SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–377 CC
1998
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
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho, Chairman
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Am. Samoa
————— —————
————— —————
BILL SIMMONS, Staff Director
ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff
JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held July 16, 1998
Statements of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Prepared statement of
Schaffer, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, prepared statement of
Statements of witnesses:
Joslin, Robert C., Deputy Chief, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Matlick, Don, Director, Smoke Management, Oregon State Department of Forestry
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
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
Prepared statement of
Omi, Dr. Phil, Director, Western Forest Fire Research Center
Prepared statement of
Pearson, Dr. Robert L., Project Manager, Radian International
Prepared statement of
Seitz, John, Director of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared statement of
Walcher, Greg, President, CLUB 20
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Committee Briefing Paper, Regional Haze
Finneran, Brian R., ''Oregon PSD Strategy to Address Forest Health Prescribed Burning,'' U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Land Management Considerations in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON REGIONAL HAZE
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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:]
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 consensus 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.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 Protection Agency use the commission's report during the formulation of its proposed regional haze rule?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.]
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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——
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC