementation plans
where the goal is less than 1 deciview in improvement in
visibility?
Mr. Seitz. Well, since this is only a proposed rule and we
haven't finalized the rule, I'm unaware of any State plans at
this point.
Mr. Schaffer. But will there be?
Mr. Seitz. I can't answer that since the planning process
will take place by the State and local agencies when they
implement the rule, if we go final.
Mr. Schaffer. OK. Is it possible that there could be?
Mr. Seitz. Yes.
Mr. Schaffer. If a deciview is based on the perception,
it's a perceived standard on what a human being might recognize
or see or perceive a difference in visibility, if anything less
than that is imperceptible, why would we do it?
Mr. Seitz. Well again, because the Congress directed us to
do it, and, as I said, the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission's and Governor Leavitt, co-chair of the Commission,
testified to this, I believe, in two Senate hearings, strategy
was derived by a collective, cooperative process where they
developed a series of cost-effective strategies that they
believe would improve visibility. That metric is going to be
under one decision.
There are two tools to advise the public. We can advise the
public, and in this case the Grand Canyon did this, they had
all the stakeholders at the table; they had the tribes, the
State's local agencies, the environmental community and the
industrial community, and said, this is the best strategy, the
most cost-effective strategy we can come up for this timeframe.
Albeit, this is what we expect to get in terms of
visibility improvement. They can measure that. They can tell at
the end of the day, that it was a half or three-quarters. So,
they do have the ability to tell the public that we did make
progress. Is it progress that in the 10-year period to have the
one deciview change, and, as you suggest, can it be seen? Not
in the short-term, but hopefully over the long-term we will
move from one-half to another half to where we get that
perceptible change.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Seitz, I wanted to followup on Mr.
Schaffer's line of questioning. I don't believe that Congress
directed EPA to set a standard of improving air quality by 1
deciview every 10 years.
Mr. Seitz. The proposed rule did not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right. Did the Grand Canyon Commission
recommend this 1 deciview improvement every 10 years?
Mr. Seitz. No ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did Governor Levitt recommend that?
Mr. Seitz. No ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. But that will be in your final
rule, won't it?
Mr. Seitz. No ma'am. The rule proposed a goal. It did not
set a standard.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The improvement of 1 deciview every 10
years will not be in the final rule?
Mr. Seitz. What will be in the final will be decided after
we review all public comment. On this particular issue in the
proposed rule, 1 deciview was proposed as an analytical point,
a presumptive one, where State and local agencies or the
group's that were analyzing this, were required to analyze one.
They were not required to come up with--There was not specific
language for alternatives. In the public comment, we have
received numerous comments on this issue two ways.
No. 1: on deciview, is it the right metric; and should an
absolute 1 be used?
Some of the testimony, for instance--some of the comments
we've heard from the environmental community, they think 1 or
anything less than that would mean that in 250 years we'll
return some of the vistas to what they should be and they
aren't satisfied with that. On the other hand, some commenters
believe that it is too prescriptive and more latitude and more
description of the alternatives should be examined by the
agency.
As we review public comment and as I mentioned into my
testimony, we intend to consider all these comments before we
go final with the rule.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So what you're telling me here in this
hearing is you're not prepared to tell this Committee whether
or not the 1 deciview improvement every 10 years will be in the
final rule?
Mr. Seitz. Well, let me just make sure you're aware and
that I'm sure----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, Doctor, closed comment on the final
rule--it is proposed, yes?
Mr. Seitz. The comment period closed December 5th, Madam
Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Right.
Mr. Seitz. We are taking comments as you are aware, and I
think Congressman Schaffer mentioned, we got a submission from
the Western Governors that is in the docket. All comments we
receive we will put in the docket and consider.
One point you are saying is 10 years, just to be clear
since I'm under oath, in the rule we took comment on a range
from 10 to 15 years. It was 1 deciview, but we did not say or
we had not decided on whether or not it's a 10 to 15 year
period.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So, Mr. Seitz, at the end of five or seven-
and-a-half years, if we haven't reached any improvement of .5
deciviews, what kind of enforcement measures might be applied
if we're not reaching those goals?
Mr. Seitz. Under the proposed rule, the only mechanism that
was required was to ask the States, and in this case, the
regional bodies to evaluate what the problem was. If, in fact,
under the proposed rule, all State and local agencies in their
State implementation plan--and incidently in the Grand Canyon,
this is one of the issues that the Governor testified to--the
Grand Canyon recommendation set out a strategy. And, as the
Governor indicated in his testimony, the real meaning of that
strategy is contained in the individual State implementation
plans.
So, our intent at the 5-year review would be, are these
State implementation plans--has everyone done their fair share?
Have all the States done the correct thing? If they have, there
is no sanction. It is a planning mechanism to take a look at
what is the issue--what is the problem. There is no sanction.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Knowing what Colorado was facing when the
Colorado legislature tried to get a handle on working with EPA
in controlling air quality standards and the Governor vetoed
twice, legislation that was overwhelmingly passed in the
legislature and presented to him, did the EPA weigh-in based on
your comments of trying to get more State control and more
State and local input, did the EPA weigh-in at all on this in
trying to convince the Governor that the legislature had passed
some----
Mr. Seitz. Madam Chairman, again----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very good legislation.
Mr. Seitz. Pardon me?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did the EPA weigh-in at all on the side of
the State based on the fact that they really had tried to do
what you stated the goals of the EPA was? And that is to return
more control to the States and local governments and regional
areas?
Mr. Seitz. I cannot comment on what took place, and I have
said for the record, I will get back as to whether we had any
interaction with the Governor and/or the State at that point in
time. And, I am unaware of what the details of that legislation
is. So, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate.
I can say, though, and I'm sure you're aware, or
Congressman Schaffer I'm certain is aware, of the fact that
there is a very active program, albeit voluntary, in place in
Colorado, managed by, I believe, the Environmental Agency that,
prior to any burning done by Federal land managers, they work
with the State of Colorado, submit an environmental assessment,
as well as--I'm not sure of this, but will check for the
record--obtain a permit to burn.
So whether the letter of the law I cannot answer, and I
will followup for the record, but I can say that the Federal
agencies are working closely with the State of Colorado.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You would expect me to ask, does that also
apply in Idaho? Does it apply in Oregon, Washington, Montana,
Wyoming?
Mr. Seitz. Madam Chairman, Idaho is one of the few States
that has not adopted a smoke management plan for some reason. I
can't quite answer why, but, as mentioned before, we applaud
the efforts of Colorado in putting these plans in place, and
Federal land managers, clearly--the Department of Interior as
well as the Forest Service--have indicated that they intend to
fully cooperate with the States, and I believe in Colorado have
actually entered into a formal memorandum of agreement with the
State. It is my understanding the State of Idaho has chosen not
to adopt such a smoke management plan.
Mrs. Chenoweth. When do you plan to complete the final
rule?
Mr. Seitz. Madam Chairman, we hope to have the rule
completed this Fall.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Then, when would the requirements of the
rule be implemented?
Mr. Seitz. As you know, I'm sure from the ISTEA legislation
recently passed by Congress and signed by the President, it
directs that the implementation of the PM fine control
strategies, meaning the SIP--State Implementation Plans--I get
trapped in using in acronyms--the State implementation plans
for regional haze must be coordinated with the implementation
of the PM fine program. The agency is currently reviewing
changes to or how we would adopt that in the final regulations,
but we will comply with the ISTEA legislation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How does the Inhofe amendment alter any of
the implementation of the schedule that has been proposed?
Mr. Seitz. The ISTEA legislation?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes.
Mr. Seitz. The ISTEA legislation directs one of the
issues--if I could just back up a second. One of the issues on
the proposal that we heard a tremendous comment on from the
State and local agencies was that 1 year after promulgation of
the final regional haze rule States would be required to submit
a State implementation plan.
Meanwhile, we talked earlier about the benefits of some
other reductions--say, of sulphates and nitrates for the fine
particles standards; those steps weren't due until later 2003
to 2004. What the agency intended to do on the regional haze
rule was--we agree with Congress and others that these two
programs should be implemented together; they shouldn't be
separate planning requirements. And when you're looking for
environmental improvement, you should look across both.
So we intended to, if you will, require after 1 year from
the haze rule, a planning State implementation plan that would
tell us how they plan to coordinate regional haze with the PM
fire plans.
What the ISTEA legislation has done is take that principle
and incorporate into law. So, it basically achieves an
objective that we support very strongly, and that is joint-
planning and joint-control strategies.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just have one more question before I'm
going to yield back to Mr. Schaffer. Director Seitz, you heard
Dr. Pearson testify that sections 707 in the House bill and 709
in the Senate was stricken and replaced with section 169(b);
yet, Dr. Pearson testified that EPA's following not section
169(b), but the original section 707. Can you explain that?
Mr. Seitz. Well, and I would be pleased--I will give you a
brief answer and we will ask my office general counsel. I'm not
a lawyer and I don't know but maybe Dr. Pearson is.
The real issue, I think, here is that we are following
under section 169 of the Act, direction to promulgate a
regional haze rule. Section 169(b) of the Clean Air Act also
directs us to establish the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission and sets forth a number of other recommendations. We
believe that we have complied with both of those, and more
importantly, the regulatory authority in the direction of the
1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act directed us to do
rulemaking on this, and Congress left that intact in the 1990
amendments to the 1990 Act.
So, we believe and feel very strongly that we are acting in
accordance with not only of the intent of Congress, but
absolutely in a way that makes sense: we established the
Commission; we waited until 18 months; we've taken their
recommendations. So, I'm not quite sure, frankly, what Dr.
Pearson did mention. I listened with great interest and I
intend to ask my office of general counsel to explain that
issue to me, because we believe we are acting within the intent
of Congress.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you believe--were the recommendations
of the Commission different than what Congress had intended in
laying out section 169(b)?
Mr. Seitz. I think in the Congress' establishing 169(b) and
asking us to establish the Grand Canyon Visibility Commission,
it was a tool for the agency to use as a guidance as we develop
the rule under 169(a) in response to the 1977 amendments. So we
believe we did. There have been a lot of issues, as you've
heard, in the previous testimony, on just how closely we did
follow the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission and we've received a lot of public comment
on that. The Governor and I have testified at two hearings in
the Senate concerning that issue.
As you indicated, we received detailed comments from some
of our western Governors on that. We intend to further
harmonize these rules with the recommendations of the Grand
Canyon Commission on our final rulemaking.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In your previous answer you had indicated
that you're working to follow both recommendations. By that,
you meant the Commission and?
Mr. Seitz. The Commission and direction of Congress. Maybe
``recommendations'' rather than ``directions'' is a better word
there. The Commission set forth a whole series of
recommendations within the report, as you are aware.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I will be following-up with more
specific questions on this of both Dr. Pearson, and of you,
Director Seitz.
Mr. Seitz. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to answer them.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Director Seitz, the impression as to the opinions about the
extent to which you followed or considered the Grand Canyon
study seem to vary a little bit--perceptions are--you ought to
see the one from up here, when I can see the people behind you.
I'll just try to interpret some of the stares and facial
gestures as a disagreement, at least, about the extent to which
Grand Canyon study has been included.
Mr. Seitz. Can I comment on that?
Mr. Schaffer. Yes. I doubt you can rattle them off here. Is
it possible at some point in time for you to respond to the
Committee which recommendations were forwarded into the overall
rule?
Mr. Seitz. We'd be glad to. One of the most important
aspects of the visibility improvement rule is 20 percent best/
20 percent worst days. That is directly out of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission's report.
The question is, do you measure visibility improvement over
the entire twelve month period, or do you take a look at the
distribution of the best and worst days? That very
recommendation came out of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission, and, in fact, is the heart of the rule.
Even when you take a look at some of this prescribed burning
activity, the 20 percent worst days generally take place during
the summer months.
Working with the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Interior with their policies, they intend to
encourage the prescribed burning be conducted in timeframes
outside of that. So, that recommendation was one thing we
borrowed.
I would acknowledge the struggle the agency had on the
proposal, and we spent--I would agree with the previous
testimony--a great deal of time summarizing each and every one
of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's
recommendations in the preamble. Our problem on the proposal
was, as the Governor suggested in his testimony before the
Senate, is that if we had taken those recommendations and
incorporated them word-for-word in regulatory language, we
would have then been prescribing to each individual State how
they should develop their State regulations.
And, as I discussed with the Governor, my guess was, if I
had done that I would have been beaten-up for being overly
prescriptive--that the agency would have been, probably myself,
personally as well.
The issue is how to take those recommendations which as the
Governor suggested, were general recommendations and needed
work with the follow-on body of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission to give them meaning, that would allow
them to eventually be incorporated into individual State
rules--that was the challenge. We didn't know how to do that
and we spent a lot of time on the preamble talking about that.
Subsequent to the rulemaking during the public comment
period, we met with the Western Governors Association; we met
with the board of the Grand Canyon; and they, as well as some
industrial sectors in the West, have given us suggested
regulatory language about how to accomplish that balance of
creating a structure within the rule that recognized each
recommendation of the Commission, but at the same time, did not
tell the State of Idaho or the State of Colorado, this is how
you must do your State rule.
That is the struggle and one of the most, as you've
indicated and heard in the testimony, one of the most
controversial issues in the comment period. Hopefully, in the
final rule based upon comments we received from the Western
Governors and the industrial sector, we can do a better job of
reflecting those recommendations in regulatory language.
Mr. Schaffer. Let me ask you how the regional haze rule
taken together with the particular standard--how does that
allow for land managers to conduct burning without violating
the Clean Air Act?
Mr. Seitz. Well, again, you've heard some of the testimony
from the earlier panel, we would hope, and I hope Dr. Omi and
I'm not sure which previous witness specifically mentioned,
that our worst fear is catastrophic fire from an air quality
standpoint. Those fires generally burn hotter and with higher
emissions than a prescribed burn.
And you asked a question earlier, and if you'd like, we can
get for the record--I believe it was you--about the fires in
Florida; we have been tracking the emissions in Florida and
they are very high. They are violating the PM-10 standard.
So, our objective, along with the Forest Service, will be
to use prescribed fire not only on public lands, but hopefully,
on all lands such as the program Oregon has in place to, over
the long-run, produce emissions done in a way that would be
below the ambient standard. As a matter of fact, when you take
a look at data from a monitor, fire is measured by elemental
carbon. And seeing the results of the filters in these areas,
carbon is only the fraction of the particles. Clearly, fire is
not the major source of the problem in some of these areas. It
is on a episodic basis, but on a long-term basis.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Director Seitz and Ms.
McDougle. I do want to let you know we have two votes on the
floor and we have 4.5 minutes left to get over there. So I am
going to temporarily recess the Committee, and we will take up
this session again just as soon as we can return. I will recess
the Committee for 20 minutes.
Is the second vote a 15-minute vote? We'll return in 20
minutes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will come to order, please.
I wanted to very quickly ask Mr. Seitz one last question. I
know that he has a family emergency and you must catch a plane.
So, my question is--you suggested you will continue to accept
comments and that you're making them part of the final record?
Mr. Seitz. Yes, ma'am. Again, for the regional haze rule,
the comment period, as you mentioned earlier, is closed. But
any information or comments we receive are docketed as part of
the final record and as the Agency has committed in the past,
we intend to consider all of those comments.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Did the Western Governors ask for
additional comment period?
Mr. Seitz. The Western Governors, in their submission, ask
that what they have provided to us be put out for comment. And
we are currently looking--I don't know if you had a chance to
review--they provided us a written document that discusses
proposals for the preamble and suggests different ways to write
regulatory language. It was a very excellent and we're going
through it now within the Agency, we got it at the end of
month, and analyzing all of what was put in there, and trying
to see what it would look like in regulatory language, and
deciding what our next steps with it would be including the
issue that you raise about supplemental notice and comment.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But did the Western Governors ask for
additional comment period?
Mr. Seitz. They asked that we put out for comment what they
provided to us.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But they didn't ask for an additional
extension on the comment period?
Mr. Seitz. On the rest of the rule, no they did not.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Has anyone else asked for an additional comment period?
Mr. Seitz. Yes. I'm sure in the comments we received there
were requests for an extended comment period.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK.
Given the additional implementation schedule prescribed by
the highway bill, will you consider reopening the comment
period?
Mr. Seitz. On what?
Mrs. Chenoweth. On ISTEA.
Mr. Seitz. ISTEA was a law that directed us to harmonize
the schedules of PM and haze. We don't view that as a comment
issue. That is a direction from the Congress to do it and we
intend to do it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But it will require more rulemaking and so
forth. So, will the comment period be extended?
Mr. Seitz. I would have to defer to my Office of General
Counsel. I don't believe that is a comment period issue, Madam
Chairman, but we can ask my general counsel to get back to you
for the record on that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
The EPA has decided to solicit additional public comment on
incorporation of the GCVTC recommendations, with particular
emphasis on the contents of the WGA letter, in an upcoming
public notice. In that notice, EPA also will inform the public
of the changes made by the TEA-21 to the State Implementation
Plan submittal requirements and discuss the effect of these
changes on the regional haze requirements. The EPA believes it
is important to reopen the comment period specifically on these
two significant new items received since the original comment
period closed in December 1997.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Since it does delay the implementation date
in ISTEA, under that set of requirements, would you consider
extending the comment period?
Mr. Seitz. Again, there's three or four questions on the
comment period you've asked: one is the request in what the
Governors have submitted to us. We're reviewing that and
deciding whether that should be put out; and, I believe you're
asking us to open the comment period on the rule based upon the
ISTEA recommendations.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, I'm asking you, will you extend it so
you can make those new considerations required in ISTEA?
Mr. Seitz. Again, Madam Chairman, we're going through the
impact of ISTEA right now as to whether or not it requires a
re-opening of the comment period. I'd have to defer to my
Office of General Counsel, but we are reviewing all of that
right now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It would seem logical that it would----
Mr. Seitz. I understand your concern.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And so, I will look forward to hearing from
you through your office of general counsel.
Mr. Seitz. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. We would appreciate getting a response on
that particular question within 5 days.
Mr. Seitz. On both the issues? Just to be clear on both the
Governors----
Mrs. Chenoweth. The new requirements in ISTEA----
Mr. Seitz. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. They, being new, major requirements that
will require rulemaking. I would appreciate within 5 days
knowing if you will extend the rulemaking.
Mr. Seitz. Yes, ma'am.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Seitz, I am very sorry to hear about
your family emergency, but I understand that another party will
be taking your place. Would you like to introduce them?
Mr. Seitz. That is not what we had talked about, and if I
can, if there are more questions for me, I'd like to stay and
hang in here until as long as 12:45, if possible.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right, we'll do that then.
Mr. Schaffer, do you have additional questions?
Mr. Schaffer. I missed all of the discussion on the comment
period. When did the comment period close? That was December?
Mr. Seitz. December 5.
Mr. Schaffer. December 5, and had there been ongoing
discussions with--I asked this before--but there had been
ongoing discussions and input from Governors around the country
beyond the comment period?
Mr. Seitz. There have been ongoing submissions and
suggestions not only from the Governors, but other individuals
that have been put in the docket.
Mr. Schaffer. Input? Is it fair to characterize them as
negotiations?
Mr. Seitz. No, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. No? These other groups, what kind of other
input?
Mr. Seitz. We received--I would have to characterize them,
I'm not sure of the extent of submissions that have come in
after the comment period closed--but any submission that came
in after the comment period would have made a record of it and
put it in the docket. There has been numerous occasions where
people have asked us to brief them on the proposal after the
comment period closed. We've docketed those discussions. I'd
have to let the record speak for that, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. Given the additional input that's come in
after the comment period, the additional flexibility of the
transportation bill, is there any--let me just ask it a little
bit different than the chairman did--is there any reason an
extension of the comment period would not be advisable?
Mr. Seitz. Well, with respect to the ISTEA legislation
direction, again, we're still analyzing it. But, it seemed
pretty clear to me what the legislation direction was. It said
that we will harmonize the control strategies for the PM fine
areas with the haze rule.
Mr. Schaffer. OK, for legislative references,
understandable, but from a practical perspective and an
administrative judgment, is there any reason that an extension
of the comment period would not be advisable?
Mr. Seitz. I cannot see why we would need an extension at
this point in time, Congressman. No.
Mr. Schaffer. OK, you see no need for--is there any reason
it would not be advisable?
Mr. Seitz. Any reason it would not be advisable?
Mr. Schaffer. Right.
Mr. Seitz. Other than that we had a public comment period
and we extended it once? The agency needs to move forward and
finalize the rule.
Mr. Schaffer. Any other reason?
Mr. Seitz. No, sir.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you. Let me shuffle through my notes
for a second.
If I remember, right when I was heading out the door going
to the floor to vote, one of the questions I was asking was
just about land managers conducting burning without violating
the Clean Air Act. Can you speak to State and private
landowners, how do var-
ious management strategies that may involve controlled burning
on private or State lands interact with the proposed rule?
Mr. Seitz. I think this is one of the issues we said in the
interim policy we would put out, it is interim, because we want
to consider activities that are underway with the final haze
rule, and the Department of Agriculture has a task force
dealing with agriculture burning which is another issue that
clearly could impact haze. So once the efforts of that work
group are completed, we intend to consider them.
As indicated, I think, from the gentleman from Oregon, we
would agree that a smoke management plan, much as the Grand
Canyon recommended, has to extend way beyond just Federal
lands. It must incorporate all burning that takes place, not
only on Federal lands, but also on private lands.
Mr. Schaffer. How about outside the legal jurisdiction of
the United States, Canadian or Mexican?
Mr. Seitz. Well, the issue's not only Canadian;
particularly, the issue was raised earlier about the Mexican
smoke issue. We consider that an international transport/
transboundary issue, and we have a policy dealing with that.
That is a transport issue that we need to deal with from an
international standpoint. We can provide you information on our
position on that for the record, if you'd like. It is a
different category. And as you know from the Mexican fire
issue, or maybe you aren't aware of, we tracked with the
weather service satellite data the actual movement of the
Mexican fire plume into the United States and advised all areas
along with the State of Texas--which was actively involved in
this with the public health concern also--and have advised
these areas that if they experience exceedances or violations
of the standard on those episodic days that we would work with
them, not to have that data penalize their ongoing attainment
activities.
[The information referred to follows:]
----------
The plume from recent wildfires in Mexico and Central
America caused increased air pollution in parts of the United
States. In particular, we have observed increases in monitored
particulate matter (PM) and ozone values. Our first concern, of
course, is the impact on public health in the areas affected by
the plume. As always, we feel that the State and local agencies
must inform the public whenever the air quality in an area is
unhealthy and should take appropriate measures to protect
public health and to mitigate the health impacts to the extent
possible. However, we want to ensure that State and local
agencies and sources within affected areas not be held
accountable for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) violations caused by these international wildfires.
EPA's 1996 Natural Events Policy for PM<INF>10</INF>
recognizes the possibility of the impact of wildfires on
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and addresses situations like this
[Memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, to Air Division Director, Regions I-X, ``Areas
Affected by PM10 Natural Events,'' May 30, 1996]. In accordance
with this policy, EPA will use its discretion under section 107
of the Clean Air Act not to designate areas as nonattainment
for PM-10 when air quality violations are caused by natural
events such as international wildfires. With regard to the
ozone NAAQS, there are several studies which show that smoke
from wildfires can result in increased ozone concentrations
[(1) Ridley, B.A., et al., ``Measurements of Reactive Nitrogen
and Ozone to 5-km Altitude in June 1990 over Southeastern
United States,'' Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 103, No.
D7, pages 8369-8388, April 20, 1998; (2) Mauzerall, D L., et
al., ``Photochemistry in Biomass Burning Plumes and Implication
for Tropospheric Ozone over the Tropical South Atlantic,''
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 103, No. D7, pages 8401-
8423, April 20, 1998; (3) Andreae, M.O., et al., ``Biomass-
Burning Emissions and Associated Haze Layers Over Amazonia,''
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 93, No. D2, pages 1509-
1527, February 20, 1988]. Therefore, EPA does not intend to
hold states responsible for violations of the ozone NAAQS which
are caused by these wildfires.
In addition, over the last several years, EPA has worked
closely with its corresponding environmental agencies and
ministries in Canada and Mexico to establish strong working
relationships and agreements to generally address transboundary
air quality issues. EPA has significantly benefited from the
cooperative framework and information sharing on international
pollutant transport that these partnerships have yielded.
Mr. Seitz. We did not want them going back and saying they
had to revise or do more work domestically, if, in fact, it was
an international event.
Mr. Schaffer. So the EPA can distinguish Canadian smoke
from Canadian or Mexican wildfires in the United States?
Mr. Seitz. Again, the Mexican plume we track by satellite
data from day-to-day and hour-to-hour through the United
States.
Mr. Schaffer. What are we doing next, Madam Chairman? Do
you have any more questions or is this it?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I'd like for you to----
Mr. Schaffer. OK. OK.
Is there any reason that all sources of pollution,
including those that originate on Federal land--wildfires, for
example--is there any reason that those sources and the extent
of air pollution as a result of these fires should not be part
of the final rule on regional haze development?
Mr. Seitz. Again, there was extensive comment on not only
Federal fire, and how it would apply in the final rule, but how
we would deal with it. This was a comment we received and will
consider in the final rule.
I think it is important to note that the final rule should,
as did recommendations for the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission, consider all sources, not only fire but
manmade as well.
Mr. Schaffer. Well I think the Federal Government ought to
be held to the same standard as any other source for the
private, State land, or any other source of particular matter,
or any other pollution source. The EPA ought to pursue in a
manner that treats the Federal Government no different than any
other entity.
Currently, in my opinion, it's time for the Federal
Government to recognize it's role in air pollution and regional
haze. Smoke and forest fires, and prescribed burns on Federal
lands is the single greatest contributor to regional haze in
national parks and wilderness areas. And the EPA practically
exempts the Forest Service from compliance. I think the EPA
needs to carefully consider all sources of pollution in their
air quality and visibility standards should reflect that.
I see we're out of time, Madam Chairman, but I would----
Mr. Seitz. If I could just comment, I would agree that
forest fires, uncontrolled burns are episodic; they are not the
single largest ongoing source of impairment to haze. And as
mentioned earlier, by the previous panel, the Clean Air Act
does provide to the extent that States develop and adopt
regulations, maybe like Oregon, that Federal lands and land
managers equitably are required to comply with those rules. So,
Congressman, we agree with you.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Schaffer.
I want to take one more swing at the effects of ISTEA while
you're still here.
Mr. Seitz. Should I duck?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Given the complexity of the issues
associated with the effect of fire on regional haze in Class I
areas, given EPA's agreement to a delayed implementation
schedule of the Inhofe amendment, I believe Mr. Seitz, that it
is reasonable to ask you to reopen the comment period on the
proposed rule so that the public can fully participate in the
resolution of these issues. Do you agree?
Mr. Seitz. As I said, Madam Chairman, your position is
clear. I've heard your position. As we review the final rule,
the Inhofe amendment, as well as submission for the Governors,
we will consider the comment period.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. This is a special request, and I
look forward to your answer.
With that, Mr. Seitz, you are welcome to be excused. We'll
be asking questions of Ms. McDougle, or you're welcome to stay,
whatever your schedule allows.
Mr. Seitz. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McDougle, you mentioned that, before
embarking and engaging in a prescribed fire, that usually your
regional or your supervisors evaluate winds and air pressure,
and so forth----
Ms. McDougle. Local conditions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes. Yet, in our area in Boise, I
personally have never received as many calls as I did when we
were doing prescribed burning, just a few weeks ago. I received
hundreds and hundreds of calls. Because the Treasure Valley in
which Boise, Naja, Caldwell, are located, is an air inversion
weather pattern there, this smoke came right down and settled
on the valley floor and people were awfully sick; and people
got awfully irritated. Do you have any idea as a result of that
experience and other experiences like that, what your position
may be in the future? Because it really does cause more asthma,
a lot of health problems, stinging eyes and irritated people.
Ms. McDougle. I'm not personally aware of that particular
situation, Madam Chairman. I'd be happy to look into it.
Also, sometimes these things happen and they're not as a
result of Forest Service activities even though we are the ones
who are deemed responsible. And if you will look at some of the
events in the Florida fires as well, wind shifts that were
unpredicted can dramatically alter the direction that fire
fighters will go on the strategies that they will use to put
out fires. So, I'm not real sure what you would like to see
here.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Usually, spring has unpredictable weather
patterns--that's spring. It was very unfortunate that in that
period of unpredictable weather that forests prescribed burning
was implemented. Now, when you say that that it isn't always
your call----
Ms. McDougle. No, I'm saying that it's not always the
forests, it's activities that could--especially in the areas of
mixed ownership--activities that could occur on Forest Service
lands, but within the green light that we sometimes get blamed
for it. But I'll be happy to look into that and get back with
you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I can guarantee that we could tell the
difference. It was a great press interest that there were
prescribed burnings going on when there was an air inversion.
So, it was because of the activity in the forest.
Ms. McDougle. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And, it was unfortunate.
Mr. Truesdale, did you have anything you would like to add?
Mr. Truesdale. The issue of putting smoke into valleys and
into areas during periods of inversion is something that we
would want to avoid because of the reaction and the impacts
that you just described. I think that planning process, the
implementation process, the working with the local smoke
management authorities within the State, we need to follow the
restrictions and regulations in order to avoid that and make
sure it doesn't happen. I am not familiar with this particular
incident, although I have heard that there was a bad weather
forecast, but we would have to look into that particular one
for you.
But, I agree with you. Under those conditions, where smoke
would be sent into populated areas, is probably not the
conditions that we should be burdened. But, at the same time,
we may need to take some opportunities in the spring where the
weather is a little bit unpredictable in order to avoid the
more serious impacts from wildfires during the summer that
we're trying to avoid by reducing the fuels and reducing the
impacts of smoke from wildfires.
I believe there would be a tradeoff there. However, I don't
believe the tradeoff should be smoke into a valley if we can
avoid that. The smoke management plan of the burning plan and
the implementation plan should avoid that. I agree.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In southern Idaho, we were prevented from
even sighting an even coal fire plant with huge call of smoke
stacks because of the air inversion back in the early 1970's.
So, it's an historically established fact that there is always
air inversion in there about that time of year.
I know the people who make those decisions in the Boise
National Forest, and while I have not talked to them directly,
I have worked with Ms. McDougle, it is unlike them to make
these kinds of decisions. I have high regard for their ability
to make good, sound decisions. Was there any pressure on the
forests to engage in these prescribed burns; perhaps against
the best advice of the foresters who know that area?
Ms. McDougle. I doubt it. The targets or burning are
bottom-up targets. Phil identifies them to us; we roll them up,
and this is our annual plan of work as best we can meet them.
So, no.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McDougle, I would like to know
personally how the decision was made to engage in this
prescribed burning at this time.
Ms. McDougle. I will be happy to----
Mrs. Chenoweth. And who was in on the decisionmaking? Now,
I don't want anybody's head.
Ms. McDougle. I understand.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I don't want anyone to get in trouble over
this unless--I would like to be able to review the facts.
Ms. McDougle. Certainly.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But I also don't want our forests under
undue pressure from any other agency, including EPA or anyone
else to have to feel pushed to engage in this kind of activity.
Now, should the choice be between setting prescribed fires in
the springtime as compared to the summertime? I suggest that
there is a better alternative, and I'd like to know the degree
to which mechanical activity on the forest was also considered
to reduce the fuel load.
Ms. McDougle. OK.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Could you please get back to me on that?
Ms. McDougle. OK. I'd be happy to.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Because, to me, that would be a very
logical alternative.
Ms. McDougle, you mentioned EPA natural events policy and
its emphasis on mitigation measures to reduce the effects of
fire on air quality. Could you please describe the mitigation
measures you now utilize and any other measures you'd like to
see used in the future for mitigation?
Ms. McDougle. We have several ways that we go about looking
at that on the work level. We do it through our planning
process where we apply NEPA, where we utilize public
involvement; where we assure that we comply with statutory
requirements. We have completed and published a desk guide map
that lays out how you consider fuels management, fire inland
and management planning. We have published this land management
considerations and fire adapt ecosystems. It's a conceptual
guideline and we are revising it to better refinement at the
field.
So there are a number of things that are being done in a
national framework, but the allowing the field units to tailor
it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Chief Dombeck has testified that 40 million
acres of Forest Service lands are susceptible to catastrophic
wild fires and are in need of fuels reduction. It's also stated
that many of these acres cannot be burned safely unless they
are initially treated. What does the Forest Service plan to do
to reduce the wild fire risk in these areas? And how will these
efforts address the need to minimize smoke emissions such as in
the Boise area?
Ms. McDougle. You are correct in saying that the Chief has
made this statement, the Secretary, as well, and Joslin and
others. We estimate that between 39 and 40 million acres are at
risk for catastrophic fires on national forests out there. This
is a rough estimate and we expect to have a refined map late
this fall that will a lot more clearly articulate how many
acres and where they are.
The map that we have up there shows about 70 million acres
which contain those 40 million that we've talked about and they
are represented in very implied species. We understand that the
volume is no longer in the big trees and that it is in the
small diameter wood. We understand that what we're talking
about here is a timber pilgrimage transition. We understand
that more has to be done in terms of forest conditions,
ecosystem restoration. We understand that we have to go forward
in addressing those things with constrained budgets. We also
understand that our tools are going to have to be different to
do this. This takes time.
Our timber program is aggressively involved in re-
engineering from some of their contract to their actual tools
on the ground to better respond to the emerging needs here. We
understand that 50 percent of the acres that need fuels
treatment have to be accessed mechanically, to get to them. We
understand that because we say there are 40 million acres at
high-risk, that all 40 million acres don't need treatment.
We don't know what that number of acres are to
substantially reduce that risk, but those are the acres that
have been identified where fire has been excluded from the
ecosystem.
We understand that we have to vastly expand our
relationship with these communities to where there are markets
for this wood to find ways to connect the communities with the
markets and with the businesses, either expanding them or
developing them or creating them, and our Madison lab is doing
this. Where there aren't markets, we have to be more creative
in developing them.
So, we see this as a very comprehensive need out there, and
there is a commitment on behalf of the Secretary, the Chief,
and myself to get on with it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. What tools will you use or will you have
available to use to meet these goals in the future?
Ms. McDougle. We're still in the inventorying stage, just
to find out what's out there. We have our folks in research
working on that right now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ms. McDougle, we've done a lot of
inventories. We've got to move beyond that--well, what we've
been talking about, fire management and air quality here.
Ms. McDougle. Well, what we've inventoried and what we've
paid attention to and what we've kept up with was the stuff
that had market value. What we have not inventoried is the
stuff that doesn't. That's what we have to get a handle on. We
do have a handle on the acres that are at high-risk to insects
and disease across this country. We know that. We will have
this fall those acres that are at high-risk for catastrophic
fire. I think we'll have something we're able to overlay that.
But right now, Congress has been very, very supportive in
terms of the funding that we've gotten, that Interior has
gotten to complete those inventories, and we're almost done.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But in your answer, you did say that the
timber program is in transition.
Ms. McDougle. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will logging thinning be options in the
future?
Ms. McDougle. Significant.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Logging and thinning will be a viable
option in the future.
Ms. McDougle. Yes, in what proportions, I don't know, but,
yes. This is not an intent to get away from that, but where the
volume is. This isn't small diameter wood right now.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes. You heard Mr. Walcher's comment about
it's the larger diameter trees when burning, create more smoke,
and actually work against us. So, if there is an area where we
need to thin, of course, none of us want to leave the small
diameter fuel load in there.
Ms. McDougle. Well, I agree with you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. See, the whole purpose of this hearing is
to figure out a way and to get some good facts on the record
with re-
gards to conflicting values. So, it would seem to me that the
market will not respond as the market is made up now, even with
chips becoming a big part of construction. The market will not
respond to be able to, in a viable manner, economically, get
that small stuff out of the forest.
So, will our logging programs as we have known them in the
past and has been framed by the National Forest Management Act
still be part of your program? Or is the transition to move
away from that as required in NEPA?
Ms. McDougle. I think the transition that I'm describing is
that the work of the timber program is broader than it's been
in the past. The funding constraints are bigger than they've
been in the past and it challenges the Agency to be a lot more
adaptive and a lot more creative to respond to all of the
different needs that are out there; to respond to the needs of
the community in terms of economy; to respond to forest health;
and we don't have that portfolio in place right now to do that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Both of us feel that we do have other
questions, but both Mr. Schaffer and I, through the Committee,
will be submitting more questions in writing to both you and
Mr. Seitz. This is an area of great concern to us, and I don't
believe that the goals as you described them are mutually
exclusive, and that seems to be up until today the tendency
where we were treating them as mutually exclusive goals.
To the degree that I understood you to say, they don't have
to be mutually exclusive, and that may be part of the
transition. If that is correct, I am pleased to hear that.
Is there anything that you would like to add?
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Ms. McDougle. I would like to say, Madam Chairman, that as
we proceed in framing this broader mission, if you will, we
will be more than happy to spend time with you and your
Committee and your staff in keeping you involved in how it's
developing.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. Thank you very much.
Did you have any final comments?
Mr. Schaffer. No.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. I do want to thank you very much
for your patience. We can't always call the floor schedule in
these committees and they can be drawn out into very long
committee hearings, but I thank you for your patience.
And I thank you, Ms. McDougle, for accommodating the time
that we had to spend with Mr. Seitz so he could----
Ms. McDougle. That's perfectly all right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The record will remain open for 10 working
days. We would appreciate your responses for any changes or
responses within 10 working days.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Joslin may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Dr. Robert L. Pearson, Radian International, Denver,
Colorado
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
My name is Dr. Robert Pearson. I am an air quality
scientist and Project Manager at the Denver office of Radian
International, an environmental consulting firm. I am also an
adjunct professor of air pollution in the graduate school of
the University of Colorado at Denver.
I am appearing before you today to discuss the air quality
impacts of the practice of using prescribed burns to reduce
vegetation in our nation's forests. I also appeared before the
full Committee in a similar hearing last September 30. I
appreciate the opportunity to again appear before you Madam
Chair and members of the Subcommittee to further discuss this
important subject.
First a short bit of history. I have practiced as a
scientist in the area of air pollution for my entire career,
lasting some 25 years. In 1992, Governor Romer of Colorado
appointed me to be a representative of Colorado on the Public
Advisory Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission. Congress established the Commission in Section 169B
of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The Commission,
made up of the governors of eight states and representatives of
several Indian tribes, was charged to recommend to EPA ways of
reducing man caused visibility impairment in and near the Grand
Canyon. The Public Advisory Committee was given the
responsibility of reviewing the man caused impact to visibility
in the Grand Canyon and other Class I national parks and
wilderness areas in the West and making recommendations to the
Commission on methods for preventing and remedying such impact.
We spent four years and more than eight million dollars
reviewing the science that had been collected on this subject
including new visibility data gathered for the Commission. We
then formulated policy recommendations for the Commission to
consider. Throughout the conduct of this scientific study,
every interest group was represented including environmental
groups, the EPA and the Federal land management agencies of the
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National
Park Service.
On June 10, 1996, the Commission published its findings in
a report titled ``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. I am here today to relate some of the information we
learned as we struggled to craft a workable regional haze
improvement plan for the West.
The EPA has recently proposed a set of regulations to
allegedly protect and improve regional visibility in the U.S.
Unfortunately, even though the proposed regional haze rules
acknowledge the work of the Commission, the rules almost
totally ignore the recommendations of the Commission. We on the
Commission worked very hard to craft a workable plan for
improving visibility in the West. However, this regional haze
proposal of EPA is ignoring our work and attempts by the
Western Governors Association (WGA) to get EPA to follow the
Commissions approach have led to even more confusion. If the
new regulations are adopted, our efforts in improving
visibility in the West will be overwhelmed by land management
plans of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the
National Park Service, which I will detail in a moment.
The Commission's proposed strategy for improving visibility
in the West took a regional consensus approach to achieving
this goal. The consensus addressed all sources of air pollution
emissions in the West including motor vehicles and fugitive
dust. It recognizes the current trends in western air quality
that will result in improved regional visibility over time.
Instead of adopting the Commission proposal, EPA has chosen to
go back to their usual command and control approach to place an
ever-increasing burden on a single group, stationary sources.
The Commission's work has shown that this group of sources has
a relatively small and declining role in the cause of regional
haze, particularly on the worst days that EPA has chosen to
target. Requiring additional controls on them will yield
relatively little benefit over emission reduction trends that
are currently under way.
EPA also is apparently not aware of the legislative history
of the language in the Clean Air Act for protecting regional
visibility, Congress in debating the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act had before it two bills. Section 707 of the House
Bill and Section 709 of the Senate Bill had provisions similar
to the currently proposed EPA regional haze rules. Those
sections contained requirements for Best Available Control
Technology analysis of major stationary sources, final
visibility rules in a year, regional haze plans, criteria for
reasonable progress and a methodology for measuring visibility.
These sections were deleted during Senate floor debate and the
current Section 169B was inserted in its place and adopted by
Congress in the final bill.
Section 169B requires that studies of regional visibility
are conducted and regional visibility transport regions be
established to formulate measures for improving visibility in
the region. It was under this provision that the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission was established to perform
these analyses. Section 169B also requires the Administrator of
the EPA to take into account the recommendations of the
Commission in forming its regulations for improving visibility
in the region. EPA has chosen to follow the provisions of the
sections that were deleted by the Senate and House and not the
sections that were adopted in the final bill.
Congress, in Section 169B, required the Commission to study
several concepts in regional visibility including visibility
transport regions and clean air corridors. The Commission
studied these and included discussions of them in its report.
The Commission also reported in detail and made recommendations
on several potential sources of western visibility impairment
including area sources, fugitive dust, prescribed fire, mobile
sources and emissions crossing the border from Mexico. Congress
required that the EPA Administrator take into account these
recommendations from the Commission report in formulating its
proposed rule. The EPA proposed rules don't contain any mention
of any of these concepts and recommendations required by
Congress. EPA has instead chosen to ignore Congress and the
Commission report and to focus on stationary source control,
giving more authority to the Federal land managers, and
requiring the states to perform many costly functions such as
setting up visibility monitoring stations.
It is apparent to me as an air quality scientist that EPA
has chosen to take a narrow perspective of improving regional
visibility. This is in stark contrast to the Commission that
has taken a much broader, and in my view, a much more workable
scientific approach to improving regional visibility in the
West by looking at all sources of visibility impairment rather
than a select few. EPA should be told by Congress to rescind
its regional haze regulation proposal and to prepare a new
regional haze rule which is in accord with the intent of
Congress as expressed in Section I69B and which fully
incorporates the process of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission.
The Federal land managers also have several
responsibilities for the protection of regional haze that I
would like to bring to the attention of the Subcommittee. One
provision of current law as well as the proposed regional haze
rule 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. The
state in which the source is located would then be required to
evaluate the allegedly offending source(s) for the retrofit of
air pollution control technology equipment to reduce the effect
on the Class I area. 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.
While this scenario 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 the wilderness area some 30
miles away. The State of Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment along with the Forest Service and the Colorado
utilities conducted a $3 million scientific study to determine
the sources of visibility impact in the wilderness area. The
recently released results of the study showed that the Hayden
power plant was only a minor contributor to visibility
impairment in the wilderness. Despite this evidence, the source
owners have committed to spending over $120 million to reduce
the emissions from the plant.
At the same time the Federal land managers can trigger
clean up activities on other sources, they plan on increasing
their own air pollution activities through increasing
prescribed burns. Interior Secretary Babbitt testified to the
full Committee in its hearing last fall his intention to
increase the use of prescribed fire by 400 percent as a land
management tool in order to reduce the level of fuels built up
in our forests. Secretary of Agriculture Glickman also
testified before the Committee that the Forest Service would
dramatically increase its use of prescribed fire. While the
elimination of fuels in our forests is needed, the use of fire
as the tool of choice will cause regional haze to increase.
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 PM 2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard recently adopted by EPA for the
protection of human health to be violated near the fire. In
addition, the fine soot particles in the smoke will affect
regional visibility by both scattering and absorbing light.
At times smoke containing fine particles travels hundreds
of miles and across several states increasing regional haze all
along the way. I can vividly remember seeing the effects in
Denver of several California wildfires, the 1988 Yellowstone
fires and just this spring the smoke from the fires in Southern
Mexico. These effects were much reduced visibility and a smoke
smell in the air. While I do not have air quality measurement
data from these periods, I am sure the concentration of fine
particles was elevated for several days each time even at the
considerable distance that the smoke traveled to get to Denver.
During the Commission study of western regional visibility,
we also saw photographs taken at Hopi Point at the Grand Canyon
when a small wild fire 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 Commission analyzed the effects of the announced
increase in the use of fire as a forest management tool and
concluded that the effects on western regional visibility could
easily wipe out the gains made by all other source categories
combined. These other source categories, which are currently
reducing emissions, include power plants, copper smelters,
cars, trucks and area sources of fugitive dust.
Note that the Commission combined all fires, both man
caused and wild fires, into the ``natural category'' for our
analysis. Such natural causes contribute almost half of the
visibility impairment in the West. To some extent considering
smoke from intentional man caused fires as ``natural'' biases
the report. This also, in effect, excludes 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 the Federal land management agencies even though their
contribution is considered ``natural.''
The story gets even better since EPA Administrator Browner
testified in last fall's hearing before to full Committee that
EPA will ignore air quality measurements on those days when
fires, either intentional prescribed burns or unintentional
wild fires, are taking place. This is to allow regions to meet
the recently adopted EPA fine particle ambient standards. This
takes us to an absurd outcome of EPA insisting that fine
particle pollution in many areas of the West be reduced to
protect human health and visibility on all but the worst days
when fires are taking place. Those bad days, when health and
visibility impacts are at their peak, will be exempt from
recording of the measurements through this flexible
interpretation by EPA of their monitoring requirements.
While I am extremely concerned that prescribed burns will
hamper and even possibly prevent our attainment of the goal
Congress set of remedying man made causes of visibility
impairment in the West, I recognize that forest fires can and
will continue to occur. Federal land managers must take action
to reduce the level of fuel available in the nations forests
for wild fires to consume. I am not convinced, however, that
prescribed burns are the only tools at their disposal for this
purpose. Other techniques such as logging and mechanical
removal can and should be selectively used to reduce the amount
of fuel available for fires.
Both Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Glickman testified
last fall that mechanical thinning of vegetation in our forests
would be part of the treatment that will be applied to the
forests. This testimony runs counter to the recent trend by the
Forest Service of reducing logging on the nation's forests.
Secretary Glickman went on to say that nearly half of the 40
million acres of Federal land needing vegetation reduction
would have to be done mechanically because the level of fuel in
the forest is too high to perform a prescribed burn without
major damage to the forest.
When prescribed fire is indeed the only available option,
the land managers should only use it when conditions are right
for burning with little smoke being produced which will affect
visibility in and near Class I areas. Only then can we have
some hope of achieving cleaner air in our Class I areas. The
increase in regional haze due to prescribed burns will make it
more difficult for the improved visibility goals to be
achieved.
The proposed EPA regional haze rules could trigger even
more stringent controls on stationary sources to make up for
the increased visibility impact of the prescribed burns of the
Federal land managers so that the visibility improvement goals
set by Congress are met. Under the proposed regional haze
rules, the Federal land managers are allowed to set fires at
will to reduce forest fuel. At the same time the land managers
have the power to force other sources to reduce their emissions
that may affect Class I areas to meet the congressional goal.
This ``do as I say not as I do'' philosophy of the Federal land
managers suggests a double standard that needs to be addressed
by Congress. You need to assure that the clean air goals you
set are being met with an equal burden being carried by all.
This is the approach chosen by the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission that EPA is ignoring.
We must all work together to see that the goal of improved
visibility is achieved that you as members of Congress have
set. Fires on Federal lands were identified by the Grand Canyon
study as the largest single episodic source of regional haze. I
am extremely concerned that Federal land managers have chosen
to point the finger at others while ignoring the obligation
they themselves have to protect the air quality in areas they
have been charged to protect. Until land management agencies
recognize this responsibility and factor it into their day-to-
day land management practices, will we see the benefits of
improved air quality in our Class I areas. Also, the regional
haze rules recently proposed by EPA need to be rescinded
because they lack scientific basis, exclude major sources,
exclude the Grand Canyon process, return to a command and
control regime previously rejected by Congress, and have no
adequate cost/benefit or unfunded mandate anaysis.
Thank you.
------
Statement of Dr. Philip N. Omi, Professor and Director, Western Forest
Fire Research Center (WESTFIRE), Colorado State University
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
Introductory Comments
Thank you for inviting me to present my views on prescribed
burns, other management techniques, and fire economic impacts
as these relate to your air quality deliberations. My views on
these topics result from 28 years of experience studying fires,
including five years as a seasonal firefighter and 23 years as
researcher and professor in forest fire science. For the past 6
years I have served as Director of the Western Forest Fire
Research Center (WESTFIRE) at Colorado State University, which
performs integrative research into ecological, socio-economic
and environmental effects of forest and rangeland fires.
Current and recent projects have provided insights into the
cost-effectiveness of mitigation efforts aimed at reducing
consequences of wildfires. We focus on areas in need of fuels
treatment and suggest appropriate management techniques for
allowing people to live and work safely in fire-prone areas
throughout the western U.S. Recently I have been invited to
participate on the Fire Emissions Joint Forum of the Western
Regional Air Partnership, which will be developing policies and
methodologies for implementing recommendations from the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
Overview
Fire has been a part of most terrestrial ecosystems for
thousands of years. Lightning has provided a natural ignition
source and humans have interacted with fire for more than
300,000 years. Humans have used fire to shape landscapes for
perhaps the last 20,000 years. Combined with lightning
ignitions, fire has created a diverse mosaic of so-called fire
type plant communities. By the same token, ecologists point to
the impacts of the past 100 years of fire suppression in the
U.S., including excessive fuel buildups, stagnant dog-hair
stands, increased disease and insect infestations, less
diversity and numbers of wildlife, and ultimately, devastating
wildfire conflagrations. These outcomes are symptoms of a
general deterioration in forest health in affected areas.
Compared to presettlement times, current forests appear denser,
have many more small-diameter trees and fewer large trees, and
support greater quantities of surface and canopy fuels.
The forests and wild areas of the U.S. are the result of a
long history of disturbance (such as fire) and also of human
use. Most north American plant species are adapted to periodic
fire recurrence and humans have manipulated forest rangeland
environments with fire, cutting, and other cultural activities.
Fire has served humankind as a valuable tool; but we also know
too well that unbridled fire can wreak havoc on our best-laid
plans for enjoying both tangible and intangible products from
the forest.
Recently, the use of fire has achieved credibility as a
land management tool for achieving a variety of objectives.
Under carefully prescribed conditions, fire has been used to
reduce fuels, prepare seedbeds, control plant diseases, remove
undesirable plant species, restore ecosystems, and improve
wildlife habitat. Even so, surprisingly little is known of the
relationship between fire and its effects, including impacts on
air quality.
Smoke from fire contributes to regional haze and can
adversely affect commerce and human health. On the other hand,
fire may be an indispensable tool to the land manager for
reducing the risk from future fires as well as for restoring
forest health in many areas of the western U.S. Thus an
emerging conflict is taking shape between the desire for clean
air versus the inevitable and intentional ignition of the
nation's wildlands. Further, tightening of air quality
restrictions could inadvertently lead to more smoke and haze as
a consequence of greater limitations on prescribed fire.
Fire Impacts on Air Quality
The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission report
summarizes conveniently in one document the effects of fire on
air quality, especially from a visibility standpoint. According
to this report, ``emissions from fire (wildfire and prescribed
fire) are an important episodic contributor to visibility-
impairing aersols, including organic carbon, elemental carbon,
and particulate matter.'' The report also includes important
gaps in our knowledge that can be addressed through future
research.
The chemistry of smoke is complex and as yet incompletely
specified, although the distribution of particle sizes is
better known. The human health impacts from fire emissions
aren't understood very well, although increased levels of fine
particulate matter have been associated with higher levels of
absenteeism, illness, and premature death. Better information
is needed though the potential downside seems clear. We know
that regional haze can lead to aircraft, marine vessel, and
highway deaths in the short-term; long-term impacts of
prolonged exposure haven't been studied conclusively.
Regional haze from fires usually doesn't garner the same
attention as subdivisions aflame or massive evacuations. Even
so, according to news reports the haze from the Florida fires
was ``visible on satellite pictures from space and evident 200
miles out into the Atlantic Ocean . . . causing health problems
and curtailing outside activities,'' (USA Today 6/26/98).
Closer to home, in 1994 an estimated 1.35 million tons of fine
particulate matter was emitted from 65,700 fires that burned
3.8 million acres of Federal land. During these incidents
several northwestern U.S. communities experienced smoke
pollution episodes exceeding EPA standards adopted to protect
human health. The downwind smoke plume from these northwestern
U.S. fires was visible 150 miles away.
Tradeoffs between Wild- and Prescribed Fires
In any given year anywhere from 1 to 7 million acres of
forests and rangelands may burn by wildfires. These fires may
have the greatest impact on visibility in all airsheds, but
especially in Class I areas mandated by Congress for special
air quality protection. Further, increased visibility
impairment by fire is likely to exceed any potential visibility
improvements made possible by regulation of emissions from
other sources.
The economic impact of wildfires can be substantial. In
this decade we have had several $1 billion fire seasons.
Although the losses from the 1998 Florida fires may not be
known for some time, I have heard cost and damage estimates
ranging from $300,000 to $.5 billion. The Oakland Hills fire in
1991 destroyed 3,000 homes, killed 25 people, and produced over
$2 billion in costs and losses.
Of the elements comprising a fire's environment (fuel,
weather, and topography), only fuels can be managed effectively
to reduce the severity of eventual wildfires. The vast variety
of fuel treatments fall into the following broad categories:
disposal on site (e.g., burning), redistribution on site,
physical removal, vegetation type conversion, and isolation.
The types of fuel treatments that fall into these various
categories can be quite numerous, e.g., hand piling, tractor
piling, mechanical crushing or mastication and burning, dozer
chaining, jackpot burning, chemical desiccation and burning, to
name just a few.
Recently Federal agencies with fire management
responsibilities have embarked on an ambitious expansion in
fuel treatment programs, with emphasis on prescribed fire and
mechanical thinning. This effort is part of a larger attempt to
restore and maintain ecosystem health while providing for
public and firefighter safety. Reductions in wildfire costs are
part of this ambitious agenda although many uncertainties
remain about the magnitude of savings achievable. The agencies
have identified 95 million acres of public land in need of
hazardous fuel reduction, primarily in the western states.
Currently, agencies are treating about 2 million acres
annually; projections call for expansions to 3-6 million acres
annually over the next decade. These projections are
speculative but some suggest that fuel accumulations may
continue to stockpile, even with the planned expansions in fuel
reduction programs.
Prescribed fire is receiving much attention because it
mimics natural fire processes and treatment costs are
relatively low compared to other alternatives. Pre-
vious studies in California have documented that prescribed
fires can produce comparable fuel hazard reduction but at 1/10
the cost per acre as mechanical treatments. At the same time,
intentional burning does require skilled staff and reliance on
suitable fuel moisture and wind conditions during burn
execution. Escapes can be costly and and even modest increases
in prescribed fire applications could significantly degrade air
quality in a region. These risks can be mitigated through sound
planning and professional execution, but these same risks
cannot be eliminated completely.
Ultimately a combination of mechanical removal followed by
prescribed fire may be the optimal treatment for many areas,
especially those located at safe distances from human
population centers. In such cases, the mechanical treatment
could be used to prepare the fuelbed for safe burn execution
while also providing potentially useful raw materials for wood
products. Unfortunately, in many areas throughout the rural
U.S. markets aren't well developed for the small diameter trees
and removable biomass that add to fire hazards when left behind
in the forest. Further, the combination of mechanical plus fire
treatments may not be feasible in park and wilderness areas.
Access to these areas may be difficult and use of mechanized
equipment may not be practical nor acceptable (administratively
or socially) in these areas, many of which coincidentally may
be designated for Class I protection. Finally I am finding
through ongoing research for the USDA Forest Service that there
are important knowledge gaps associated with efforts to reduce
wildfire severity through prescribed fire and mechanical
thinning.
Thus no single treatment is a panacea or will work in all
situations, but each can play an important role if carried out
in concert with a systematic and integrative planning process.
In most landscapes a combination of treatments will likely be
required, rather than relying on one single treatment. Each
proposed treatment needs to be evaluated on the basis of
relative advantages and disadvantages compared to overall land
management objectives for the area and relative costs
associated with treatment alternatives.
Other potential solutions look beyond the technology of
fuel hazard reduction. Promising examples include conversion of
forest biomass to ethanol, creation of defensible space around
home-sites and subdivisions, and citizen slash-mulching
programs. With adequate incentives, community partnerships can
be formed with industry and government to develop sustainable
forestry initiatives that reduce fuel hazards while reviving
the forest products sector. Another possibility involves
forestry stewardship projects that promote fire-safe
environments while providing a sustainable base of local
employment. Last year Dr. Dennis Lynch, now Professor Emeritus
at Colorado State University appeared before this Subcommittee
to promote stewardship contracts for forest restoration on
national forest lands. I refer you to his written testimony
before the Subcommittee on March 18, 1997 for further details.
Ongoing Efforts and Information Needs
The projected expansion in fuels treatment programs has
spawned the recognition of many uncertainties and information
gaps associated with fuel treatment and wildfire management.
The Federal Fire Science Initiative is an interagency
collaborative effort aimed at bolstering fuels management
research. Fire managers have long recognized the importance of
fuels in managing a fire's environment, but relatively little
emphasis had been directed toward understanding the scope and
breadth of problems related to implementing a fuels management
program. The Federal Fire Science Initiative represents a first
attempt to address these problems programmatically on an inter-
agency basis.
Many information gaps will remain even after the Initiative
is completed. For example, it will be some time before we are
able to predict relationships between fuel treatment
expenditures and anticipated reductions in wildfire suppression
costs. Other voids will relate to the optimal balance between
wild and prescribed fires, especially as related to managing
visibility and human health impacts from wildland combustion.
The Western Forest Fire Research Center (WESTFIRE) which I
direct at Colorado State University has an established
capability for collaborative research that assists agencies in
answering questions about fire and fuels management. For
example, a previous project assisted the Department of Interior
in evaluating fuel treatments and management practices capable
of reducing the likelihood of large fires. Another project
assisted the National Park Service in identifying contributors
to high versus low cost prescribed fire projects, including
reasonable ranges on expenditures for projects of varying size.
We estimate that the NPS saved several hundreds of thousands of
taxpayer dollars by screening wasteful or inefficient projects.
In the future we hope to assist agencies and publics by
contributing to better understanding of the scope and magnitude
of wildfire problems throughout the U.S., so that efforts can
focus on high-risk areas. We hope to do this by developing
models and action plans that mitigate threats before fires
occur in these high-risk areas.
Conclusions
Ultimately solutions to wildfire management problems will
require a coalition of diverse interests working toward
solutions at the local levels. Scientists, environmentalists,
businesses, and local leaders will need to reach consensus on
necessary combinations of treatments that will satisfy human
needs without compromising clean air mandates and requirements.
Stewardship projects that sustain local community employment
bases while providing for a cleaner environment certainly
deserve additional consideration.
Perhaps the biggest task involves educating the nation's
population about the importance of fire and forest management.
Fires have burned in north American forests for thousands of
years. By contrast, forests have been managed in our fire
environments for only a short time period. Many residents have
not come to grips with the risks of living with fire, in spite
of the evidence that our forests have burned with regularity.
If past experience is any indicator, we are learning that we
cannot keep fire out of our forests forever. The trick then is
to manage the forest so that we can safely endure and learn
from fire's consequences. More tolerance will be required for
fire in the forest and prescribed smoke in the atmosphere.
Revisions in air quality standards may need to be considered--
but the largest obstacle may be our own unwillingness to revise
how we fulfill human wants and needs from the forest
environment.
This concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer
any questions from Subcommittee members.
Curriculum Vitae (abbreviated)
Philip Nori Omi
Professor, Department of Forest Sciences
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523 USA
Specialization: Fire management, fuel inventory and assessment,
fire risk assessment, integration of wild- and prescribed fire
decisions into ecosystem management
Education: A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley
1969
M.S. Wildland Resource Science, U.C., Berkeley 1973
Ph.D. Wildland Resource Science, U.C., Berkeley 1977
Awards, Honors: Faculty Minority Distinguished Service Award,
Colorado State University, 1998
Administrative Intern/Fellow, Colorado State
University, 1990-91
NATO Fellow, 1984-86
Experience: Interim Associate Provost for Undergraduate
Studies, Colorado State University, 1993.
Interim Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs,
Colorado State University, 1992-93.
Director, Western Forest Fire Research Center
(WESTFIRE), Colorado State University, 1992-present.
Acting Director, Center for Applied Studies in American
Ethnicity, Colorado State University, 1992-93.
Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs (Intern),
Colorado State University, 1990-91.
Professor, Department of Forest Sciences, 1986-present.
Visiting Professor, Wildland Fire Management, College
of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, 1987-
88.
Associate Professor, Department of Forest and Wood
Sciences, 1980-86.
Assistant Professor, Department of Forest and Wood
Sciences, 1977-79.
Staff Researcher, Department of Forestry and
Conservation, University of California, 1977.
Consultant, Forest Warthman and Associates, Palo Alto,
California, 1977.
Research/Teaching Assistant, Department of Forestry and
Conservation, University of California, 1974-76.
Research: Principal Investigator or co-PI on 43 research
projects in the past 21 years ($2.5 million), primarily with
public land agencies with fire management responsibilities.
Publications: 67 total, including 20 invited presentations
Journals (peer-reviewed)
Kalabokidis, K.D. and P.N. Omi. 1998. Reduction of fire
hazard through thinning/residue disposal in the urban
interface. International J. Wildland Fire 8(1):29-36.
Rideout, D. B. and P. N. Omi. 1995. Estimating the cost
of fuels treatment. For. Sci. 41:664 674.
Kalabekidis, K. D. and P. N. Omi. 1995. Isarithmic
analysis of forest fire fuelbed arrays. Ecol. Modeling 80:47-
55.
Smith, J. K., R. D. Laven, and P. N. Omi. 1993.
Microplot sampling of fire behavior on two burns of Populus
tremuloides stands in North-Central Colorado. Internatl. J.
Wildland Fire 3 :85 94.
Beebe, G. and P. N. Omi. 1993. Oakland Hills,
Yellowstone, and perceptions of risk from Wildland burning.
J.For.91(9):19-24.
Kalabokidis, K. D. and P. N. Omi. 1992. Quadrat
analysis of Wildland fuel spatial variability. Internatl. J.
Wildland Fire 2:145-152.
Omi, P. N. and K. D. Kalabokidis. 1991. Fire damage on
extensively vs. intensively managed forest stands within the
North Fork Fire, 1988. Northw. Sci. 65: 149-157.
Cohen, W. B. and P. N. Omi. 1991. Water stress effects
on heating-related water transport in woody plants. Can. J.
For. Res. 20: 199-206.
Rideout, D.B. and P.N. Omi. 1990. Alternate expressions
for the economic theory of forest fire management, For. Sci.
36:614-624.
Cohen, W.B., P.N. Omi, and M.R. Kaufmann. 1990.
Heating-related water transport to intact lodgepole pine branch
tips. For. Sci. 36:246-254.
Omi, P.N. 1989. Fires in the national park and
wilderness: Lessons from 1988. Forum for Applied Research and
Public Policy 4(2):41-45.
Sullivan, B.J., P.N.Omi, and A.A.Dyer. 1987. A
decision-tree approach to determining the economic efficiency
of wildfire rehabilitation treatment. Western J. of Applied
For. 2 :58-61.
Wyant, J.G., P.N.Omi, and R.D.Laven. 1986. Fire-induced
tree mortality in a Colorado ponderosa pine/Douglas fir stand.
For.Sci. 32: 49-59.
Wyant, J. G., R. D. Laven, and P. N. Omi. 1983. Fire
effects on shoot growth characteristics of ponderosa pine in
Colorado. Can.J.For.Res. 13:620-625.
Omi, P. N., J. L. Murphy, and L. C. Wensel. 1981. A
linear programming model for Wildland fuel management planning.
For.Sci. 27:81-94.
Omi, P. N. 1979. Planning future fuelbreak strategies
using mathematical modeling techniques. Environ. Manage. 3:73-
80.
Omi, P. N., L. C. Wensel, and J. L. Murphy. 1979. An
application of multivariate statistics to land-use planning:
classifying land units into homogeneous zones. For. Sci.
25:399-414.
Other Refereed Technical Papers
Omi, P.N. 1996. Landscape-level fuel manipulations in
Greater Yellowstone: opportunities and challenges. In:
Ecological Implications of Fire in Greater Yellowstone, 1996.
Proc. 2nd Biennial Conf. on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,
Yellowstone National Park, Sept. 19-21, 1993, International
Assoc. Wildland Fire.
Wetzel, M.R. and P.N. Omi. 1991. Anthropogenic fire and
tropical deforestation: a literature perspective. In: Fire and
the Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives. Proc. of
an International Symp., Knoxville, TN, March 20-24, 1990. S.C.
Nodvin and T.A. Waldrop, eds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SE-69.
Omi, P.N. 1990. Prescribed fire monitoring and evaluation.
In: Proc. of the Conf. ``Effects of Fire in Management of
Southwestern Natural Resources.'' November 15-17, 1988, Tucson,
AZ. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-l91.
Skinner, T. V., M. W. Hilbruner, R. D. Laven, and P. N.
Omi. 1985. Use of fire characteristics chart to interpret
modeled fire behavior for fire management planning in Rocky
Mountain National Park. In: Proc. of Symp. on Wilderness Fire,
Nov. 15-18, 1983, Missoula, MT. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
lNT-182.
Omi, P. N. and R. D. Laven. 1982. Prescribed fire impacts
on recreational wildlands: A status review and assessment of
research needs. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 11 (Colorado
State University). Rocky Mountain For. and Ran. Exp. Sta., 18
p.
Laven, R. D., P. N. Omi, J. G. Wyant, and A. S. Pinkerton.
1981. Interpretation of fire scar data from a ponderosa pine
ecosystem in the central Rockies, Colorado. In: Proceedings,
Fire History Workshop. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81,
142 p.
Omi, P. N. 1977. A case study of fuel management
performances, Angeles National Forest, 1960-75. In:
Proceedings, ``Environmental Consequences of Fire and Fuel
Management in Mediterranean Ecosystems,'' Stanford, CA, Aug. 1-
5, 1977. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. W0-3.
July 13, 1998
------
Statement of Greg E. Walcher, President and Executive Director, CLUB 20
Introduction:
Chairman Chenoweth, we are grateful to you for scheduling
this hearing on a matter we believe is of great importance to
the Rocky Mountain West in general, and to Western Colorado in
particular. I also want to emphasize how much we appreciate the
hours of work you and your staff, and the other Committee
members, have put in on related issues over the past few
months. As you know so well, the decisions made by the managers
of our public lands have a tremendous impact on the communities
in our states, and on the quality of life in our region.
Prescribed fire is a vitally important management tool, and
will see increased use in the coming years. That makes it even
more important that we give careful thought to its affect on
air pollution and regional haze.
About CLUB 20:
CLUB 20 is an organization of counties, communities,
businesses, individuals and associations in Western Colorado.
The group is organized for the purpose of speaking with a
single unified voice on issues of mutual concern. Its
activities include marketing and advertising, public education,
promotion, meetings and events, and political action.
Founded in 1953 by Western Slope business leaders, CLUB 20
was originally organized to get rural roads paved. The State of
Colorado had been spending only 10 percent of its highway funds
west of the Continental Divide, where more than half the roads
were. It finally became clear that only by agreeing on a single
priority list could all our communities be heard. It worked.
Within a few years, the State was spending 37 percent of its
highway funds west of the Divide, and by the end of the 1950s
most of the major highways on the West Slope had been paved.
The organization continued to function, incorporating in
1955, and began working on other issues of concern to all
Western Slope communities. Its activities today include water,
agriculture and natural resources, energy, economic
development, public lands, highways, air service, tourism,
trails, recreation, and telecommunications.
CLUB 20 policy is made by a Board of Directors, which
includes voting membership for each county on the Western
Slope. All counties have an equal voice, their delegations
elected by the members in each county. Management decisions are
made by an Executive Committee composed of elected officers. A
vote of the full Board is required for CLUB 20 to take a
position on any issue.
The engines that drive CLUB 20 are the standing committees.
Most Western Slope policy originates with these committees, all
with broad geographic representation. These panels include
Natural Resources and Public Lands, Transportation, Economic
Development, and Tourism in addition to subcommittees on water
and agriculture. Membership is open to all CLUB 20 members, and
the groups recommend policy to the full Board of Directors.
For over four decades, this organization of all the
communities of Colorado West has been providing a forum for the
discussion of complex and controversial issues, and
representing the interests of the Western Slope at all levels
of government. The group's membership is broader and more
diverse than at any time in history, and still growing each
year. The CLUB 20 leadership is convinced that, by working
together to achieve a stronger voice, the Western Slope can
help shape the destiny of Colorado and the West.
The EPA's new regional haze regulations are potentially
disastrous for our region, especially in the threat they pose
to proper and wise management of the public lands. CLUB 20
strongly supports the use of prescribed fire by the Forest
Service, under carefully controlled circumstances, and we fear
the new Federal process will create a terrible series of
problems.
The Grand Canyon Process:
CLUB 20 participated in the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission process in good faith for four years. Our
organization held a seat on the Commission's advisory committee
and attended several meetings of the group, trying to persuade
that body to recommend state policies that were based upon a
sound interpretation of the science.
The Grand Canyon study took over four years to complete,
and cost the taxpayers some $8.5 million. It was authorized by
Congress, and the entire effort was pushed strongly by the EPA.
Yet after that report was issued, not only have its
recommendations been ignored by the EPA, but the scientific
study itself has been complete sidestepped. The study was
incredibly thorough and the technology used was impressive.
Congress should be proud, indeed, of the skill with which
technicians can sample the air and determine what is in it and
pinpoint where it came from. For the first time, we had the
ability to determine the actual causes of the haze in the Grand
Canyon and other Class I areas throughout the Colorado Plateau.
There was just one problem with the study, its conclusions
did not support the hidden political agenda of the EPA and its
allies. So when the Western governors began meeting to
determine state and regional solutions based on that study, EPA
stepped around them. With no warning whatsoever to the
governors, or any of the other players in the Grand Canyon
study process, EPA published its own national rules. The rules
came out of nowhere, apparently not even from the same EPA
officials involved in the Grand Canyon study. Nevertheless, the
rules would supersede all the four years of activity of the
study, ignore the study itself, pay no mind to the $8.5 million
already spent, and begin from the same phony assumptions and
junk science we worked so hard to overcome before.
These regulations could cause serious economic problems in
my state, and they will not help solve the visibility problems.
Coloradans never envisioned when we went into this process that
our State would be penalized because it has the cleanest air in
the country. But that may be the result if EPA gets its way.
The EPA's Proposed Regulations:
Part of CLUB 20's original reservations about the Grand
Canyon Commission recommendations were expressed a year ago,
and are being proven accurate now. We expressed to Governor
Romer a strong fear that the EPA would implement Federal
regulations enforcing ill advised and economically indefensible
policies. We were assured that the Grand Canyon Commission
would continue to be a state and regional process, involving
affected stakeholders, and that final solutions would be
handled at the state level. But the EPA's new proposed national
haze and visibility regulations which supersede that regional
process and ignore the Commission's scientific study renders
that lengthy and costly process futile, and proves our fears
were well founded. We were correct to suspect at the beginning
of that process that hidden agendas were at work.
The proposed regulations unfairly impact the Rocky Mountain
West (which already boasts the nation's cleanest air) by
requiring it to achieve unattainable levels of reductions. We
cannot solve haze problems not created in Colorado at the state
level. That's why a regional approach can be the only answer.
But the EPA proposes reductions in every state, and denies us
any means of achieving them. Such regulations would severely
restrict economic activity and retard future growth in areas
with already-clean air, while producing very little effect on
polluting areas which are the source of much of the region's
haze, as demonstrated by the Grand Canyon Study.
The Grand Canyon Study identified the major causes of
regional haze on the Colorado Plateau, and the results were not
vague. The major contributors of year-round haze were Southern
California air pollution and unregulated Mexican stationary
sources. The major contributor of episodic haze was clearly
identified as prescribed fires on Federal lands. Yet the EPA
regulations have no effect on Mexico at all, nor do they
provide any means for Colorado to address pollution generated
in California. And most importantly, they specifically exclude
Federal land managers from any responsibility for the pollution
generated by prescribed fires.
Without sound science to determine a baseline of naturally
occurring sources of haze in each region, it is impractical to
set uniform standards of haze reduction that may be
technologically and economically unfeasible. To require the
same total amount of reduction in each state, rather than the
same percentage, is patently unfair to the West, and will have
essentially no impact on the states east of the Appalachians.
If Congress is serious about cleaning up the nation's haze and
solving the visibility problems, it should start this process
in Los Angeles or Pittsburgh., not in Western Colorado.
CLUB 20 strongly objects to the proposed EPA visibility
regulations as unfair to the West, scientifically and
economically indefensible, and without clear authority. We
believe it is especially important for this Committee to
recognize that the legal authority for these regulations is
questionable. Congress authorized and funded the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, with a clear intention that it
would result in regional solutions to a Colorado Plateau
regional problem. It was never the intent of Congress to
authorize new national regulations of this kind, nor was it the
intent that the scientific study ($8.5 million) would be
completely ignored by an EPA with a political agenda.
Federal Land Management and Prescribed Fires:
One of the most dangerous aspects of the proposed rules is
that they continue to essentially exempt Federal land managers
from responsibility for the pollution generated by prescribed
fires. And yet, while excluding fires on Federal lands, the
rules still require a total across-the-board reduction in the
statewide level of smoke. This would have the effect of causing
drastic regulation of existing sources of haze, in order to
offset the major source, the smoke created by Federal land
managers.
You will remember that EPA Administrator Carol Browner, in
testimony before a similar hearing last year, denied that
Federal land managers are exempt from the regulations. Rather,
she said, the data from those fires is excluded. It is a
distinction without a difference to a state government required
to reduce its haze by one ``deciview,'' regardless of the
source. Until the EPA has defined the baseline of naturally
occurring sources, and included in that baseline an amount of
smoke generated by prescribed fires--which amount the EPA
cannot possibly predict--her assurances ring hollow. The fact
is that the exemption of Federal fires, or the exclusion of
their data, has the effect of creating a conflict between
Federal land managers and other sources of haze.
CLUB 20 believes fire can be an important part of
management of public lands, and we cannot afford the
unnecessary conflict between proper land management
techniques--including fires--and important economic interests.
The us-against-them mindset that will inevitably result is
counterproductive, and will endanger the proper management of
Federal lands. There are numerous areas in Western Colorado
where the fuel overload has reached critical conditions. There
is no doubt that much of this material must be removed or it
will burn in a more devastating wildfire in the near future.
Proper Federal land management means the larger materials,
which burn longer and smoke more, should be removed
mechanically before fires are set. By coincidence this is the
same material for which there is a viable economic market. Yet
the Forest Service continues to manage the forests in a manner
that precludes sale or any removal of those materials, and the
fuel loads continue to increase yearly. This Committee heard
testimony recently from Interior Secretary Babbitt that as much
as half of all the forests in America are unsuitable for
burning until some mechanical clearing has taken place. Yet the
Administration has effectively closed down access for that
purpose by Executive Order, and the Forest Service budgets
continue to reduce such clearing every year. CLUB 20 believes a
combination of mechanical removal and prescribed fires are
essential to the restoration of healthy forests in Colorado.
The EPA regulations may serve to prevent that strategy because
of its conflict with other economic interests that contribute
to the haze. Trees do not vote, nor do they make campaign
contributions. So if the EPA forces a showdown between proper
public land management and continued industrial activity, the
forests will be the losers. The only solution is to apply the
same rules to all haze contributors, and to solve these
problems at the state and regional level, as Congress intended.
CLUB 20 supported legislation at the State level for the
past two years that would have placed the State Health
Department in the decision loop on such prescribed fires.
Almost unique among Federal statutes, the Clean Air Act
requires Federal land managers to obey State laws on emissions.
This legislation would have allowed the State to examine
Federal decision records to determine whether less-smoke
alternatives had been fully considered before prescribed fires
are set. It passed the Colorado Legislature overwhelmingly two
years in a row, only to be vetoed by Governor Roy Romer both
times. The veto was irresponsible and inexcusable, but the
writing is on the wall. Federal land managers are going to be
held accountable for their emissions.
In short, CLUB 20 supports prescribed fire as a proper
management tool for regenerating the natural environment, but
more consideration should be given to smoke management as
prescribed fires are planned, and methods for reducing
emissions by clearing appropriate materials in advance should
be used. A simple amendment to the Clean Air Act should be
adopted by Congress to require land managers to reduce
emissions to the extent practicable. That would end the
Federal-state argument over responsibility for such fires, and
allow the continuation of important fire management. At the
same time, by reducing the haze caused by such fires, it would
end the conflicts between other economic activity and proper
forest management. When EPA Administrator Browner says this
``does not have to be a fight between clean air and good forest
management,'' she is right. It does not have to be. But her
proposal from EPA, combined with the executive order limiting
forest access, and the constantly shrinking forest timber
budgets, make it exactly that kind of fight.
The Agriculture Problem:
In the agricultural areas of the Western Slope, the EPA
regulations pose a very serious threat to the farming and
ranching industry. Most of these communities have no major
local sources of haze--none at all. The episodic haze created
by fire is the only significant source of local visibility
impairment in many of our counties. Thus, when Federal land
managers set prescribed fires the haze can be serious, and is
very noticeable. So if the EPA rules force a reduction in those
communities, but continue to exclude the data from prescribed
fires, agricultural burning may be the only remaining source to
regulate. And regulation of agricultural burning is a major
threat to the existence of the industry in those areas.
It is not possible to grow crops and weeds in the same
field at the same time. Weeds must be controlled if farming is
to succeed. They must either be burned, or killed with
chemicals. It is ironic, to say the least, that the same
zealots who are pushing the regional haze rules would also ban
such chemicals, leaving farmers with no chance of successful
farming. There is no public policy reason to create such
conflicts. The EPA's proposed regulations would divide the
economic interests of this nation in an unproductive and
harmful way, while accomplishing no real solution to the
problem.
The Local Government Problem:
The same kinds of conflicts are now becoming a major
problem for local governments throughout the West, including
many of those CLUB 20 represents. Several Western Colorado
counties are at this moment struggling with local regulations
aimed at smoke and haze management. My own home county (Mesa
County) is in the process of implementing rules affecting wood-
burning stoves, as many other counties have already done. Those
who think pollution advisories and voluntary no-drive days are
for the big cities should know that many mountain communities
live with the same temperature inversion problems. Commonly the
inversions create the same kind of haze problem in the Vail
Valley, for example, as is common in Denver.
Local governments are taking serious actions to solve these
problems, based on sound science and on the real sources of the
haze in those areas. No national cookie cutter approach can be
successful because the sources are not always the same. The EPA
regulations add an especially difficult factor to the mix,
because counties will feel increased pressure to adopt local
rules to make up for Federal actions they cannot control. Such
regulations have an unquestionable impact on local economies,
and in many areas may produce no result in visibility
improvement. Yet counties and cities throughout the region are
feeling enormous pressure to implement stringent air quality
standards.
In addition, Colorado still labors with state law requiring
county sheriffs to ``control and extinguish'' all fires on
public lands. There is no discretion to let such fires burn,
even when Federal land managers have reached such a conclusion.
Local experts often can reach a consensus on letting some fires
burn in certain areas, but such a decisions leaves county
sheriffs hopelessly in the middle of a legal dilemma. While our
State works on legislation to update the outmoded law, better
cooperation between the Federal and state government would be
extremely helpful.
Conclusion:
The point of this discussion ought to be cleaning up dirty
air and reducing the haze problem. Since the EPA rules will not
accomplish this, and will create the problems outlined above,
they should be sidelined. Congress ought to act swiftly and
decisively to stop the implementation of these regulations, and
to insist that the process authorized and funded by Congress
should be followed, including a direction to consider the
scientific evidence of the Grand Canyon study. At the same
time, Congress should act quickly to require under the Clean
Air Act that Federal managers, in proposing prescribed fires,
should reduce the resulting emissions to the extent possible.
If there is a large cost associated with better land
management, as the Grand Canyon Study hinted, then Congress
should be prepared to pay that cost before it authorizes the
Forest Service to torch the Western landscape and darken our
skies.
------
Statement of John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Madame Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to discuss issues surrounding fire management and
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule to
improve visibility and reduce regional haze in our national
parks and wilderness areas.
As you know, in July 1997, EPA revised the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone and
particulate matter. These updated standards have the potential
to prevent as many as 15,000 premature deaths each year, and up
to hundreds of thousands of cases of significantly decreased
lung function and aggravated asthma in children. In the review
of the standards, EPA concluded that the most appropriate way
to address the visibility impairment associated with
particulate matter would be to establish a regional haze
program in conjunction with setting secondary PM standards
equivalent to the suite of primary standards. EPA proposed new
regulations addressing regional haze in July 1997.
Madame Chairman, as you know, virtually all of our national
parks and wilderness areas are subject to some degree of
regional haze visibility impairment. This fact has been
extensively documented by monitoring conducted since 1978 by
the National Park Service, EPA, the United States Forest
Service, and other agencies. Haze obscures the clarity, color,
texture, and form of what we see, and it is caused by natural
and anthropogenic pollutants that are emitted to the atmosphere
through a number of activities, such as electric power
generation, various industrial and manufacturing processes, car
and truck emissions, burning activities, and so on. These
emissions often are transported long distances affecting
visibility in certain parks and wilderness areas that have been
identified by Congress for protection under the Clean Air Act.
These areas are known as ``Class I'' areas.
We also know that the causes and severity of regional haze
vary greatly between the East and the West. The average
standard visual range in most of the Western U.S. is 60 to 90
miles, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without man-made air pollution. In most of the
East, the average standard visual range is 15 to 30 miles, or
about one-sixth to one-third of the visual range that would
exist under natural conditions. One of the major challenges
associated with this problem is that these conditions are often
caused not by one single source or group of sources near each
park or wilderness area, but by mixing of emissions from a wide
variety of sources over a broad region.
Background
The Clean Air Act established special goals for visibility
in many national parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks. Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
sets a national goal for visibility as the ``prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' This section also calls
for EPA to issue regulations to assure ``reasonable progress''
toward meeting the national goal. EPA issued regulations in
1980 to address the visibility problem that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or group of sources. These
rules were designed to be the first phase in EPA's overall
program to protect visibility. At that time, EPA deferred
action addressing regional haze impairment until improved
monitoring and modeling techniques could provide more source-
specific information, and EPA could improve its understanding
of the pollutants causing impairment.
As part of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act,
Congress added section 169B to focus on regional haze issues.
Under this section, EPA was required to establish a visibility
transport commission for the region affecting visibility in the
Grand Canyon National Park. EPA established the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission in 1991 to examine regional
haze impairment for the 16 mandatory Class I Federal areas on
the Colorado Plateau, located near the Four Corners area of New
Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. After several years of
technical assessment and policy development, the Commission
completed its final report in June 1996. The Commission's
recommendations covered a wide range of control strategy
approaches, planning and tracking activities, and technical
findings which address protection of visibility in the Class I
areas in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park.
Under the 1990 Amendments, Congress required EPA to take
regulatory action within 18 months of receiving the
Commission's recommendations. EPA proposed the regional haze
rules in July of last year in conjunction with the final
national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter.
In developing the proposed regulations, EPA took into account
the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission, as well as findings from a 1993 National Academy of
Sciences Report and information developed by the EPA Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC).
The National Academy of Sciences formed a Committee on Haze
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas in 1990 to address a
number of regional haze-related issues, including methods for
determining the contributions of manmade sources to haze as
well as methods for considering alternative source control
measures. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences issued a
report entitled, ``Protecting Visibility in National Parks and
Wilderness Areas'' which discussed the science of regional
haze. Among other things, the Committee concluded that
``current scientific knowledge was adequate and available
control technologies exist to justify regu-
latory action to improve and protect visibility.'' The
Committee also concluded that progress toward the national goal
will require regional programs operating over large geographic
areas. Further, the Committee felt strategies should be adopted
that consider many sources simultaneously on a regional basis.
In developing the proposed regional haze rule, EPA also
took into consideration recommendations and discussions related
to regional haze from the CAAAC Subcommittee on Ozone,
Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The Subcommittee included wide representation from states,
local and tribal governments, industry, environmental groups
and academia. This Subcommittee met regularly over the past two
and one-half years to consider a variety of implementation
issues associated with the revised national ambient air quality
standards and the proposed regional haze rule. It also focused
discussions on how best to develop more cost effective,
flexible strategies for implementing these requirements.
EPA's Proposed Regional Haze Rule
EPA's proposed regional haze rule is designed to establish
a program to address visibility impairment in the Nation's most
treasured national parks and wilderness areas. In this rule,
EPA is proposing to improve visibility, or visual air quality,
in 156 important natural areas found in every region of the
country. These areas range from Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, and
Bryce Canyon in the southwest; to Yellowstone, Sawtooth, and
Mt. Rainier in the northwest; to Shenandoah and the Great
Smokies in the Appalachians; to Yosemite, Sequoia, and Point
Reyes in California; to Acadia, Lye Brook, and Great Gulf in
the northeast; to the Everglades and Sipsey Wilderness in the
southeast; to Big Bend, Wichita Mountains, Badlands, and the
Boundary Waters in the central states. More than 60 million
visitors experience the spectacular beauty of these areas
annually. The proposed regional haze rule, in conjunction with
implementation of other Clean Air Act programs, would
significantly improve visibility in these areas. Further, EPA
expects visibility to improve well beyond these areas, across
broader regions of the United States.
The regional haze proposal establishes a requirement for
states to implement strategies to meet ``reasonable progress
targets'' for improving visibility in Class I areas. These
targets would be designed to improve visibility on the haziest
days and to prevent degradation of visibility on the clearest
days EPA is proposing to express the progress targets in a way
that provides flexibility from one region of the country to
another by using the ``deciview'' as a measurement. The
deciview index expresses the overall effect on visibility
resulting from changing levels of the key components of fine
particulate matter (sulfates, nitrates, organic and elemental
carbon, soil dust) which contribute to the degradation of
visibility. These components are routinely measured by an
interagency visibility monitoring network that has been in
place for several years in national parks and forests. Like the
decibel scale which is used to measure sound, the deciview
index measures perceived changes across the range of possible
conditions (for example, from clear to hazy days). A change of
one deciview is considered to be perceptible by the average
person. Visibility monitoring data show that over the past
several years, visibility impairment on the worst days ranges
from 27 to 34 deciviews in eastern locations and 13 to 25 in
western locations. A deciview of zero represents the absence of
natural or man-made impairment in visibility.
EPA's proposed presumptive ``reasonable progress target''
has two elements: (1) for the 20 percent of days having the
worst visibility, the target is a rate of improvement equal to
1.0 deciview over either a 10-year or 15-year period [EPA has
solicited comments on each option]; and (2) for the 20 percent
of days having the best visibility, the target is no
degradation. For example, in a place like the Shenandoah
National Park, where ambient fine particle levels for the worst
days average 20 micrograms per cubic meter, a reduction of up
to 2 micrograms per cubic meter would be needed to achieve a 1
deciview improvement. Whereas in the Grand Canyon, where
ambient fine particle levels for the worst days average about 5
micrograms per cubic meter, a reduction of up to one-half a
microgram would be sufficient to achieve a 1 deciview
improvement.
EPA's proposed rule also provides important flexibility to
states by allowing them to propose alternate progress targets
for EPA approval. An alternate target can be proposed for a
Class I area if the state can demonstrate that achieving the
presumptive targets would not be reasonable. States can
consider such factors as the availability and costs of
controls, the time necessary for compliance, and the remaining
useful life of the air pollution sources in determining whether
achieving the target would be reasonable. Alternatively, some
states may find they can go further and achieve up to a 2-3
deciview improvement at some parks or wilderness areas, or that
programs already adopted or in the process of being implemented
will achieve such an improvement. The proposal suggests that
states consult with other contributing states, the Federal land
managers, and EPA in developing alternate targets.
Last month, President Clinton signed the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which, among other
things, included a provision to ensure that states' control
strategies and plans for regional haze are harmonized with
those required for PM<INF>25</INF>. This dovetails with the
goal expressed in our proposed rule to coordinate the state
plan deadlines under the regional haze rule with those required
for meeting the PM<INF>25</INF> standard. EPA's regional haze
proposal also encourages states to work cooperatively to
develop modeling approaches, emission inventories, and regional
implementation strategies.
EPA also proposed that either every three or five years
after the adoption of their initial control strategies and
plans (EPA has solicited comment on both options), states would
review progress in each Class I area in relation to their
established progress targets. States would also be expected to
include a plan for expanding the current visibility monitoring
network so that it is ``representative'' of all 156 Class I
areas. EPA is working with the states and Federal land managers
to coordinate this network expansion with the deployment of the
new monitoring network for the national ambient air quality
standard for fine particulates. EPA is evaluating ways to
efficiently use resources such that existing and new visibility
monitoring sites can also provide information about transport
of fine particulate pollution as it relates to the newly
revised national ambient air quality standards. EPA expects to
deploy more than 70 new visibility monitoring sites by December
1999.
Also as part of their initial plan submittal, states would
need to address important technical activities to pursue on a
regional basis, such as improvements in particulate matter
emission inventories and modeling capabilities, as well as
plans for assessing sources potentially subject to best
available retrofit technology (or BART). As specified in the
Clean Air Act, sources potentially subject to BART are any
sources, from one of twenty-six groups of industrial ``source
categories,'' which began operation between 1962 and 1977, and
which have the potential to individually emit 250 tons per year
or more of any pollutant that impairs visibility. The twenty-
six source categories include such sources as electric
utilities, smelters, petroleum refineries, and pulp and paper
mills. If the state determines that a source contributes to
visibility impairment in any Class I area, a BART determination
would include an examination of the availability of control
technologies, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air
environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control
equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of
the source, as well as the degree of improvement in visibility
as a result of compliance. As with all aspects of this
proposal, we solicited comments on how to address the BART
requirement and will take these comments into account in
developing the final rule.
Under the proposed regional haze rule, state plans would
provide for adoption of emissions management strategies
concurrently with other strategies for
PM<INF>2</INF>.<INF>5</INF> nonattainment areas. These
submittals would include measures to reduce emissions from
sources located within the state, including provisions
addressing the BART requirement, if applicable. I would like to
make two important points about the emissions reduction
strategy. First, it can take into account air quality
improvements due to implementation of other programs, such as
the acid rain program, mobile source programs, or the national
ambient air quality standards program. And second, the
emissions reduction strategy can include a mix of strategies
that address emissions from both stationary, areas and mobile
sources. EPA's proposed rule does not focus on stationary
sources only, as some have claimed. The proposed planning
framework provides states with flexibility in designing their
overall program for improving visibility.
Process for Developing the Final Regional Haze Rule
EPA Administrator Browner signed the proposed haze rule on
July 18, 1997. At that time, we made the proposed rule and
other related materials available to the public on the Internet
and through other means. It was published in the Federal
Register on July 31. EPA held a public hearing that I chaired
in Denver, Colorado on September 18. In response to requests by
the public, we extended the public comment period by about six
weeks, to December 5, 1997. We have held other sessions around
the country to discuss the regional haze proposal, including a
national satellite broadcast for all state and local air
pollution agencies during which we discussed the proposal and
answered questions from the viewers. I have also actively
participated in meetings of the Western Regional Air
Partnership, a follow-up organization to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission that is co-chaired by Governor
Shutiva of the Pueblo of Acoma and Governor Leavitt of Utah.
This is a voluntary organization established by several states
and tribes which EPA will be working with to address western
visibility issues.
Issues Surrounding Fire in Forest Management and EPA's Proposed
Regional Haze Rule
EPA recognizes that fires have always been a natural part
of forest ecosystems. Forest fires release important nutrients
from flammable ``fuels'' or debris on the forest floor into the
soil. Some plant species are dependent on fire for further
reproduction. By reducing the undergrowth and debris on the
forest floor, trees typically grow taller and healthier since
there is less competition by other surrounding plants for
nutrients. For many years, fires were aggressively suppressed
in our Nation's forests, resulting in a number of problems,
including long-term damage to the health of trees and increased
likelihood of catastrophic wildfires. The absence of fire
effects has allowed plant species (e.g., trees and shrubs) that
would normally be eliminated by fires to proliferate,
vegetation to become dense and insect infestations to go
unchecked. We now believe that smaller, periodic fires that are
well managed help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires.
In recognition of the serious problems caused by years of
fire suppression, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the
Interior jointly released the results of a Federal Wildland
Fire Management Policy and Program Review in 1995. This report
recognized the critical role fire plays in maintaining healthy
wildland ecosystems and endorsed a significant increase in the
use of planned, or managed, fire as a land and resource
management tool. The Departments of Agriculture and the
Interior adopted a policy that all future plans to manage fires
on wildlands will incorporate public health and environmental
considerations, including air quality. EPA also participated in
developing the 1995 Program Review and endorsed its
recommendations.
Unplanned wildland fires, such as catastrophic wildfires,
can pose serious threats to property, and public health and
safety. Wildfires cause extended periods of intense smoke,
which contains particulate matter that can cause serious health
problems, especially for people with respiratory illness. They
can also affect visibility, a particular concern in national
parks and wilderness areas.
On the other hand, fires can be planned and managed to
minimize the smoke impacts that adversely affect public health
and impair visibility. This can occur through techniques such
as scheduling burning during favorable wind directions and
weather conditions, and controlling the amount of fuel or
acreage burned. Many state agencies already use these and other
management techniques to reduce air quality problems associated
with wildland and prescribed fires.
As mentioned earlier, in developing a common-sense
implementation strategy for the new ozone and particulate
matter standards and the regional haze program, EPA used the
FACA to create a Subcommittee to obtain advice from outside
experts representing industry, environmental, state, local,
Federal and other stakeholders. Within the Subcommittee, EPA
established a special workgroup comprised of fire and air
quality experts from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, the
Interior, and Defense; the National Association of State
Foresters, state/local air quality agencies and others to
specifically address the potential impacts of wildland and
prescribed fire (e.g., smoke particles) on air quality and
visibility impairment.
In May of this year, EPA issued the ``Interim Air Quality
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires.'' The policy
encourages all land owners/managers to work cooperatively with
state and local air pollution control officials to conduct
integrated planning to successfully manage ecosystem health and
air quality concerns. EPA's policy outlines the basic
components of smoke management plans (SMPs) and urges states to
adopt and implement SMPs to mitigate the impacts of smoke on
the public's health and welfare, and to prevent violations of
the national ambient air quality standards and visibility
impairment.
In developing this policy, EPA considered the 1996
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC), which among other issues, recommended smoke
management plans, and the development or improvement of other
tools as means of addressing smoke impacts from prescribed
burning. The ``Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires'' complements EPA's ``natural events'' policy
issued in 1996 to address the treatment of wildfires and other
natural events in meeting PM air quality standards. Under the
``natural events'' policy, EPA has committed not to redesignate
areas as nonattainment when natural events are clearly the
cause of violations of the national ambient air quality
standards for PM<INF>10</INF>, provided the state develops a
natural events action plan to address the public health impacts
associated with future natural events, such as a wildfires.
Natural event action plans include public notice and education
programs, actions to minimize exposure to high particulate
matter concentrations, and actions to minimize particulate
matter emissions from controllable sources that contribute to
natural events. The ``Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland
and Prescribed Fires'' incorporates the same type of
flexibility and does not punish states that im-
plement effective smoke management programs, yet occasionally
experience unavoidable smoke intrusions.
Conclusions
In summary, we believe that EPA's regional haze rule, when
finalized, will establish a framework to improve visibility in
our Nation's parks and wilderness areas, as the Congress
intended in the Clean Air Act. Over the past several months, we
have been busy reviewing public comments and considering
options for addressing the concerns of various commenters. At
the request of various interested parties, including the
Western Governors Association, STAPPA/ALAPCO, NESCAUM, and
industry and environmental groups, we have held additional
meetings to discuss issues related to the rule. I want to be
clear that we still have not made final decisions on these
matters. Our goal is to ensure that the proposed new regional
haze requirements are implemented in a common sense, cost-
effective and flexible manner.
We also want to assure compatibility between Federal land
management policies and EPA air quality programs (NAAQS,
regional haze, visibility, conformity, etc.). Therefore, we
plan to revisit the ``Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland
and Prescribed Fires'' when the final regional haze rules have
been promulgated and when we receive recommendations from the
USDA Air Quality Task Force on how to treat air quality impacts
from agricultural burning. We intend to continue working
closely with state and local governments, other Federal
agencies and all other interested parties to accomplish these
goals.
Madame Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I
will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
------
Statement of Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
I am Janice McDougle, Associate Deputy Chief for State and
Private Forestry with responsibility for fire and aviation,
forest health, and cooperative forestry programs. I am
accompanied by Denny Truesdale, our national Acting Director of
Fire and Aviation Management. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on the relationship between the Forest Service fire
management program and the proposed Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional haze rule.
In October 1997, Bob Joslin, Deputy Chief for National
Forest System, testified before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on the agency's history in air management.
He talked about our research program, our role in new permit
review for regulatory agencies, and how proposed changes might
affect Forest Service programs. I would like to submit his
testimony for the record, in addition to my comments.
Our fire management program, including wildfire suppression
and fuels reduction efforts, affects air quality. Our air
quality objective is to reduce the long term cumulative smoke
impacts from all types of fire. The full effect of the regional
haze rule on Forest Service programs is difficult to project
until a final haze rule is promulgated and each state and tribe
develops its own Implementation Plan, and related smoke
management plans.
We appreciate EPA's efforts to integrate wildfire
suppression and prescribed fire issues in their policies. I am
confident that, among EPA, the states, tribes, and land
management agencies, we can balance vital public interests in
clean air and fire protection. We believe that EPA is
developing a common sense approach that will provide a logical
context for us to carry out our goals of restoring ecosystems,
caring for the land, and serving people.
Before I discuss the regional haze issue specifically, I'd
like to discuss the role of fire in ecosystems, the
responsibilities the Forest Service has related to air quality,
and our fire management program. Then I will discuss the EPA
regional haze proposal and its potential effect on our fire
management program.
Fire plays an important role in ecosystems; it is a
natural, inevitable part of ecosystems in most forested areas
of the country. A number of forest and brush types across the
United States reflect fire-adapted ecosystems. Vegetation
actually needs regular fire to maintain native species
diversity and to promote regeneration. Over the last one
hundred years, effective fire suppression efforts have changed
the frequency of fires, allowing changes in the vegetation and
ecosystem function.
In the 1995 Interagency Fire Management Policy and Program
Review, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of
Interior recognized the significant role that fire plays in
these fire-adapted ecosystems, and the departments called for a
substantial increase in the use of planned, or prescribed, fire
as a management tool to restore forest health.
FOREST SERVICE ROLE IN AIR QUALITY
The Forest Service has two primary responsibilities related
to air quality. We protect air quality related values,
including visibility, in Class I Federal Areas and manage
National Forest System lands in a manner consistent with
regulations implementing the Clean Air Act. A part of our Class
I Area protection includes integrated air quality monitoring.
Monitoring
The Forest Service manages over 191 million acres of our
nation's public land as part of the National Forest System.
Included within that land base are 88 areas that Congress
designated as Class I Federal Areas with special air quality
protection under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
Visibility is used as an indicator of particulate matter and
other pollutants that are transported over relatively long
distances. These pollutants can adversely affect both natural
resources and human health. Formal monitoring information from
all Class I Areas, which includes measures of both visibility
and particulates, is used to review permit applications for new
major point sources of air pollution, to determine the impacts
of existing sources of air pollution, and to identify trends
nationally.
Fuel Treatment
The air quality objective in our fuel treatment program is
to reduce the long term smoke impacts from the combined
wildfire and prescribed fire programs. Local results will vary
annually, and that is why our fire management plans must be
considered as part of a state's long-term strategy for regional
haze in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
The Forest Service has estimated that as much as 40 million
acres could be at risk of high intensity wild fire. The
Administration and Congress have increased funding to reduce
this fire hazard. I will submit for the record a map that shows
generally where fire-adapted ecosystems are located. The acres
at risk are within those fire-adapted systems, are distributed
across the United States, and reflect a variety of fuel
conditions. Historical fuel conditions have changed in
locations where fires have been suppressed and excluded.
Increased fuels result in fires that will burn with high
intensity, causing watershed and other resource damage, or
increasing the threat to property, firefighters, and to public
safety.
Each individual forest stand has unique site specific
conditions. The Forest Service currently is inventorying stands
to determine the resources at risk, the fuel conditions that
exist, the likelihood of a fire starting in that specific
location, and the cost of treatment. The Forest Service
identifies areas as high priority if the have high value
resources at risk, high hazardous fuel conditions, and frequent
ignitions. After assessments are completed, local managers
determine the need for treatment based on local land and
resource management plans, consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act, and identify specific tools needed to
treat specific situations.
The Forest Service decision to ignite a prescribed fire is
based on localized fuel and weather conditions and the
availability of personnel and equipment. Prescribed fire plans
identify the conditions and resources required to meet the
desired objectives, including smoke management. If all smoke
management plans are in place and the prescribed fire can be
conducted consistent with those plans, the agency completes the
burn and monitors the effects. If prescribed fires cannot be
implemented consistently with smoke management plans, the
prescribed fires are modified or postponed to meet smoke
management objectives.
CHANGING EPA RULES: NATURAL EVENTS POLICY, INTERIM AIR QUALITY
POLICY, AND REGIONAL HAZE
The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was
chartered under authority of the Clean Air Act amendments of
1990 by EPA to look at the regional haze standards and help
develop equitable implementation strategies in the Grand Canyon
Area. The Commission's recommendations and the 1995 Interagency
Wildland Fire Policy Review were considered in development of
the EPA Natural Events and Interim Wildland and Prescribed Fire
policies that implement new standards for particulate matter
and ozone. Congress has endorsed the recommendations of the
Commission.
When the final regional haze rule is adopted, there may
need to be some modifications to the natural events and
wildland and prescribed fire policies. The guidance in those
policies refine the roles of land managers and regulators in
response to many issues that a haze rule is likely to address.
We expect that the regional haze rule will result in regulators
and land managers working more closely together. We have
recognized the need to increase collaboration and are taking
steps to make it happen now.
All of the EPA changes reinforce the states and tribes
responsibilities for implementation of the Clean Air Act and
development of programs to implement these new rules. The
Federal land managers' role to protect air quality related
values is to monitor, provide recommendations, and help
mitigate potential problems that Federal management or other
proposed actions might generate.
Natural Events Policy
EPA's Natural Events Policy was the first policy change
resulting from the interagency wildland fire policy. The
Natural Events Policy considers air quality impacts from
wildfire as a natural event. When air quality standards are
violated due to a natural event, EPA will not penalize states
or tribes who develop and implement a plan to respond to health
impacts and fire managers who mitigate the effects of the
wildfire on air quality. This means that wildfire generated air
quality problems will trigger cooperative development of
emergency notification plans, appropriate suppression actions,
and communication of anticipated smoke dispersal so that people
can be advised of and take actions to protect their health. The
policy also encourages the treatment of hazardous fuels to
minimize the effects of wildfires on air quality.
Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
The EPA Interim Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
expands on the natural events policy, applies to all wildland
fires on public lands, and integrates two public policy goals:
(1) to allow fire to function, as nearly as possible, in its
natural role in wildland ecosystems, and (2) to protect public
health and welfare by mitigating the impacts of smoke on air
quality and visibility. The policy provides guidance on
mitigating smoke caused by fires in the wildlands and the
wildland/urban interface. It identifies the responsibilities of
wildland managers and state and tribal air quality managers
(air regulators) to work together to coordinate fire
activities, minimize smoke, manage smoke from wildland and
prescribed fires, and establish emergency action programs to
mitigate any unavoidable impacts on the public.
The EPA policy allows flexibility in regulating prescribed
fires and includes incentives for states or tribes to adopt and
implement smoke management programs. When adequate smoke
management plans exist and a prescribed fire is burning within
smoke management plans, the EPA will not punish states or
tribes for exceeding air quality standards.
Proposed Regional Haze Rule
Administrator Browner proposed a regional haze rule in
July, 1997, and EPA is responding to concerns received during
its public comment period, which closed in December, 1997. The
proposed regional haze rule is designed to improve visibility
in all Federal Class I Areas through efforts to achieve
reasonable progress targets agreed to by states or tribes and
EPA. The proposed rule expands monitoring, calls for improved
inventory and modelling systems, plans emissions reduction
including assessing sources that do not have existing emission
controls.
I do not know when the final rule will be promulgated but I
anticipate that the new regional haze rule will enhance
collaboration in monitoring efforts and improve the
effectiveness of the Forest Service fire management program.
New EPA standards and policies, in combination with the
proposed regional haze rule, will integrate data from Forest
Service Class I monitoring sites with state data. Expansion of
Forest Service monitoring to identify the individual components
of haze in Class I Areas is a likely result of any new haze
rule.
The effects on individual forests' fire management programs
from these new EPA policies will vary based on the strength of
individual state or tribal smoke management programs, and
existing coordination. Where state or tribal implementation
plans have adequate smoke management plans, our efforts will be
focused on complying with the plans and cooperating to improve
long range plans. Those existing plans will establish the
strongest foundations for transition to the future haze rule.
Where states or tribes do not have adequate smoke
management plans, the Forest Service will focus on the
development of voluntary smoke management agreements,
particularly if it anticipates any significant increase in
prescribed fire. Broader smoke management plans will then need
to be developed to implement an effective prescribed fire
program once the haze rule is promulgated.
The Forest Service, consistent with current policy, will
continue, and improve, efforts to work with regulators to (1)
notify them of plans for the use, and any significant increase
in the use, of fire for resource management, (2) consider the
air quality impacts of fire and take appropriate steps to
mitigate those impacts, (3) consider appropriate alternative
treatments, and (4) participate in the development and
implementation of State or Tribal implementation plans.
Our wildfire suppression program will continue to utilize
smoke management considerations in the development of wildfire
suppression strategies and tactics. I would expect to see
greater coordination between regulatory agencies and incident
management teams.
SUMMARY
Certainly, it is a challenge for the Forest Service to meet
both land management and air quality objectives. I believe that
the EPA has worked hard to come up with an interim policy that
maximizes opportunities to protect public and private property
while assuring the protection of public health and welfare. The
Forest Service's objective is to reduce the long-term impacts
of smoke from both wildland and prescribed fires. The Forest
Service has utilized smoke management planning for over 20
years to mitigate the impacts of its fire program.
To obtain the desired benefits to wilderness ecosystems,
visibility, and public health, we will need to further improve
our prescribed fire program planning and implementation,
including fuelwood utilization, modifying project level
planning and monitoring, improving Forest Service and
regulators practical prescribed fire and smoke management
skills, and improving our visibility monitoring. As prescribed
fire practitioners, we are subject to the same state and tribal
air quality authorities as others. This may include enforcement
actions such as fines, direction to modify our programs, and
reviews to determine whether fires were authorized, whether
burn plan were followed, and why prescriptions may have failed.
We are working hard to ensure that these types of actions are
rare.
We can effectively implement both wildland and prescribed
fire programs under the Natural Events Policy and the Interim
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. Their implementation
will position all land managers for transition to the future
haze rule by giving us better information, improved skills, and
a better ability to assess the impacts to our programs from the
haze rule, once it is developed.
The Forest Service is committed to the partnership with the
EPA, states, and tribes, and will be working closely with them
as we move forward towards implementing the final regional haze
rule. We believe that current policies are a common sense
approach that will form the basis for what we will need to do
under the regional haze rule.
That completes my formal statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
------
Statement of Robert C. Joslin, Deputy Chief, United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the importance
of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional
haze regulation to the Forest Service. I am Bob Joslin, Deputy
Chief for National Forest System of the Forest Service. I am
responsible for the management of 191 million acres of our
nation's National Forests and, in particular, 88 areas that
Congress designated for special air quality protection under
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
I want to share some of the specific actions the Forest
Service has taken to protect the lands we are managing and how
we see our role changing in light of the proposed changes to
the EPA regional haze rules.
FOREST SERVICE HISTORICAL PROGRAM
The Forest Service has a long history of involvement in air
quality issues, particularly from the standpoint of visibility.
There is a clear correlation between the quality of
recreational use of national forests and visibility; influences
of our wildfire suppression program on air quality is well
documented; and air quality conditions have historically
influenced our ability to detect wildfires. We have actually
been monitoring visibility since the early 1920's and developed
the Byram's Haze meter in 1925. These measurements were taken
at lookouts during fire season well into the 1950's. While the
observations were used to distinguish between dust and clouds
and smokes from wildfires, the principles of noting perceptible
changes to the scene and contrast for long distances is the
underlying principle of many of the visibility monitors used
today.
With passage of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress
designated 88 Wilderness Areas managed by the Forest Service as
Class I Federal Areas and, as such, provided them with special
visibility protection. At the time, we surveyed the designated
areas to determine if visibility was an important value,
requiring some level of protection. We used the enabling
legislation that established the wilderness to determine the
importance of good visibility and found that for all but 2
wilder-
nesses, Rainbow Lakes in Wisconsin and Bradwell Bay in Florida,
visibility is an important value.
Along with negatively impacting the experience of
wilderness users, reduced visibility can be used as an
indicator of particulate matter and other pollutants being
transported over relatively long distances and the potential
for adverse effects to vegetation. The existence of visibility
problems in relatively unoccupied locations such as the Class I
Federal Areas is a further indicator of the breadth of air
quality problems in the country. At the time of designation we
had some indications of point source smoke plume impacts and
regional haze in all of our Class I Federal Areas.
We began seasonal monitoring for visibility in some of the
more sensitive Class I Federal Areas as early as 1982 using
fixed cameras and their photographic data. Since that time the
agency has significantly improved our visibility monitoring
technology and increased the number of areas we monitor in. We
currently conduct some form of formal monitoring in 72 of our
88 Class I Federal Areas. Monitoring information is used in the
review of permit applications for new major point sources of
air pollution, in determining the impacts of existing sources
of air pollution, and visibility modelling relative to special
air pollution studies.
Along with the National Park Service and EPA, we
participated in the National Academy of Sciences study of the
state of the science related to visibility. They reviewed our
monitoring efforts and the data collected and concluded that
there was sufficient data to make regulatory decisions. The
Forest Service evaluated the recommendations and invested in
the more sophisticated IMPROVE network of monitoring stations.
IMPROVE--the Interagency protocol for monitoring that we
operate in cooperation with my colleagues here is the protocol
recommended in the proposed regional haze rule. IMPROVE
provides protocols for monitoring extinction, and absorption
which are key visibility indicators and establishes standards
for the installation and operation of visibility monitoring
stations. Stations have filters that collect both PM2.5 and
PM10 sized particles. The filters that collect the PM2.5
particles are then analyzed to help determine what type sources
are contributing to the visibility problem.
The proposed Regional Haze rule contemplates using
comprehensive data from stations that have three or more years
of records. To give you a run down of the monitoring being done
in the Forest Service: 15 Class I Federal Areas have three
years of comprehensive data and 3 more will meet that standard
by the end of 1998. 48 areas have limited data (most often
camera data) or less than 2 years of monitoring. Six areas do
not have independent monitoring but are covered well by the
monitoring done at an adjacent area. 14 Forest Service Class I
Federal Areas have no data because they are near Areas
monitored by other agencies.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ushered in a new era
in visibility concern with the establishment of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (Commission). The Forest
Service was an original, and ongoing, participant in the
Commission and provided analysis of the exiting conditions in
the 8 Class I Wilderness Areas that were part of the study. The
agency was also active in the development of control strategy
options including providing the Commission with analyses of the
possible impacts of both wildfire and of increased prescribed
fire programs in the west. Of the 16 Class I Federal Areas
considered by the Commission, 8 are managed by the Forest
Service. The commission process brought together not only the
Federal land managers, but also tribes, states, state
regulators, and the EPA.
The Commission looked at land management protection
responsibilities as well as the polluting side of our land
management activities. We endorse the Commission
Recommendations that represent a considered strategy for the
protection of the 16 areas. However, it should be noted that
the Commission analyzed visibility protection for less than 10
percent of the Class I Federal Areas that the Forest Service
manages and that those areas are similar in nature and regional
concerns. Its regional nature is responsive to regional issues
and its recommendations may not be fully applicable across the
country. We commend the states and tribes involved for their
commitment, and continue to work with them in the follow on
``Western Regional Air Partnership'' (WRAP).
RESEARCH
Research conducted by the Forest Service has determined
that viewing the scenery through ``clean, fresh air'' is one of
the most important wilderness attributes as determined by our
wilderness users. This statement is probably true for most
users of National Forest System lands. A significant Forest
Service contribution to Clean Air Act objectives is provided
through our Research program which focuses on the response of
ecosystems and their components to air pollution including the
effects of air pollution on trees and forests as well as ``acid
rain'' deposition from both point sources and regional air
pollution.
A better understanding of the relationships between air
pollution and forest ecosystem health is vital to making
informed decisions to protect all forest ecosystems from damage
by air pollutants. The need for an ecosystem approach to air
pollution research is stressed in the Forest Ecosystems and
Atmospheric Pollution Research Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-521)
which directed the Forest Service to undertake adequate long-
term monitoring of the health of forest ecosystems. In 1990, we
began implementation of a national Forest Health Monitoring
program in six New England states. This program is currently
conducted in close cooperation with 21 State forestry agencies
and the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Research and development efforts are also underway to
identify the amount and composition of emissions from
prescribed and wildfire in support of the Grand Canyon
Recommendations.
FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS--PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
The Forest Service has a number of responsibilities in the
implementation of the Clean Air Act. The 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments require us to protect air quality related values,
including visibility, in Class I Federal Areas through the
permit review process. Those related resource values include
soils, vegetation, and stream and lake chemistry as well as
their dependent fish and wildlife populations. Effects on these
related resources may take years to be identified, but we do
know that we have many Class I Federal Areas with visibility
problems and some level of associated changes in water
chemistry, soil degradation, and visible damage to vegetation.
The role of the Forest Service, and our sister agencies,
has been to notify states when our expertise, measurements and
analysis indicate that proposed, or existing, air pollution
sources, are adversely affecting the lands we manage. We view
our role in visibility protection as being an active partner
with the appropriate State and EPA in working to ensure that
new sources are using the best control technologies and
mitigation to minimize their visibility impacts. We have very
effective working relationship with all states that host Forest
Service Class I Areas.
Monitoring information is used by the Forest Service to aid
in the review of new source applications, or major modification
to existing sources under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) provision of the Clean Air Act. This means
that when an applicant wants to start or modify an activity
that will result in new pollution we have the responsibility to
review their application, identify the potential impacts to
Class I Federal Areas, and make mandatory recommendations to
the state for mitigation.
Since a 1990 GAO review of Federal agency activities in
support of the Act, the Forest Service has tracked the number
of permits we review and publish that information in the Annual
Report of the Forest Service. Generally, we review between 40
and 60 applications per year. Of all the applications we have
reviewed over the years we are aware of only one where the
project did not proceed and that was, in part, due to concerns
related to potential Class I Federal Area impacts. Our
approach, frequently successful, has been to seek solutions
through collaboratively identified mitigation. We do believe
that our participation has resulted in modifications to a
number of projects so that they did not adversely affect our
Class I wildernesses.
REVIEW OF EXISTING SOURCES
A second component of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) provision allows the Forest Service to
identify existing sources that can be ``reasonably attributed''
to be the cause of adverse visibility impacts in Class I
Federal areas. Regulatory agencies then identify the best
available retro-fit technology (BART) needed to mitigate the
identified impacts.
The agency has taken actions in several states to protect
visibility and fragile ecosystems from existing sources. In
1993 Regional Forester Elizabeth Estill formally certified to
the governor of Colorado that visibility in the Mt. Zirkel
Wilderness were being adversely affected by emissions from two
coal-fired power plants in northwestern Colorado. Supporting
information provided by the Regional Forester included impacts
to aquatic ecosystems. The agency worked with the State and
Region VIII EPA in verifying the adverse effects of the two
sources on the Wilderness. As a result, the State issued an
order to one of the two sources to significantly reduce
emissions, and construction of the necessary control equipment
at that facility is underway as we speak. Studies to determine
the amount of air pollution control that is appropriate for the
other source are ongoing.
In 1996 Regional Forester John Lowe notified the State of
Washington that the visibility in the Goat Rocks and Alpine
Lakes Wildernesses was being adversely affected by pollution
from a coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington.
Supporting information provided by the Regional Forester
included impacts to wilderness water quality. This source is
the largest in the western United States, emitting up to 75,000
tons/year of sulfur dioxide, more than half of the sulfur
emitted in the state. In that case the Forest Service and Park
Service worked collaboratively with the plant owners and
regulatory agencies to achieve a mediated settlement that will
provide a 90 percent reduction in sulfur emissions from that
plant by 2002.
OVERALL AIR QUALITY MODELLING
We have found though monitoring that poor visibility can be
an indicator of other problems in the ecosystems such as acute
vitrification of soils in the Los Angeles area. We have 30
years of research on ozone damage to the vegetation and the
visibility situation can be so severe in the San Gorgonio
Wilderness, on the worst days, that the photo labs will not
print the photograph from our camera station--there is nothing
to see.
THE CHANGING RULES
There are three clear changes in air quality standards and
regulations that EPA has promulgated or proposed that may
significantly benefit forest health and users of National
Forest System lands: the promulgated changes to the fine
particulate (PM 2.5) and ozone standards, and the proposed
change to the regional haze rule. The three work together. The
new ozone rules include a secondary standard that is identical,
except for monitoring requirements, to the new primary standard
and should provide substantially improved protection. This will
help address the effects that our researchers have documented
ozone on vegetation in southern California and the southern
Appalachian mountains. In addressing ozone, controls will be
provided for nitrogen oxides that are affecting Class I Areas
in the Northeast, southern California, and the Rocky Mountains.
If this were to progress, there would be irreversible losses of
soil nutrients. Even now the Forest Service is evaluating the
cost effectiveness of applying lime to areas to reduce
acidification.
The new particulate standards, combined with the proposed
regional haze rule enlist everyone in considering pollution
controls that will benefit both human health and welfare. The
PM2.5 standard reflects the size of particles that have more of
an effect on visibility. The precursors to Ozone form some of
these particles and degrade the visibility. The EPA has
proposed an integrated approach that has the potential to move
us toward progress on three fronts at the same time.
EPA's changes are directed much more to the States and say
little about the Federal Land Manager role. However, our
``affirmative responsibilities'' to protect air quality related
values remain intact. The states have responsibility for
implementation of the Clean Air Act and the development of
programs to make progress in implementing these new rules. The
Federal land managers' role is, and should be, monitoring,
providing recommendations, and helping to mitigate potential
problems.
Implementation of the proposed haze rule may affect our
land management activities. We believe that we will have to be
more responsive in our prescribed fire program planning and
implementation. Some of the potential changes include: (1)
maximizing the utilization of fuelwood, (2) modifications to
project level planning and monitoring, (3) improving our
practical prescribed fire and smoke management program skills,
and (4) there may be some potential need to modify our
visibility monitoring. Future modifications to other Forest
Service management activities will be explored in the next
several years.
As I mentioned earlier, we are implementing many of the
Grand Canyon recommendations and are working to improve our
understanding of the differences between smoke released through
prescribed fire and wildfire.
POTENTIAL CHANGES IN FOREST SERVICE ROLE
The Forest Service is in the midst of preparing comments on
the proposed regional haze rule for EPA's consideration and to
say anything about those potential comments at this time would
be inappropriate. We appreciate the efforts that EPA has
undertaken to assure that our comments, and the public's, help
influence the final rule.
The Forest Service does take its role as Federal Land
Manager under the Clean Air Act very seriously. We do a lot of
monitoring and coordination with the states that doesn't show
up much in the budget or on the front pages of any newspapers.
We have a cadre of over 35 professional people working full
time in air quality across the country and an additional 55 who
handle local issues as the need arises. The Forest Service role
in implementing the Clean Air Act may change depending on the
final rule and how the individual states implement it.
The reasonable progress standards of 1 DeciView per 10 to
15 years will require that we continue to assist states in
monitoring and data analysis. If a state or regional
institution chooses not to use that standard, then we might
have a larger role in working with them to establish a
different measure of reasonable progress. This may mean
cooperative efforts similar to the Grand Canyon Commission
which will take time but, as you can tell from Governor
Levitt's testimony, result in strong commitments.
We already coordinate closely with the states that have
visibility Implementation Plans (IPs). The proposed rule will
mean that more states and tribes will need to develop regional
haze IPs. We would anticipate that our workload in support
these efforts will increase until such time as the plans are in
place. Our role in monitoring will continue to be a cooperative
one between the FS, EPA, DOI, and the states but on a
potentially larger scale.
Regardless of the changes that EPA has proposed, the Forest
Service believes that we need to increase the use of prescribed
fire. We will do what we can to find markets for, and
mechanically remove, excess fuels but believe there still will
be increases in smoke emissions and a resultant impact on
visibility. Solid smoke management on our part will result in a
program consistent with state implementation plans and
visibility objectives. Efforts currently underway with EPA, in
support of the interagency fire policy, and in cooperation with
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, indicate that
we need to do a better job of quantifying how much we need to
burn and where.
The proposed rule would change and strengthen the states'
role in determining what to do about existing sources that are
causing visibility impairment. The rule, as proposed, allows
the states flexibility in addressing a specific set of sources
that would move us towards a more collaborative approach to
identifying the appropriate best available retro-fit
technology. We strongly endorse that approach.
CLOSING
Visibility is an important resource that our forest users
value. While it is difficult to put a dollar value on its
importance, when we ask what brought people to recreate or use
the national forests and wildernesses, ``clean air'' always
makes it to the top of the list.
Forest Service Class I Federal Area visibility and related
resource impacts are a microcosm of a far larger picture.
Progress that can be made in addressing these issues in an
integrated way, from the standpoint of landscape scale and
intergovernmental coordination, will go a long way towards
addressing the problems we face nationally. Over the last 20
years we have learned much about air quality relationships with
the ecosystems that we manage and the effects of our management
activities. We are looking forward to working with the EPA and
States to improve decisions about needed pollution controls and
land management activities.
That completes my formal statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
------
BRIEFING PAPER
Regional Haze
SUMMARY
This oversight hearing will focus on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule on regional haze and
the effect of the United States Forest Service (USFS) fire and
fuels management policies on regional haze. The hearing will
concentrate primarily on the interrelationship between
prescribed fires, silvicultural treatments, and the proposed
regional haze rules.
The EPA is currently developing a final rule on regional
haze. The rule would require a one deciview improvement (a
measure of visible improvement) every ten to fifteen years.
There are many concerns with the proposed rule. These concerns
range from doing too little, to doing too much. One concern,
especially from Westerners, is that the EPA's rule would place
significant management restrictions on land managers and
increase economic burdens on utilities and manufacturers. There
are also concerns that the emissions from wildfire and
prescribed fire will not be fully accounted for by the EPA and,
therefore, will place a heavy burden on industry.
The USFS has acknowledged that 40 million acres of its
lands are at high risk of catastrophic fire. At the same time,
the USFS has stated its intentions to increase its use of
prescribed fire without adequately addressing alternative
methods for fuels reduction--to prevent catastrophic wildfires,
minimize damage from wildfires when ignited (through use of
fuel breaks or mechanical thinnings), and recover economically
valuable materials prior to burning.
BACKGROUND
On July 31, 1997, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking for regional haze regulations in the Federal
Register. These regulations would establish a program that
addresses regional haze in Class I Federal areas (national
parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments). The EPA
proposes that visibility should improve by one ``deciview'' (a
measure of visible improvement) every 10 to 15 years. The
comment period on the proposed rule was extended once and ended
December 5, 1997. The rule (as proposed) would require states
to revise their State Implementation Plans (SIP) for air
quality to address regional haze within twelve months after
promulgation of a final rule.
On June 9, 1998, the President signed Public Law 105-178,
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
The law includes provisions that allow nonattainment areas for
the 1997 Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) standard to
submit their revised SIP for regional haze at the same time
they submit their revised SIP for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter. This
would ensure that EPA's implementation schedules for
particulate matter and regional haze are consistent. It is
important to note that the air quality implementation schedule
for areas that are designated as ``attainment'' will not be
delayed by TEA-21. The EPA has received requests to reopen the
rulemaking comment period to put all areas, attainment and
nonattainment, on the same implementation schedule.
Legislative History
In 1977, Congress added Section 169(A) to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). This section established a national visibility goal for
Class I Federal areas. The 156 Class I areas include national
parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments. Section 169(A)
is intended to prevent any new, and mitigate any present,
manmade impairment to visibility in these areas.
Thirteen years later, in 1990, Congress again amended the
CAA, and required the EPA to establish the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (Commission). The Commission
released its recommendations in 1996, including one
specifically dealing with fire. The Commission recommended
minimizing emissions and visibility impacts through public
education, enhanced smoke management plans, and the removal of
administrative barriers to using alternatives to prescribed
burning.
Between the time that Congress established the Commission
and the release of the Commission's recommendations, the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas (1993). The
NAS report found that visibility in the East is currently one
fifth of its natural range and that visibility in the West is
one-half of its natural range. The NAS report made eight
conclusions to improve air quality.
ANALYSIS
Land Management Opportunities to Reduce Emissions
The hearing will examine the effect of the EPA's proposed
rule on the use of prescribed fire on national forests.
Significantly, the Forest Service has stated that forty million
acres of its land are susceptible to catastrophic wildfire and
will significantly increase its use of prescribed fire to
address this risk. The Department of the Interior has also
announced a 400 percent increase in the use of prescribed fire.
Fire is an important tool in the management of our forests.
As the agencies move towards restoring the historical presence
of fire in Federal forestlands, they must also reduce the fuels
that have accumulated during eighty years of diligent fire
suppression. In many areas, mechanical methods to reduce fuels
prior to the use of fire will not only minimize the particulate
emissions from fires but also allow for the utilization of many
forest products which, if left to burn, would be economically
lost. Similarly, wildfires that burn today are larger and more
intense than historical wildfires. Acre for acre, wildfires
contribute more particulate matter to the air than prescribed
fires. Land managers have taken innovative approaches to
mitigating the effects of wildfires in specific areas using
fuel breaks. Such plans could prove useful in reducing the
particulate emissions from wildfires.
Concerns with the Proposed Rule
Many private and industrial forest landowners are concerned
that the EPA's NAAQS and proposed regional haze rules will
discriminate against the use of prescribed fire on public and
private lands, while allowing ``natural'' wildfires to burn in
parks and wilderness areas.
Others have pointed out that the increased emissions from
wildfire and prescribed fire will offset any gains in air
quality that the utilities and other industries may achieve by
reducing point source emissions under the CAA. They argue that
the proposed regional haze rules, in particular, will have a
greater impact on industrial facilities and operations than the
ozone and particulate matter NAAQS, since the NAAQS apply to
specific nonattainment areas while the regional haze program
could apply to all areas within the 50 states.
EPA responds that under the proposed rule, fine particulate
matter from ``natural'' wildfire would be acceptable. EPA's
proposal would also permit emissions from prescribed fire as
long as the fire is conducted in compliance with state smoke
management programs. Yet a report by the Commission pointed out
that ``emissions from fire, both wildfire and prescribed fire,
is likely to have the single greatest impact on visibility in
Class I areas through 2040.'' In addition, it remains unclear
to what extent the EPA and the CAA will limit the states'
discretion under the regional haze rule.
Additionally, EPA has suggested that emissions from fires
on Federal lands would somehow be mathematically ``removed''
from the measured levels of visibility impairment. However,
critics are concerned that unless EPA can guarantee that it can
account for all fires on Federal lands, and distinguish their
effects from all other combustion sources, states will be
forced to over-regulate non-Federal sources to make up for
unaccounted emissions from Federal fires. EPA has admitted that
the data on fires collected by Federal land managers does not
allow this. According to the EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy
on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, ``The data are not collected
for the purpose of calculating air pollutant emissions and are
probably inadequate for that purpose.''
Regional Impacts of the Proposed Rule
It is important to note that the West will incur a
disproportionate amount of the regulatory burden as most Class
I Federal areas are located in the West. In addition an
increment of improvement in the West will require significantly
more effort than in the East, due to better overall air quality
in the West.
Recommendations
Environmental groups believe the proposed rule does not go
far enough because they think the one deciview standard is to
low will take too long to achieve improved air quality. Others
believe the standard is too high, especially where air quality
is already good.
The Western Govemors Association (WGA) recommended that EPA
modify its rule and develop a program for the Western U.S.,
building from the recommendations of the Grand Canyon
Commission. Others have expressed concern that under the WGA
proposal the impact on visibility from prescribed fires in the
West would increase.
Finally, several groups have asked that EPA reopen the
comment period on the proposed rule. An extension would provide
additional time for the public to address specific concerns
that have been raised with the proposed rule and would be
reasonable given the delayed implementation schedule under TEA-
21.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0377.040