SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–964 CC
1998
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREST AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 30 AND AUGUST 4, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–110
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
————— —————
————— —————
DOUG CRANDALL, Staff Director
ANNE HEISSENBUTTEL, Legislative Staff
JEFF PETRICH, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held July 30, 1998
Statements of Members:
Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Prepared statement of
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Prepared statement of
Briefing paper
Briefing paper
Statements of witnesses:
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dombeck, Michael, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Ferrioli, Hon. Ted, State Senator, State of Oregon, John Day, Oregon
Prepared statement of
Hill, Lawrence, Director of Forest Policy, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland
Prepared statement of
Nelson, Cara, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council
Prepared statement of
Peterson, L. Earl, Florida State Forester, Division of Forestry of Tallahassee, Florida
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Tyee Fire Recovery, Chelan and Entiat Ranger Districts, Wenatchee National Forest, Environmental Assessment
Text of H.R. 4375
Hearing held August 4, 1998
Statements of Members:
Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Brown, Hon. Corrine, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho, prepared statement of
Briefing paper
Statements of witnesses:
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Garner, James W., State Forester, Virginia Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, Virginia
Prepared statement of
Hill, Barry, Associate Director, accompanied by Linda Harmon, Assistant Director, Energy, Resources and Science Issues, General Accounting Office
Prepared statement of
Josephson, Wally, Wildland Fire Specialist, Office of Managing Risk and Public Safety, U.S. Department of the Interior
Prepared statement of
McDougle, Janice, accompanied by Denny Truesdale, Assistant Director of Fire Management for Operations, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Briefing paper
Managing Forests, Managing Fire, Report to Congress
National Interagency Fire Center, BLM Office of Fire & Aviation, report
OVERSIGHT HEARING: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PARITY
THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to have an oversight hearing on H.R. 4345, a bill to authorize the continued use on national forests and other public lands of the alternative arrangements that were approved by the Council on Environmental Quality for a windstorm damaged National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.
Now under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements of hearings are limited to the chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore if other members have statements, they can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
This hearing will focus on H.R. 4345. This bill is a result of the decision in March of this year by the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, to grant alternative arrangements under the National Environmental Policy Act. The CEQ reducing the fuel load, the CEQ allowed for the expedited treatment of East Texas National Forests after they had experienced a very severe windstorm and blowdown on February 10. Immediately after the windstorm, the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, the office responsible for management of the three national forests damaged in the windstorm, consulted with the CEQ for an alternative arrangement under NEPA. 40 CFR 1506.11 provides for such alternative arrangements in emergency situations. The Forest Service believed that the time period needed for a traditional NEPA analysis would negatively affect wildlife habitat, private property, and the overall conditions of the forest itself. Now specifically, the Forest Service was fearful that failure to act expeditiously would result in severe wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and loss of subpopulation of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Katy McGinty, the chairman of the CEQ, sent a letter to the Forest Service on March 4 granting the expedited NEPA process.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CEQ should be commended for this decision. Ron Hufford, of the Texas Forestry Association, wrote in a letter to the Subcommittee: ''the granted waiver has been a proactive initiative that has allowed the removal of down timber to an effort to reduce future insect and disease epidemics as well as reducing the fuel loading in the most severely impacted areas.
The February 10 storm was brief but devastating and left the issue of the health of the National Forests in question. The waiver has allowed the professionals to respond to this emergency in a timely manner.'' And I'd like to submit this letter for the record. Photos of the blowdown are in the members' folders along with the photos of other catastrophic events on other national forests.
[The information follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 98 TO 104 HERE
Mrs. CHENOWETH. H.R. 4345 lists a number of other national forests that have experienced catastrophic events of a similar magnitude as the East Texas blowdown, recommending that they also be granted expedited processes under the NEPA process. The bill also requires the CEQ to develop and issue regulations concerning the use of alternative arrangements on national forests. This is crucial because the CEQ currently has no consistent requirements for the use of alternative arrangements.
It is important to note that this bill does not override or change any environmental law. It merely recommends that the CEQ consider granting expedited NEPA processes to other national forests that have suffered catastrophic events and that need expedited remedial treatment. Although the CEQ has granted alternative arrangements only thirty times since 1980, many of the these were in response to situations of similar or even lower severity than the ones listed in H.R. 4345.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, one alternative arrangement was for the BLM and the Forest Service to implement erosion control efforts after the Eighth Street fire in the hills above Boise, Idaho. Another alternative arrangement was for the aerial spraying of pesticides in Idaho to combat migratory grasshoppers. We know and agree that these were legitimate circumstances for using expedited NEPA processes. We also know that forest conditions in specific areas across this country are in need of accelerated management in order to prevent costly and preventable environmental and economic catastrophes. In some areas, this may mean the removal of dead and dying trees.
Unfortunately, it has become politically incorrect to harvest trees on Federal lands, for any reason, even when it is scientifically the most appropriate means for protecting wildlife habitats, soils, and private property. Hopefully, we can get beyond the political aspects of this issue and have a serious dialogue on the merits of using expedited NEPA processes in critical forest areas.
Now, when the Ranking Minority Member comes in, I will recognize him for his statement.
And now, I'd like to introduce our first panel of witnesses: Ted Ferrioli, Oregon State Senator from John Day, Oregon; L. Earl Peterson, Florida State Forester, Division of Forestry from Tallahassee, Florida; Cara Nelson, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council from San Francisco, California; Larry Hill, Director of Forest Policy, The Society of American Foresters from Bethesda, Maryland.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but that your entire record will appear in the permanent record—your entire statement. We will also allow the entire panel to testify before we begin questioning the witnesses.
I would like to recognize my colleague, Allen Boyd, from the great State of Florida, and ask if he has opening statements.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chenoweth follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
This hearing will focus on National Environmental Policy Act Parity and H.R.4345. This bill is a result of the decision in March of this year by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to grant ''alternative arrangements'' under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ allowed for the expedited treatment of East Texas National Forests after they had experienced a severe windstorm and blowdownon February 10th. Immediately after the windstorm, the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, the office responsible for management of the three national forests damaged in the windstorm, consulted with the CEQ for an alternative arrangement under NEPA. 40 CFR 1506.11 provides for such alternative arrangements in emergency situations. The Forest Service believed that the time period needed for a traditional NEPA analysis would negatively affect wildlife habitat, private property, and the overall conditions of the forest itself. Specifically, the Forest Service was fearful that failure to act expeditiously would result in severe wildfires, bark beetle infestations, and loss of a sub-population of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Katy McGinty, the Chairman of the CEQ, sent a letter to the Forest Service on March 4th granting the expedited NEPA process.
The CEQ should be commended for this decision. Ron Hufford, of the Texas Forestry Association, wrote in a letter to the Subcommittee: ''The granted waiver has been a pro-active initiative that has allowed the removal of down timber in an effort to reduce future insect and disease epidemics as well as reducing the fuel loading in the most severely impacted areas. The February 10th storm was brief but devastating and left the issue of the health of the National Forests in question. The waiver has allowed the professionals to respond to this emergency in a timely manner.'' I would like to submit this letter for the record. Photos of the blowdown are in the Members folders along with photos of other catastrophic events on other national forests.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 4345 lists a number of other national forests that have experienced catastrophic events of a similar magnitude as the East Texas blowdown, recommending that they also be granted expedited processes under NEPA. The bill also requires the CEQ to develop and issue regulations concerning the use of alternative arrangements on national forests. This is crucial because the CEO currently has no consistent requirements for the use of alternative arrangements. It is important to note that this bill does not override or change any environmental law—it merely recommends that the CEQ consider granting expedited NEPA processes to other national forests that have suffered catastrophic events and that need expedited remedial treatment. Although the CEQ has granted alternative arrangements only thirty times since 1980, many of these were in response to situations of similar or even lower severity than the ones listed in H.R. 4345. For example, one alternative arrangement was for the BLM and Forest Service to implement erosion control efforts after the Eighth Street Fire in the hills above Boise. Another alternative arrangement was for the aerial spraying of pesticides in Idaho to combat migratory grasshoppers. We know and agree that these were legitimate circumstances for using expedited NEPA processes. We also know that forest conditions in specific areas across the country are in need of accelerated management in order to prevent costly and preventable environmental and economic catastrophes. In some areas this may mean the removal of dead or dying trees. Unfortunately, it has become politically incorrect to harvest trees on Federal lands—for any reason—even when it is scientifically the most appropriate means for protecting wildlife habitat, soils, and private property. Hopefully, we can get beyond the political aspects of this issue and have a serious dialogue on the merits of using expedited NEPA processes in critical forest areas.
BRIEFING PAPER
Oversight Hearing on Fire Suppression
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SUMMARY
Various forest and weather conditions have greatly increased the vulnerability of America's forests to wildfire. In recent years, the total number of wildfires, including the number of large complex fires, has increased dramatically. The costs associated with fighting these fires has risen proportionally, representing hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars annually. These efforts also require an ever-increasing need for well orchestrated communications and cooperation among volunteer and municipal fire departments, State forestry agencies, and Federal agencies with wildfire management and suppression responsibilities. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to review these and other factors that influence the effectiveness of government efforts in wildfire preparedness and suppression.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Already this year, nearly two million acres have burned, many of those occurring in the well-reported fires in Florida. At a Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee hearing last week, Earl Peterson, the State Forester of Florida, gave high marks to the coordinated fire fighting efforts in his state but did suggest that better coordination would have been helpful in the ordering and distribution of equipment. He also said that better long-range planning would help in order to more effectively station people and equipment in areas of highest risk.
The GAO recently reported that wildfire preparedness and suppression expenditures by Federal land management agencies are at all time highs—over $4 billion for the last five years. Given the recent comments by the Chief of the Forest Service that approximately 40 million acres of agency lands are at a high risk of catastrophic fire, there is little question that these high costs are going to persist—and very likely continue to increase—for the next couple of decades. As wildfires become larger, hotter, and more numerous it is not only becoming more expensive to suppress them but the logistics of organizing communications and coordination among the various state and Federal agencies is becoming exponentially more complex. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho serves as ''The Pentagon'' for these suppression efforts. Located at the NIFC is the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC), whose primary mission is the cost-effective and timely coordination of national emergency response. It is through NICC that all agency requests to mobilize personnel and equipment across regions are managed.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESSES
Our nation's ability to prepare for and suppress wildfires is of extreme importance, not only because these efforts represent such a huge cost to taxpayers, but because without a maximum effort, property, and most importantly, lives will be lost. The intent, then, of this oversight hearing is to discuss the effectiveness of our preparedness and suppression efforts, and to try to answer a number of questions, such as:
• What did we learn from the Florida fires? In retrospect, what could we have done better, and conversely, what worked well? What rehab efforts are underway in the aftermath of the fires?
• How do we fund the various suppression activities? Do we spend too much in some areas and not enough in others? Are we adequately monitoring costs? Are we utilizing cost control measures such as contracting out certain activities to private enterprise?
• How accurately are we predicting the location, timing and severity of wildfire occurrences? What technologies and computer modeling are being used?
• How effective is interagency cooperation—at every level?
• What agencies or organizations are responsible for staffing levels, employee training, equipment availability, public education, maintenance of facilities, fire management planning. Who, ultimately, is responsible for suppression efforts, and does this vary by land ownership?
WITNESSES
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A witness list is attached
STAFF CONTACT
Doug Crandall at ext. 5-0691
STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do have a statement for the record that I'll ask unanimous consent that be included in the permanent record of this——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection.
Mr. BOYD. [continuing] and I'll have a brief oral opening statement, if I might
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes.
Mr. BOYD. I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, and the other members of this Subcommittee for allowing me the privilege of sitting as part
of this panel and to participate in this hearing. I also want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for calling this oversight hearing on ''alternative arrangements'' that have been granted by the CEQ for emergency situations under NEPA.
As my colleagues are aware, the State of Florida has recently experienced a series of severe wildfires that have burned over half a million acres and destroyed homes and timber with aggregate value of somewhere in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars; that's over $250 million dollars.
In the Second Congressional District, which I represent, a majority of the affected acreage is on Federal lands; primarily two national forests. District Two has the entire Apalachicola National Forest within its borders and also encompasses part of the Osceola National Forest. The wildfires burned thousands of acres of timberland within these national forests. That's the reason I am here today is to listen and learn about alternative arrangements.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and, particularly, Earl Peterson, who is a long-time friend and head of the Division of Forestry in the State of Florida.
But I also want to, Madam Chairman, at this time take this opportunity to say a public thank you to all the folks from around the Nation that sent their firefighters to Florida. I wish you could see the outpouring of gratitude in the State of Florida for the folks that came from all over to help us save our timberlands and our homes. And as you know, as a result of the efforts of those people from all over the Nation, we survived this disaster without any loss of life, and we're very grateful for that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ALLEN BOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you and the other members of this Subcommittee for allowing me the privilege of sitting as part of this panel and to participate in this hearing. I would also like to thank you for calling this oversight hearing on a very important, and it would appear, under used tool that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has in its tool box to use under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As my colleagues are aware, the state of Florida has recently experienced a series of devastating wildfires that burned approximately 500,000 acres, having an aggregate value of more than $276,000,000. A large majority of the land affected in the state is located on private and state lands. However, in the Second Congressional District, which I represent, a majority of the affected acreage is on Federal lands.
The Second Congressional District is located in the panhandle of the state, running from Panama City in the west to the middle of the Osceola National Forest in the east. It has the entire Apalachicola National Forest within its borders and also encompasses part of the Osceola National Forest. The wildfires have burned approximately 20,000 acres in the Osceola National Forest. Between 4,000 to 5,000 acres are classified as Wilderness Areas and most of this wood is either hardwood or cypress. Of the 15,000 acres not classified as Wilderness, over 10,000 acres are pine plantations. In the Apalachicola National Forest, a large majority of the 20,000 plus acres that were adversely affected lie within a Wilderness Area.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you can imagine, time is of the utmost importance when we are trying to salvage this timber. In my experience as a steward of our land, in the warm and humid climate of Florida, sawtimber must be removed within a 45 to 60 day period after being destroyed by fire. Otherwise, it loses all its economic value and can only be left to rot and fall to the ground. Pulpwood will last for a longer period of time; however, the pulpwood market is currently depressed due to a glut in the pulp market, and the Asian financial situation. That is why I am here today to listen and learn about the ''alternative arrangements'' that have been granted by the CEQ for emergency situations under NEPA.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, especially Earl Peterson, our State Forester from Florida. Working together, I believe we can take another positive step in our stewardship of our federally owned natural resources.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. It was a very startling disaster and I am also very grateful that there was no loss of life, but it is quite remarkable to be able to see the kind of response to national disasters that we saw in this case and have seen in the past. And I share that feeling of gratitude with you. We were even busy in Boise deploying equipment, and planes, and men to the fires. And——
Mr. BOYD. Men and women also.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Women, that's right. Absolutely, and they're tough. So it's a joy—not joyous circumstances at all that we come together, but it's a pleasure to have you join us today.
As this the normal process here, we ask that all of our witnesses be placed under the oath. It's a normal process in this Subcommittee and I believe all of you have received a notice from the Committee that that is our process. And so, if you wouldn't mind standing and raising your hand to the square.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chair recognizes Senator Ferrioli.
STATEMENT OF TED FERRIOLI, STATE SENATOR, STATE OF OREGON, JOHN DAY, OREGON
Mr. FERRIOLI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 4345.
My name is Ted Ferrioli. I reside at 111 Skyline Drive, John Day, Oregon. I'm the Executive Director of Malheur Timber Operators in John Day, and I am the State Senator from Senate District 28.
Madam Chairman, Senate District 28 begins in the outskirts of Portland and the Gresham area, and it goes across all of parts of 11 counties in Oregon all the way to the Idaho borders. So, we are neighbors in a sense. The population there is 100,000 people in my district. It's 17,500 square miles. So the population density in my district is .17 persons per square mile. So, I'm very glad to see this rather large crowd of people here today.
I'm here today to testify about the rather dysfunctional response by the Forest Service under the current National Environment Policy Act to a catastrophic event that occurred in our district referenced the Summit Fire, which occurred on the Long Creek Ranger District on the Malheur National Forest.
The Summit fire was caused by lighting. It started August 13, 1996 and it burned for 24 days across 37,961 acres of forestland. It killed or damaged approximately 300 million board feet across those 38,000 acres. Very shortly after the fire was put out, the Summit Fire Recovery Project became the top priority of the Malheur National Forest under direction of Forest Supervisor Carl Pence. Mr. Pence made that the top priority pulling in staff from the other ranger districts on the Malheur National Forest and endeavored to conduct a rather extraordinary outreach process to bring in people to view the fire, to communicate with interested parties and the stakeholders. As a matter of fact, tours were conducted for Members of Congress, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber's Citizen Eastside Forest Health Advisory Task Force, environmental organizations, Forest Products industry representatives, and representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Throughout the period of planning, this forest-planning staff received continuous assurances from the regional office that the Recovery Project was on track for a speedy recovery. On August 27, almost a year later, Forest Supervisor Pence signed a Record of Decision that created a Recovery Project treating approximately 9,500 acres—about a third of the fire area which would have produced a 100 million board feet of salvage.
Of course the Record of Decision was immediately appealed by the environmental community in what we refer to as a ''cookbook'' type of appeal.
Despite the unprecedented communication between the Malheur National Forest Planning Staff and the Regional Forest Planning Staff, Regional Forester Bob Williams informed Carl Pence that Williams could not support the Record of Decision, and gave Mr. Pence two choices: either he would remand the project back to the forest; or Mr.Pence could voluntarily withdraw the plan. Since voluntary withdrawal gave more options for remediation, Mr. Pence chose the latter option.
In fact, during the next 6 months, the Malheur National Forest Planning Staff completely rewrote the DEIS, the Environmental Impact Statement, making major revisions, including a development of a water resources management plan which is not required by rule or by statute. And then formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Bull Trout and informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service for Steelhead. Although at that point in time, neither of those species were a listed species.
On July 12, 1998, more than 23 months after the fire, a new Record of Decision was issued calling for the salvage and rehabilitation of approximately 6,600 of the 38,000 acres burned with an output of approximately a 50 million board feet.
During the intervening months, of course, the insects, and blue-stain fungus, and checking severely reduced the value of the salvageable timber. In fact, if the salvage project had been conducted in August of 1997, it would have produced about $6.9 million in revenue for the Federal Treasury, 25 percent of which would have gone to schools—local schools, and for the roads funds in the counties. Today, if the project was operated, or will be operated, it will be worth approximately one-sixth of that value or about $1.1 million. So we saw a 600 percent reduction in the value of that project over a 23-month period.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Madam Chairman, the cost of suppression for the Summit Fire was $25,400,000, the moral equivalency of a war. The cost for the original Draft Environmental Impact Survey was $1.2 million. The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was ordered costs about $356,000. The project will put out $1.1 million worth of salvageable materials. The math simply doesn't work out.
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, while the NEPA process may be well adapted to long-term projects or proposed management actions that are not time-sensitive, it's very clear to us that the NEPA process is especially inappropriate for time-sensitive projects like fire-recovery projects where rapid deterioration and the loss of value is a predictable outcome of delay.
There are three suggestions that I would like the Committee to consider. One is that if alternative arrangements are to be used in this type of arrangement or this type of emergency as they were for the blowdown in Texas, that those alternate arrangements be clearly modelled and clearly delineated so that there is a easily accessible mechanism for their approval.
The second, if we are to make the NEPA process work, we need to also provide an expedited appeal and litigation process to resolve conflicts in a timely manner. If we had shorter statutory appeals processes, and a shorter judicial appeal process, we could not only have heightened access for citizen appeals and litigation, but we would also have timely resolution. And that's a critical factor.
The other thing is, Madam Chairman, we should modify the NEPA process to add the full consideration of the economic values affected by Federal decisionmaking. At present, NEPA requires the full disclosure of the environmental values and considerations, but does not disclose the economic impacts to local communities, and the economic values and considerations in Federal decisionmaking. And to be effective, we believe that NEPA needs to fully disclose the economic impact on local communities.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our experience has shown that catastrophic events require a planning response that preserves the net asset value of the resources, not only to sustain our communities that depend on natural resource outputs, but simply to capture the maximum value to pay for the cost of planning, and to pay for the cost of rehabilitation of resources damaged by wind, insects, disease, and wildfire.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrioli may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrioli, and the Chair will yield to Mr. Boyd to introduce Mr. Peterson.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I didn't know I was going to get this opportunity, but I'm very pleased. I don't have a bio of Mr. Peterson in front of me. I can tell you from personal experience that's he's been a public servant in Florida for all his professional career and I—what 30 years, Earl
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Forty years.
Mr. BOYD. Forty years. Oh, my goodness, and within the last six or 8 years been named head of the Division of Forestry which is under the Department of Agriculture in the State of Florida. I've had the chance to, before I was in public life, work with Earl Peterson on many occasions in their job working with timber and landowners, and they do a great job under his leadership. And I'm very pleased to welcome Earl Peterson.
STATEMENT OF L. EARL PETERSON, FLORIDA STATE FORESTER, DIVISION OF FORESTRY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Thank you, Congressman Boyd, members of the Committee.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's a pleasure to be here today and I particularly want to say also how appreciative we are for the assistance that came from throughout the country in our recent siege of wildfires. The Federal agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, the sister-state agencies throughout the country, were more than generous in their resources. Without them, it certainly would have not been possible to come through this with the success story that we had, and with the safety record that we're so proud of.
I'm also pleased to be here to talk a few moments about how the Florida Division of Forestry manages its timber resources and in particular how we deal with emergency salvage operations when struck by natural disaster.
The Florida Division of Forestry is one of the largest land management agencies in the State of Florida. We have been managing state forest lands for over 60 years and presently co-manage about a million acres while at the same time we are the lead manager on about 740,000 acres.
We have 36 state forests, approximately 55 percent of which is suitable for pine silviculture, timber production, if you would. An active forest management program occurs on this pine acreage and includes prescribed burning, reforestation, and timber sales. Trees have grown to an old age on state forests for a number of reasons, two of which are to provide a natural ecosystem that is rapidly disappearing from the State and also to provide a special experience for the public sector who visit state forests in order to enjoy a large number of resource-based outdoor recreation activities. Our state forests represent an investment by the citizens of Florida, and that investment should produce both a natural resource heritage for the future and an economic return.
The practice of sustainability is a cornerstone in the management of our timber resource. By using current forest inventory data, we insure that state forests are not overcut and that the growth will continue to exceed yield on an annual basis. Trees are harvested through a number of silvicultural techniques, including improvement thinnings, restoration harvests, and the latter being the removal of offsite species that the naturally occurring species can be restored to a particular site.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a well-managed state forest, foresters from the division strive to keep the trees in a healthy condition using such management tools as prescribed burning and improvement thinnings, which I have previously mentioned. However, due to natural processes beyond our control, unexpected and undesirable tree mortality sometimes occurs in any natural forest system. Examples are lightning——killed trees, mortality from wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, and windstorm damage.
Because this is a natural process, if the level of tree mortality is considered light, then sometimes no action is taken. The resulting dead snags provide homes for wildlife and help create biological diversity in the forest system. However, when tree mortality reaches levels where there is significant economic loss or there is the potential for insect and disease spread, then we salvage or do sanitation harvests and initiate a process to recoup the monetary losses and reduce the based on the threat to spread to disease or insects.
Although prompt action is often taken to salvage timber that has been damaged or killed at moderate levels or in limited areas, there is no question that the Division of Forestry will take appropriate action when major tree mortality events take place. This statement is clearly exemplified by October 1995 Hurricane Andrew which made a direct hit on Blackwater State Forest, which is Florida's largest state forest with 189,000 acres. Within six months, we had salvaged 95 percent of the damaged timber, which was approximately 50 million board feet of sawtimber.
In the spring and summer of 1997, Florida experienced the worst outbreak of southern pine beetle in our history. This infestation was centered in Marion and Levy County area of Central Florida. Loblolly pine was the major species being killed, but it also moved into slash pine and longleaf pine. The insect was indiscriminate in attacking trees across all ownerships. The Division of Forestry took a lead role in taking actions to control the insect outbreak plus the salvage that followed and worked with other agencies as if we carried this out. And at the same time, we did them on our state forests in two locations.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the State of Florida had just gone through one of the most serious outbreak of wildfires in our history. Approximately 500,000 acres burned between June 1 and late July. Of this, there was a total of about 260,000 acres of commercial-pine timberland. A conservative estimate is that 2,600,000 cords of damaged or fire-killed timber will require salvage in the next few months. Besides being directly involved in the total salvage effort, the Division has approximately 14,000 acres on state forests; Tiger Bay State Forest; and Lake George State Forest in Volusia County. Once the wildfires were controlled, we immediately moved toward damaged appraisal and initiating salvage sales on these state forests. In 2 weeks, we sold four salvage sales and have plans to sell four more during the third week.
The time is of essence in selling salvage timber, especially sawtimber. In Florida's warm climate, dead sawtimber must be utilized within a few months or it will deteriorate where it will be worthless except for pulpwood. Pulpwood will only last a few months longer. Because of this short timeframe, we expedite the bid process and only give potential bidders a week or less to submit their bids for sale. Emergency salvage sales of this nature are almost always sold on a per unit basis, which means we sell it by the ton. A performance bond of $5,000 or more is usually required to insure sale compliance.
A few key points for salvage operations conducted by the Division of Forestry are that they are done in a rapid fashion to insure maximum economic return, eliminate waste and to prevent the spread of pathogens or insects that might kill additional timber. All potential bidders are given a chance to bid on every sale so that no one could be accused of unfair sale practices, and ongoing sales are administered closely working with the loggers comply with division personnel.
The Division of Forestry is fortunate to have the latitude to make these decisions about procedures and conditions for silvicultural applications, such as reforestation and timber harvesting.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of L. Earl Peterson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. [presiding] The Chair thanks the gentleman from Florida. With the name Peterson, you've got to be OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Thank you.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I'm Congressman Peterson from Pennsylvania temporarily filling in for the Chair. The chairman had to leave for a few moments.
At this time, I recognize Cara Nelson, Consulting Ecologist, Natural Resources Defense Council for her testimony. Welcome, and good morning.
STATEMENT OF CARA NELSON, CONSULTING ECOLOGIST, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. NELSON. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I'll be testifying against H.R. 4345.
I work both as a research forester and as a consulting ecologist for Natural Resources Defense Council. Natural Resources Defense Council is a national non-profit environmental organization dedicated, among other things, to the protection of forest resources. My work for NRDC is largely focused on issues related to fire and fuels management in the forests of the Interior Columbia Basin in eastern Washington and Oregon.
This morning, I'd like to share my views on what I believe to be one of the most critical issues facing forest managers today; how, when, and where to experiment with forest restoration activities and the related topic of requirements for environmental review of these projects.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As strategies are developed and implemented for protecting the fire and insect resiliency of Federal forests, it is critical that adequate attention is devoted to environmental review and that opportunities for restoration are not subverted by lack of careful planning or information, or overemphasis on short-term economic goals.
I'd like to stress three primary reasons why comprehensive environmental review is needed for all treatments that justify commercial harvests of dead, dying, and overstocked trees as forest health measures.
First, there is a lack of scientific consensus about the efficacy of thinning, salvage, and fuels treatment for improving fire resiliency or ecosystem integrity. Surprisingly, little empirical research has been conducted on the impacts of these treatments on fire behavior. In spite of hypothesized benefits, the handful of studies that address these issues, as well as anecdotal accounts and analysis of recent fires, suggest that removal of dead, dying, and overstocked trees may not reliably reduce fire intensity or severity. In fact in the Pacific northwest, three recent studies of the relationship between thinning, fuels treatment, and fire behavior all found that treatment actually exacerbated fire conditions. In all cases, unmanaged stands had the least severe fire effects.
The second reason that thorough environmental review of management actions is so important is that the type of harvest practices employed, as well as the manner in which they are executed, influence environmental conditions and fire and insect hazard. Thinning, salvage, and fuel treatment are all sufficiently vague terms that treatments can vary widely in both the techniques used and the residual stand conditions.
For example, in Van Wagtendonk's model-base study of six different approaches to fuel reduction in the Sierras, and this study was part of the ''snap'' process, only one was predicted to reduce the number of acres burned or fire intensity below that of untreated stands. Findings such as these provide evidence that a careless or thoughtless approach to restoration treatments is likely to result in more harm than good.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, in addition to the speculative nature of claimed ecological benefits from removal of dead, dying, and overstocked trees, there is ample evidence that persistent adverse impacts can and do result from salvage and thinning. These impacts include: the loss of snags; down logs and closed canopy habitat conditions that are required by many wildlife species; damage to soil integrity; creation of sediment which may eventually end up in our streams; increased mortality of residual trees due to pathogens and mechanical damage; and then most importantly, increase near-term fire hazard due, primarily, to logging slash.
These downsides to salvage and thinning need careful, conscientious evaluation and must be squarely presented to the public, sister agencies, Congress, and ultimately, decisionmakers if a responsible judgment is to be made about where, how, and at what level experiment with logging base approaches to reducing fire and insect hazard. Failure to analyze and disclose the environmental risks associated with these treatments may result in continued ecosystem degradation and may prevent the adoption of ecologically sound approaches to management.
In conclusion, sound scientific support does not exist for broad or generalized inferences that emergency logging operations will ameliorate fire or insect risks in our Nation's forest.
I hope that my testimony will help dis-sway the Subcommittee from proceeding with legislation that would abrogate the existing NEPA process in the name of forest health emergencies. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear and present this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Cara Nelson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lawrence Hill, Director of Forest Policy of the Society of American Foresters.
Welcome, Mr. Hill.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE HILL, DIRECTOR OF FOREST POLICY, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS, BETHESDA, MARYLAND
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on this piece of legislation.
As director of Forest Policies for the Society, I represent our 18,000 members who constitute the scientific and educational association representing the profession of forestry in the United States. Our primary objective is to advance the science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of society. That's a small ''s.'' We are ethically bound to advocate and practice professional forestry consistent with ecologically sound principles. I am especially pleased to submit comments on H.R. 4345 and wish to thank the Committee for its continued support of professional forestry and especially its continued support of some of SAF's priorities.
H.R. 4345 highlights a key provision of the National Environmental Policy Act and we support that provision. The regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality in 1978 provide for alternative arrangements to normal NEPA procedure in an emergency situation. The CEQ regulations state: ''where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.
In addition to this direction, we understand that individual Forest Service and BLM units are required to consult with their respective Washington offices about emergencies that may result in a request for an alternative arrangement from CEQ. Additionally, Federal agencies seeking alternative arrangements should provide CEQ with a complete description of the needs for such an arrangement at the time of the request.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These provisions are worthwhile and allow for a rapid, yet cautious, response to situations that clearly should be treated as emergencies. The environmental laws of the Nation are some of the most comprehensive in the world, yet at times they can slow actions intended to mitigate harm to the environment. The wisdom of the authors of these laws, and particularly NEPA, and regulations is clearly shown in the emergency provisions. At times, the environment is better with action than with inaction.
What appears to be absent from the alternative arrangement procedures granted by CEQ is some sense of direction and criteria for how and when these procedures should be granted—excuse me—and when these procedures should be applied. The best person to determine whether the situation warrants alternative arrangements from CEQ is the on-the-ground manager. The people intimately involved in the day-to-day management of a forest know what the situation is, and how quickly it needs correction. The additional guidance CEQ is required to develop under this bill should provide land managers in all the Federal land-management agencies with a better understanding of when and how they should request these expedited procedures. Therefore, SAF supports the provisions of the bill. This guidance would also ensure that directions are made consistently over time, and that all parties interested in the decisions have a clear understanding of how and why they were made.
We cannot comment on the specific locations of the National Forests for which this bill requests that CEQ and the Forest Service develop alternative arrangements under NEPA. However, we are encouraged that the bill merely requests, and does not require, the Forest Service to develop alternative arrangements for these areas. Although SAF has heard from some of its members that there are many locations in the national forest and public domain lands that are in need of emergency treatment, and we believe the decision to seek alternative arrangements from CEQ should rest with the agencies and the on-the-ground managers on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks again for this opportunity to testify and I, as the others, would be pleased to answer questions.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill, and we look forward to your answers to some of our questions. I do want to let you know, Mr. Peterson, had to step out, momentarily, but will be back very shortly.
Chairman is going to step out of order and with unanimous consent I'm going to issue a statement. Because this issue is so very important to the northwest, to those of who live there, and work there, and actually see on the ground the devastating affects of the lack of decisionmaking ability for one reason or another.
And I'd like to address my comments to Ms. Nelson. In your testimony, you criticized reports of successful fire-hazard reduction as being almost entirely anecdotal. You then cited as an example the thin stand in Tiger Creek in the Boise National Forest, which survived the 1992 Foothills fire. I can tell you that the Subcommittee visited that site last year and the Boise Forest explained to us why that particular stand survived.
Let me explain that to you. It was only because the thinning had removed enough material between the larger pine trees to eliminate the fire ladder that had previously existed, and when the fire reached that stand, it dropped to the ground, burning the ground fuels but not reaching the crowns of the trees. The evidence was very compelling and, as expected, only in this area was the fire similar to historical fire behavior for the Boise National Forest.
You then said thinning was not effective at reducing fire intensity and severity on Rabbit Creek fire also in the Boise National Forest where some 200,000 acres burned in 1994. I must point out that it sounds like your observation is anecdotal.
As you didn't cite any scientific reports or other explanations for your conclusions, however, assuming your description of this fire is correct, which it is not, I must point out that many other factors influence how fire burns including the intensity of the vegetation, and so on. In fact, I am told by forestry experts that thinning tree densities are substantially the reason why forest fire don't crown.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would appreciate if you could provide me with additional information on the Rabbit Creek fire from your perspective, scientific, actual information such as the type of thinning that was done, the fire weather, and other factors that influenced the fire behavior in that particular fire.
Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyd for questions.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Maybe I should open up with a question of Mr. Peterson about some of the practices that you use—the State of Florida uses and you're authorized by the State through its legislature to use. And I noticed in your testimony that you said sawtimber must be utilized within a few months. Can you be more specific on that timeframe, and also is that different in Florida, and why?
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Yes, sir.
Florida's climate makes it very conducive to an early beget of blue stain. Sawtimber depends on the time of year, but within 30 to 45 days, you need to move that out or it will become less valuable and have to revert to pulpwood because of the inset of blue stain and other deteriorations. That time would be greater in the winter, of course, when weather is not so warm and humid.
Mr. BOYD. So, this is the time of the year that it would be most critical?
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. BOYD. There's another problem we have in the south they don't have in other places and that is the southern pine beetle. What happens in terms of outbreaks of southern pine beetle after fire damage?
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Well, the stress occasioned by the fire on trees often make them very susceptible to the infestation of the southern pine beetle and, of course, when that occurs as we have learned from experience, it spreads and it's imperative that you get in and remove the damage of the infested trees, along with a buffer, all around them to limit the spread and further destruction of the forest.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOYD. OK, let it be noted in the record that we did have a severe outbreak of southern pine beetle in the Osceola National Forest within the last couple years.
Madam Chairman, I've spent all of my professional life in agriculture and part of that has been the—I'm a timber owner. I'm a land owner that has plant some virgin pines on it and also planted pine plantations. And I've spent all of my professional life managing that for, basically, three things: one is aesthetic value; two is wildlife habitat; and three is also economic production. They are not in conflict with each other. I can tell you. And so, I think the things that I've read, and I want to turn to Ms. Nelson now, if I might. I didn't get through all of your testimony because I didn't get a copy of it until I received it when I got here, but I read part of it.
Ms. NELSON. OK.
Mr. BOYD. And I must tell you that I'm somewhat shocked because it goes against everything that—the years that I've spent in the business, it goes against what we know to be true and what works. And I want to read to you. Well, first of all, let me ask you this question and then I'm going to read part from your testimony. I guess I understand from your testimony that you feel like there should be one, no thinning in any national forest land.
Ms. NELSON. No, that's not true.
Mr. BOYD. OK, that's not true.
OK, second, you feel there should be no fuel treatments.
Ms. NELSON. No, that's not true either.
Mr. BOYD. That's not true. OK.
Ms. NELSON. I feel that we must be very careful in implementing both thinning and fuels treatments, and I've cited in my testimony—there is a long list of citations of studies that have been done that show that the way in which fuels treatment is conducted makes a large difference in the resultant insect and fire hazard in the residual stand.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOYD. Well, I guess I didn't get to the part where you said that thinning or fuel treatment might be OK. I mean, I just read the part where you were making the case that it increased fire risks. So, then would it also be safe to say that you would be against any salvage operations in damage—whether that be fire damage?
Ms. NELSON. Same answer to all three of those questions is that——
Mr. BOYD. OK.
Ms. NELSON. [continuing] with all of these treatments, they need to be designed for specific reasons on specific sites and carefully conducted. And that's why environmental review is so important.
Mr. BOYD. But I gathered from your testimony that the length of the environmental review would be so long that in the case of Florida here, where we have, there would be no value to the salvage operation
Ms. NELSON. If the sales are being conducted for forest health reasons or environmental reasons, then if that's the case, then I don't see any emergency reason to proceed. Now, if the primary objective of the sale is economics, then I think that should be clearly stated and that there may be a need to, on a 6-month time period, you know, recover economic value. However, with the case in Texas, from my understanding and again—you know, I'm not familiar with the forests down there, but from the record, the record states that the purpose of the sales was to protect the surrounding resources and—you know, the ecological integrity of the stand. And there's no reason to expedite the removal of trees for that purpose.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I notice my red light comes on, but I would ask unanimous consent to have additional time since we don't seem to have a large crowd here on the Committee.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Please proceed Mr. Boyd.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Well, for the record, let me tell you that the 15,000 acres that burned in the Osceola National Forest here in the last sixty days that was outside of the wilderness area—there's about 5,000 in the wilderness area, 15,000 outside the wilderness area, primarily was pine plantations. I spent several hours with Marcia Carney, who is the State Forester for U.S. Forest Service, last weekend touring those sites and talking with her about what her vision was for what should be done. And she and I agreed that those pine plantations would best be salvaged and replanted in longleaf pine. By the way, those are slash pines. Those are pine plantations which, obviously we—when I say plantations, I mean man planted them. But if you don't do a salvage operation pretty quickly, those logs will fall over a period of time and make reforestation, rehabilitation almost impossible. So, I want that to be shown as part of the record, that if you don't get in there in some reasonable period of time and do the salvage operation, then reforestation and rehabilitation becomes very difficult.
Now, I want to turn to the other members and I know you probably have not had a chance to read Ms. Nelson's statement, and I want to ask you to consider this statement. And I read from Ms. Nelson's statement on page two, third paragraph: ''results from a study of the effectiveness of fuels treatment on previously non-harvested lands in the Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Wenatchee National Forest, Washington provides evidence that harvest treatments may increase risk of fire damage. In this study, the Forest Service evaluated the effects of past fuel treatments on fire severity. Before wildfire in 1994, approximately 2,021 acres of the fire that had not been previously logged were treated for fuels with mechanical removal and/or prescribed burning.'' And then she goes on to describe using percentages that says those areas that had fuel treatments prior to the fire had greater damage than those that did not have fuel treatments prior to the fire.
Mr. Hill, let me ask you. What would be your reaction to that statement?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HILL. Well, I'd have to wonder what some of the fire conditions were at the time the experiment was conducted: you know, wind temperature; was the fuel spread; was it piled for burning; or just exactly what happened—I'm really not familiar with that particular study.
Mr. BOYD. But you certainly couldn't make a statement carte blanche—a general statement across the board that land that had fuel treatments on it was more likely to be—have a higher mortality in case of fire, could you
Mr. HILL. That's correct.
Mr. BOYD. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
I have some questions for Mr. Ferrioli.
In your discussion and in your testimony, you discussed how appeals and litigation can be used to slow or stop Forest Service discussions, but often it seems that just a threat of a lawsuit seems to stop everything.
Mr. FERRIOLI. Oh, thank you, Madam Chairman.
It has been our experience that the Forest Service is extremely risk adverse, and it seems that even the mention of an appeal can send our planners into a paroxysm of self-analysis, and it seems to make the process very protracted. In the case of the Summit Fire Recovery Project, there were numerous instances where members of the environmental community said in response to proposals in scoping ''If you do that, we'll sue you.'' And I believe that made the agency very, very careful to the point of even dereliction of their duty to be timely.
We heard today that there's a great concern that a revision of the NEPA process might make planning thoughtless or careless. Planning does not need to be thoughtless or careless to be timely, and that's the biggest problem. When the agency is so averse to appeals or lawsuits that they fail to carry out their duties which are serving the people and protecting the land by moving forward on these projects, the communities definitely suffer.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the case of the Summit Fire Recovery Project, what should have probably taken 6 months, took 24 months. We still have not seen the end of it. The appeal that was filed is one that we've seen templated and used in dozens of other appeals. The response from the agency is as if they've never seen this kind of an approach before. They treat every appeal the same. Anybody that's willing to invest in a word processing program and a $.32 stamp can virtually bring a planning process to a halt.
And in the case of the deterioration that Mr. Boyd mention, I can assure him that although his concern with southern pine beetles, we must have Yankee pine beetles in the Oregon area——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] because our pine beetles attack with the same kind of ferocity. We have the same blue stain, and checking, and deterioration—very rapid deterioration of our pine stocks.
I'll just show for illustration purposes, this is a blue-stained log. It's about 33 inches in diameter. After 24 months, you can see that the blue stain almost approaches the center of the heartwood. This log would have been relatively valuable if harvested within 6 months of the fire. Today, it has deteriorated to the point where it is just about pulpwood.
[Photograph.]
The same thing with this particular piece. This round is about 33 inches in diameter. You can see that the round is almost split all the way to the heartwood. Blue stain goes right to the heartwood, and there is ample evidence of pine bore beetle damage to this wood.
[Photograph.]
I do believe that there's a coefficient between environmental concerns and economic concerns, and it seems that there's a desire on the part of some folks in the environmental community to completely disconnect environmental considerations from economic considerations. But one of the things that we need to focus on is the kind of damage that we see as a result of these fires.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is a devastated, class-one stream in the Summit Fire Recovery area. It is habitat to bull trout, and it's habitat to steelhead. This is approximately 24 months after the fire. You can see that we still have exposed mineral soils. You can see that the treatments that should have been done in this area which would have been reducing the standing wood to lower the risk of reburn have not been done; that we have not had reforestation; and that the native vegetation has not returned to this area. This is after 24 months.
So I would submit to you that the failure to take appropriate and timely action can contribute to a long-lasting environmental degradation that does effect and impact species like steelhead, bull trout and other anadromous species. This is just one of the riparian areas that were devastated by that fire.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Senator Ferrioli, it seems down at the Forest Service does treat fire when it's actually occurring. It's an emergency, and then after the fire is over, it's no longer an emergency.
Mr. FERRIOLI. Madam Chairman, if I could comment?
We had 24 days of very intensive fire response. We spent a million dollars a day putting that fire out. At the end of the Fire Recovery Project, we should have had about 3 to 6 months, a period of time for scoping, planning for the recovery project and implementation. Due to the inexplicable responses of the Forest Service to the idea that they might have an appeal or the idea that somebody might sue, we saw that process protracted to 24 months. It just seems that the moral equivalency of war is what we bring to putting the fire out. We spent 24 months and about $1.7 million in planning for rehabilitation. To date, we've done nothing on the ground. So, you could say that there is a tremendous race for fire suppression and then an interminable process for planning and recovery.
And in the meantime, we see continuing resource degradation. The community stands to lose significantly. We have about 600 jobs at stake in keeping the mills open in our community. Our schools are already on a 4-day school week. The value of this project has dropped six-fold, meaning there will less dollars for schools, and roads in the counties. And the volume under contract in our community is between 3 and 6 months.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, we literally have a situation after the fire where the Forest Service seems to be engaged in a round-robin of planning while the community's needs are not met and environmental degradations pile up.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Nelson, you mentioned that there were some times when forest restoration or thinning is acceptable. Are you referring to the Van Wagtendonk Study of 1996?
Ms. NELSON. I'm not referring that study as an example of when treatments would be called for. I used that study as an example that the way in which a treatment is done, meaning the techniques—specific techniques that are used have variable effects. So, for instance in that study, one of the treatments that was part of the experiment was lop and scatter and——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Lop and scatter
Ms. NELSON. [continuing] lop and scatter. It's a standard fuel-treatment practice.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you explain for the record what lop and scatter is?
Ms. NELSON. Sure. It's an approach where the materials, tops of trees and branches, are scattered around the site, and this is a standard fuel treatment. The other kinds of treatments that were investigated by Van Wagtendonk—we have some model-base study prepared as part of the Sierra, Nevada Ecosystem Project, included prescribed burning, chipping, I believe. I think there were six treatments in all, and lop and scatter came out as the results of study indicated that lop and scatter on these stands would increase flame land and rate of spread of the fire.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Of course——
Ms. NELSON. Now, the reason that I mentioned the study in the first place was not to say that fuel treatment should not be done, but that environmental review is important because, you know, in the Sierras and those areas we would want to make sure that lop and scatter treatments are not being done on that site.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. You do admit in your testimony that this model was constructed, but this has never applied in a natural setting
Ms. NELSON. Well, the treatments have been applied in a natural setting, and I think why, as Mr. Hill mentioned in his response——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Now let me back up here.
Ms. NELSON. OK.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I want you to answer my question because in your statement and let me quote to you——
Ms. NELSON. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] ''given that the studies' conclusions are based on models that have not been tested in natural settings, results must be interpreted cautiously.''
Ms. NELSON. Yes, and that's how I view, as a scientist, I take a very cautious view on when and how much inference you can make from scientific studies. Now the interesting thing with this topic in general is that there are very few studies that have been conducted at all. So, this is the reason that we need to rely on modelling studies. If there were results from on-the-ground studies, that would provide further——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, we have a heavy fuel-load situation, and the only thing that you recommend in order to avoid the heavy fire that damages the soil creates a crowning effect is lop and scatter?
Ms. NELSON. The only thing that I recommend?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Recommend, the thinning?
Ms. NELSON. Oh, no. You must have misheard what I said previously. I said lop and scatter increased rates of spread and flame land. So that would not be a good technique——
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Alright.
Ms. NELSON. [continuing] in these particular forests in the Sierras.
Now, I don't say that there's one approach that I would recommend or not recommend in every situation. My point is that there is no blanket prescriptions that we can use for all stands, number one. And No. 2, that using the wrong treatments can result in higher risks because of activity fuels, as Mr. Hill mentioned previously. Activity fuels is the main problem with the implementation of treatments.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me ask you.
Ms. NELSON. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Given a situation where there has been 9 years of drought, the forests are stressed because of lack of moisture, there is heavy fuel load on the forest floor, what kind of thinning techniques would you recommend, specifically?
Ms. NELSON. Well, I would need to know more specifically about the stand than what you just told me. However, I would, No. 1—would not do anything on an emergency basis. And No. 2, I think the most important thing about this whole topic is that there is a need for more information about where to go with this incredibly large problem that we have as forest-free community.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson, the Subcommittee is having a hearing on fire readiness next week, and since we have you here now, we'd like to have you talk freely about the fires in Florida. I'd like for you to please feel free to share any important lesson learned. From your perspective with the Committee, and for the permanent record, I'd really like for you to elaborate on where you think we are most effective. Where you think we're the weakest, and on the quality of our equipment, people, and the communications And finally, I'd like to ask you what do you think we need to do to be better prepared for similar or worst occurrences in the future, God forbid
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Peterson.
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Those are profound questions. If I can—but before I do that, if I might. I would just like to say that my experience with the Federal land managers are that they the people at the ground level would like to move more expeditiously and effectively in dealing with situations such as fire, disease, insects outbreak, but because of the fear, because of the threat of challenges, they feel their hands are tied. That things just have been said here today—the classic example which I have is 1995 when Opal hit Blackwater, we got our 50 million border feet out within six months and our neighbor across the way, the Conecult National Forest, they were only able to begin by the time we got through.
So, I think the local managers for the Federal agencies are very interested in being more aggressive in dealing with these problems, but they just feel like the process won't permit it.
The fires in Florida have been a challenge that I think has been well met by all. It's one of those things, Madam Chairman, that I don't think any state can meet either staff or equipped for that magnitude in that complexity of fire. I think there has to be a lot of lessons learned from this and I wish I had this opportunity about 3 or 4 weeks from now because the fires have barely stopped, and we are now in the process of critiquing, evaluating, and what went well, and what didn't go quite so well.
I will say that it was a classic example of good working relationships between, local, State, and Federal agencies. We had personnel in the state from every state except two, and most of those probably except for the southeast were Federal employees. We had about 5,175 out-of-state people in Florida at one time or another during this siege.
Bringing in those people and that equipment is a challenge of monumental proportions. I think there needs to be a better coordination between the ordering agencies to be sure that the right equipment is ordered. I think it also needs to refine the process so that there is not duplication, for example.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Florida, if you say I'm going to send ten dossiers, you really haven't helped me. You've got to send me ten dossiers that are low-ground pressure, white track. So, there's much room to refine the process of ordering to avoid duplications. We also had and I would hasten to say that I'm not suggesting that any of these are major problems except they just bear our attention. I think we need to solidify the resource-ordering process more closely than we have in the past so that we centralize to avoid the duplication; to avoid the wrong resources being ordered. That's an area I think we can.
Certainly within the State of Florida, there's some things that we will do different, but I think also, Madam Chairman, that this is a classic example of what, particularly the southern group of State Foresters, has been saying for a number of years and that is catastrophic fires are not, and should not, be considered unique to any one region of the country. It's a matter of time. It's a matter of time when any one region can have it and our policy, our strategies, and our operational designs should be developed along those lines, not overcommitted to any one region of the country.
I think generally speaking because of difference in terrains, the difference in fuel loads that the equipment issue is one that is a little more regionalized than others. To have people expected to come to Florida—or to the southeast I should say, with equipment and training that is applicable to the west or to the northeast is not always a good fit. So maybe a little more diverse training would be in order for that. I'm sure that's true. I told someone this morning that probably the most common phrase I heard was ''my God, it's green. It's burning,'' and that's not normally heard throughout the country.
The wild and urban interface, a terrific part in Florida, and certainly in some other states. We spent and inordinate amount of time, and energy, and resources steering fires around communities. That, admittedly, added to the acres burned, but each day the team set their priorities, and each day the priority was a protection of life, and residence, and property.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also add that the working relationship between the State agency, and the Federal agency, and in this case, the Florida Division of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service was excellent. Bearing in mind, when you bring in a type–1 overhead team, you get a big team and that's what you need at a time like that.
The Forest Service, from day one and every day thereafter, reminded us that we were the lead agency. They were there to help, and I never saw that change That was generally true of everyone that was there. Our sister agencies and State Government, they did not try to second guess or preempt what the forest agencies thought was the best strategies. We were, indeed, dealing with wildfires in most cases. The local fire departments did an excellent job helping us protect communities, residences, and those type things.
I think one of the lessons learned are reminded, it was probably already there, but it brought it into sharp focus that there needs to be a responsible, prescribed fire program. Now that has some issues on the other side that cannot be ignored, but particularly in the areas in and around communities and subdivisions, there has to be major fuel reduction efforts, and I think you will see us in the State of Florida put forth a great deal of effort in that regard.
When you go Palm Coast and you see 48,000 acres of one-time woodland sprinkled with 5,000 homes and you see some homes burned and some saved, and you know there's a difference there. You wonder what it is. It's probably a difference and coincidence for sure, but fuel reduction is part of the answer there. There has to be more dispensibles based by the homeowners. They have a responsibility here.
The wild and urban interface is an enormous challenge in Florida, not just in Palm Coast. We put water with our helicopter on 45 homes in a subdivision in southwest Florida earlier in the year.
So, these are some of the things—I might have rambled a bit here, but we're going to fine tune these. We are going to critique these. I think also something for us to work on and I know my Federal counterparts are certainly amenable to this, and that is how can we be more cost effective in firefighting. It's not cheap. It's not cheap, but when you have life and property at risk, you go get the fire out and then you try to come back and figure out how you can do it better and more cost effective next time.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I would, again, thank all of those who helped us in this undertaking. It's quite an experience. We'll get it back together at some point in time, and I'm not sure if it'll be the same old routine as far as fire preparedness goes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. L. Earl Peterson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. That was very instructive and informative to us.
I do want you to know that I have put together a bill and dropped it about six months ago on the urban-interface-wildland fire suppression, and it deals directly with this issue, and it was put together on the recommendation of foresters from the Forest Service in the field. And so, I look forward to your looking at it. I look forward to Florida's support on this very important bill. It does affect that very critical area.
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. We look forward to doing that.
One thing that I neglected to say. I think FEMA came to Florida. They were very involved. I think it was a learning process for them and us. I suggest that I think that they will be doing this. That they look more to being supportive in prepositioning and getting resources in place ahead of an urgent need, and indeed they did that in this case. It's something that they are not accustomed to. It was a new experience for them, but I will commend them for their efforts, but I think one of the things that we all have to do is be alert to the weather, the climates.
You see, Madam Chairman, what we had here was a coming together of a unique situation, with drought indexes, with fuel loadings, with fuel moistures, with climatic conditions all at one time, and those fires were spotting a quarter to a half a mile. So, that was just a terrible situation, but I think we all need to be more prone to preplan, to preposition to move our resources closer to where the area at risk may be before the catastrophe occurs.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Fire suppression is so important, but fire prevention is also very important.
Mr. Peterson it has come to my attention that you even had to deal with some arson activities down there during those fires.
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. We always have and I'm sure each state does a certain amount of arson activity. There was a period of time there that it seemed like that on a few days that the larger part of our starts, as we would refer to, were by arsonists. Then there was those fires that began—were human caused by carelessness, and then there was that period of time where the majority of were lightning caused. These fires were, in large part, in what we call a lightning belt. So, we had all of the above, but certainly arsonists was part of it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
The Chair recognizes my colleague, John Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I thank the chairman.
I would like to ask a question to Ms. Nelson. I was pleased to hear that you are not opposed to thinning and salvage, and you probably had the chance in the recent years to look at a number of sites where this has been proposed. Could you share with the Committee a site where maybe you would have blessed a thinning and salvage cut
Ms. NELSON. Well, for instance, I think there are some cases where epidemic levels of beetles might require removal—say it was mountain pine beetle of large diameter trees, certain number on a site, to prevent spread into adjacent stands.
Looking at the flip side of that, for instance, the Texas exemption that just occurred. In that case, I would not be in support of removal because, from my understanding and again I have not visited those sites and I have just reviewed those materials in the record, there was no epidemic. The removal was intended as a risk-avoidance measure in case there were epidemic levels of infestations at some future time. And I think in balance there, the environmental damage associated with the salvage operation, which would occur, would outweigh the potential benefit at some point in the future if there did in fact—if the stand did, in fact, reach epidemic levels of southern pine beetles.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. So you wouldn't support it for economic reasons? I mean, to salvage the value of the timber that was there?
Ms. NELSON. Well, let me just say that I work as a scientist. I consult with NRDC, but I work as a research scientist and so I wouldn't comment on whether a sale should go forward for any particular reason. However, in the Texas example, the justification was an environmental one for forest health or protection of forest purposes.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. And you disagreed with that?
Ms. NELSON. Yes, I don't think that that was a valid justification at that point in time.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. This question may not be on this particular issue, but I guess for perspective, you know, half of the soft-wood timber owned in America is owned by the Federal Government. Do you support greencuts for economic reasons or for thinning or do you support cutting of timber on public land, personally
Ms. NELSON. On all public lands? You mean——
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. No, selected—I mean, almost all of it is locked up. There's about 20 percent that we actually practice forestry on of the land owned by the Federal Government, but do you——
Ms. NELSON. If you're asking me whether I would support a zero-cut policy on Federal lands, I would say, no.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. You don't support zero cut?
Ms. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. OK, so on some situations you would. Is the only exception in a salvage area?
Ms. NELSON. No, I would support thinning and fuels reductions as well, but I'm a little uncomfortable even broaching the subject because I tend to try to avoid large policy matters like this and just think in terms of the science and the ecology involved. And so, I would support the removal of live trees, and a thinning for fuel reduction if I felt that that treatment would accomplish ecological objectives.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. OK. Last year I was out with the Speaker and the group that toured a number of states in the west and we flew over a 600,000 acre burn that had had a very heavy fuel load; I thought was the most devastating ecological disaster I had ever seen. You know, 600,000 acres where there wasn't anything green left; where the hillsides were sliding into the valleys; where the silt was unmeasurable. Wildlife not existent. Everything, everything had been killed. I'm sure insects were killed there. It took a long time to recreate a normal ecosystem, and I haven't seen Florida yet, but I hope to. When you have that kind of a fire, some may call it natural, but there's nothing much natural left when the fuel loads high and it burns with intensity. It destroys all life. It destroys plant life. In some places I'm told the soils are barren for many years, and so you're going to have huge amounts of siltation. And the ecological system is just destroyed and, I think some of those could have been prevented. I'd be interested to know, have you ever flown over a large area like that?
Ms. NELSON. Yes, I have, and I've worked in many of them. I've been doing forestry research for the last 10 years. I agree that fuels reduction is important. My concern is that commercial sales often exacerbate fuel problems. And so, I'm concerned——
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. How does that——
Ms. NELSON. How does that work
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I guess I don't understand that.
Ms. NELSON. But what ends up happening——
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. I'm from the east. Our forest is different from yours. So, I understand the eastern forest better than I do the western forest.
Ms. NELSON. Yes, let me explain this to you. One, of the primary reasons why management can have the affect of increasing fuel loadings and then increasing hazard from future fires is that slash ends up on the ground, and managers don't have a good way of really dealing with that because in commercial sales the emphasis is on removing the live tree bowls.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, for instance, if you do a thinning, and a thinning as I said is a vague term and all different kind of things that can be done, the emphasis is on removing the larger trees and in the west often times the most fire-tolerant trees. What happens is the resulting trees have thinner bark. They're, you know, more flammable. They're a less fire-tolerant species. The height-to-life crown is lower, so crowning is more like to happen. And there's abundant fine fuels on the ground, and it's the fine, slashy fuels that really are the problem with fire spread.
So, those are reasons why if a thinning is not conducted properly and, in fact, many of the thinnings that are done in eastern Washington and Oregon fit the pattern that I just mentioned, then you end up with a stand that may be of greater fire risk. And even though the thinning purportedly was done to alleviate fire hazard.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Would anyone else on the panel like to grab that issue I mean, those of you that—I think you all deal with softwood forests. I'd be interested to hear your——
Mr. FERRIOLI. Madam Chairman, Representative Peterson, I am not a forest scientist, but I would like to take exception with a couple of comments that I've heard.
First of all, there is a prescription that won't allow harvest of trees larger than 21 inches diameter at breast height. It's called the eastside forest screen. So, we don't see the removal of large timber in almost any site on the eastside forest.
Secondly, the lop and scatter system of slash removal is very seldom used in my experience. Mostly it's bunch and burn which means that slash other than the large woody debris that left in profusion on those sites for nurse logs and for ecological function—most of the slash is gathered up and during the wet time of the year it's burned. So that we reduce the fuel loads for standing trees, then we reduce the fuel loads that would be residual fuel loads other than the large woody debris that serves an ecological function.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, it has been my experience that when we can get the Forest Service to do fuel-load reductions, and that is a rarity, that the prescriptions that are used to reduce the fuel loads actually do leave a far lower risk of fire. And if I could use a couple of photos to illustrate, this is an area where we have about 800 stems per acre. Actually, in this area it's about 60 percent dead. It was a beetle kill. There also was a fire that moved through here that did a lot of this tree mortality. This is the before picture of the Summit fire where the fire was in an area that was left untreated; where the fuel loads were not reduced. This is the after picture. This is part of the 38,000 acres that burned, and, as you can see, this is a devastated ecosystem. The ecosystem function here will be suppressed and reduced for generations. Fuel load reduction at this point in time could have prevented a hard burn, a more serious ecological disruption of the area. It was not done, and it has not been done. It's not been a regular feature of management in an intensive way for a long period of time. We really have ourselves to blame for that.
Fire suppression for a long period of time has allowed fuel loads to grow in our forests—in the pine forests of eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. The remediation of that is not to run around with a drip torch and just burn everything. The remediation of that is careful fuel loading and fuel load reductions on a systematic basis across that landscape followed by the reintroduction of slow, low-intensity, creeping fires, cleansing fires. We seem to want to go from the problem that we have, which is fuel load increases and relatively high stocking levels that are stressed, immediately through the process of devastating fires, to a process where we've reestablished a fire in the ecosystem. You can't get there from here. You need to go through the intermediary process of reduction of those fuel loads.
It seems to be a problem for many in the environmental community, because the bi-product of the reduction of fuel loads is supportive of timber-dependent communities, and the support of timber-dependent communities is something that's very close to local government. I particularly worry about that. I want to sustain the community. I can't sustain the community unless I sustain the ecosystem. I can't get income from the landscape unless I do fuel load reductions, and, therefore, there's no surplus to reinvest in ecosystem functions. The two are coefficient, and it seems like there are some folks in the world that want to completely disconnect the ecosystem costs which are high. Ecosystem management is expensive, and they want to disconnect the ecosystem costs with sustaining the local economy which produces the surplus for reinvestment. You can't take the two apart; they're coefficients.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, so I would say to you just that the fuel load reduction regimes that we would like to see implemented in the intermountain west would, to a great degree, fire-proof our forests; lower the danger of catastrophic fire, and allow the reintroduction of low-intensity creeping fires. It seems like we all want to get to the same place, and that is where fire has an integral part in the ecosystem, but we're being prevented from allowing that to happen, and the intermediary tool is actually salvage logging and fuel load reductions.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Ms. Nelson, do you want to respond?
Ms. NELSON. Yes, I would agree with what you said about your last statement about where we want to go, however, I don't agree that salvage and thinning will get us there unless prescriptions are done very differently than they are currently being done, and the reason is because, as you mentioned, right now, the Forest Service is not investing in the following up to the commercial activity which is dealing with activity slash, and I think as long as these commercial activities result in high levels of activity slash, then we're going to be exacerbating the problems that we have.
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Mr. Peterson, is Florida that much different. I know it's not as old a forest, but would you care to respond to that?
Mr. L. EARL PETERSON. In many cases, in Florida, there is very little slash left in the logging operations. I believe that, in fact, that there needs to some organized way of reducing the fuel loads there, but many of our harvesting operations leave behind very little slash. Those that do is, generally, as he indicated, is piled and burned effectively in preparation for reforestation. So——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON OF PENNSYLVANIA. Sure.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I wanted to ask Ms. Nelson a follow up with regards to the prescriptions that you indicated that have not been properly employed, especially with regards to followup. I wonder if, for the record, you could be more specific about the prescriptions that you were talking about? What given situations do you think that there can be thinning and what kind of thinning and what kind of follow up?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. NELSON. Well, again, I wouldn't want to specify—I mean, it's hard to be specific about——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. But that's what we're asking—excuse me—that's what we're asking you for, specifics. We can't meet——
Ms. NELSON. Right, and that——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Wait a minute, let me finish, please, if you don't mind. We can't meet your needs unless you help us understand specifically.
Ms. NELSON. And I was just about to do that. It's hard in the absence of a landscape and a specific forest example to talk in general, but I would have to say is that we need to be focusing on removal, in general, of small diameter material from the forest. These are the flashy fuels. These are the things that are, say in, below six-inch diameter. But when I was talking of large, I was speaking of trees that are much smaller than 20 inches still fit into my large category. So, that is what I think the emphasis should be on: removal of the very small stuff out there that's the flashy fuels. I think that thinning and salvage prescriptions that focus on removing the large fire-tolerant species will only create further problems.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I understand that, especially in a green forest, and the thinning of the smaller diameter, low-level fuel load is very important, but given the example that Mr. Ferrioli used, where there was a huge stand of diseased timber that had been infested with insects—bark beetle, I think he said—60 percent of it was destroyed. It was large diameter timber, and so it was very susceptible to a very, very hot fire that devastated stream beds, and, like he said, will take generations to recover. How would you recommend, specifically, that the Forest Service and the local people deal with something like this?
Ms. NELSON. Well, I think that with bark beetle epidemics, they're tied to climatic factors, and they've occurred naturally in forests for long periods of time, and I think it's not possible to entirely remove mortality from bark beetle epidemics. In some cases, I think it may appropriate to remove or, say, the mountain beetle on large diameter trees to prevent spread into other areas, and I think it's just a case-by-case basis.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, in some cases, it's appropriate to remove those trees.
Ms. NELSON. Yes. And under epidemic situations, but, again, I don't think it's appropriate to, in every case, focus on removal of large diameter trees to prevent, number one, risk of the infestation if there's just endemic levels, and, second, I don't think it's possible to completely reduce mortality from epidemic levels of bark beetles. I also think that we have to be careful about the adverse effects of removal activities post-disturbance. So, after windthrow or fire, these stands are particularly sensitive. Post-fire stands are very sensitive in terms of soils and sediment into streams and already taking a large hit, and I think we want to be very careful about increasing degradation of those stands.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Are you familiar with the Knudsen-Vandenberg funds?
Ms. NELSON. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And those are specifically targeted for restoration, aren't they?
Ms. NELSON. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, they are. So, I think that has been provided for, but, Mr. Ferrioli, do you have any followup?
Mr. FERRIOLI. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Only that it's been my experience, again, from personal observation that fuel load treatments are done after recovery projects and after salvage removal, so that by the forester's estimation and the project estimation that there is no increase in risk for fire for reburn. As a matter of fact, part of the prescriptions would be to lower the fuel loading for the fires which are flash fuels, so that they do not present a risk. So, I'm not familiar with the regime that Ms. Nelson's describing. What I've observed for myself on the ground following green sales and salvage sales is that we see fuel load reductions that would by far reduce the risk of reburn or the risk of catastrophic fires.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I do have to say that this has been extremely interesting to me, and while I've asked some very pointed questions, I do want to say—and I will yield to Mr. Boyd—but I do want to say that the exchange that has gone here has not only been interesting to me but will serve as a very valuable, permanent record, because until we can really understand how each other is thinking, can we really reach a successful conclusion. And I think that we're all very, very interested in making sure that our environment is protected for future generations, not only from one standpoint, but from a variety of balanced prescriptions and uses. So, although I have focused my questions primarily at Ms. Nelson and Mr. Ferrioli, I want to thank both of you for your very interesting and informative answers and for your time here.
And before I yield to Mr. Boyd, I do want to ask Mr. Hill a question about the Society of American Foresters. Has your organization done any studies or are you aware of studies on the effects of fuel treatments on fire?
Mr. HILL. The Society of American Foresters hasn't done studies themselves—ourselves, but many of the members are involved with agencies that are doing such work, particularly, the Forest Service. We have a position of statement on fire management that points to the seriousness of the urban-rural interface problem. But the question, directly, is no, we have not done any studies ourselves.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much. The Chair yields to Congressman Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I, too, have found this very interesting and want to thank all the panel members. I don't want this to become a beat up on Ms. Nelson meeting, but, Ms. Nelson, I listened to your testimony, and it's obvious to me that you oppose salvage operations or thinning or fuel treatments for reduction of fire danger; at least I've been unable to gather from your comments any specific instances where you would think those were OK. But what I do want to do here is tell you that in your remarks you describe the results of study of the Bear-Potato Analysis Area by the Wenatchee National Forest—I have a copy of that study here. Is that the study was referenced?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. NELSON. I can't see it from where you are, but——
Mr. BOYD. The Environmental Assessment Bear-Potato Analysis Area of the Tyee Fire Recovery Area?
Ms. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. BOYD. OK. You cited only one portion of that study; the part that compared the effects of fuel treatment with no fuel treatments in areas that had not been harvested. Then, you concluded that harvest treatment may increase the risk of fire damage, but since you were describing non-harvested areas, your conclusion appears to be misleading, if not, inaccurate, and I want to read to you the conclusion that the Forest Service wrote in the study that you quoted from: ''From this initial review of harvest fuel treatment on the fire effects of the Tyee fire, there may be an indication that harvested land had a better chance to burn black when compared to non-harvested land. However, the reader should be reminded that many factors were not included in this review; factors like the timing of the fire; intensity of the smoke column; weather; type of fire; head or backing fire; terrain; aspect and slope are all important in the resulting fire effect on a piece of land. This review only considered whether an area was harvested or not or fuels treated or not.'' And it continues: ''However, since a treated and non-treated harvested area from the same time period—1971 to 1994—would have an equal possibility to be burned at roughly the same time, the figures in table 2—which you did not cite—are a good indication''—I'm still quoting from the conclusions—''are a good indication that fuels treatment in a harvested area did reduce the fire effect.'' Let me say that again: ''The figures in table 2 are a good indication that fuels treatment in a harvested area did reduce the fire effect.
What is not as clear, however, is whether a harvest itself influenced fire behavior in any way. Perhaps, the largest study that included modeling weather, time of day, et cetera, could more accurately answer this question, but this is the best conclusion possible given the time and the resources for this study.''
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Madame Chairman, I would submit a copy of this environmental assessment that was quoted——
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. BOYD. [continuing] for the record, and I would also say, Ms. Nelson, that on several occasions I've heard you refer to the science and technology on at least a few occasions I've heard you refer to being a scientist, and I would submit to you, Ms. Nelson, that a scientist would not come before this congressional committee and cite a scientific fact, just a portion of an environmental assessment to draw a certain conclusion, and I'm very sorry about that. I yield back.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. With that, I want to say this panel is excused. Thank you very, very much for your time and all the effort that each and every one of you have made to be here. You have been before the panel for nearly 2 hours, and I very much appreciate the expertise that you've brought to the record.
The Chair now asks that Chief Mike Dombeck, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service in Washington, DC; Mr. Robert Joslin, Deputy Chief, National Forest Service in Washington, DC, come forward along with Rhey Solomon, Deputy Director, Ecosystem Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. It's my understanding, Mr. Solomon, that you are simply accompanying Mr. Joslin and the Chief, right
Mr. SOLOMON. To my knowledge, yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. You do not have a prepared testimony.
Mr. SOLOMON. I have no prepared testimony.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Welcome back. It's been a long time since either one of you have been before the Committee, and we are looking forward to your testimony on this particular issue, and, as usual, we ask that all witnesses be sworn in. So, I wonder if you might stand and raise your hand to the square?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chief Dombeck.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DOMBECK, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. DOMBECK. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I'd like to start by saying to Congressman Boyd and our State forester, Earl Peterson, I just really commend the heroic efforts of the citizens of your State, the State employees, and the many Forest Service employees, BLM employees, and other Federal fire fighters that participated in the really tough situation you had in your State, and I think it's just absolutely phenomenal that they did the job that they did with a minimal amount of human injury and under the tremendous loss we had, and I think that demonstrates the effectiveness of the skills of our employees, and the fact is we in the United States do have the most effective and efficient wildland fire-fighting mechanism in the world. The incident command system is something that's been emulated and used in many, many cases, and it's something that we need to continue to improve upon and analyze every situation which we do.
Now, to the topic at hand: environmental analysis and NEPA compliance in emergency situations on national forest system lands, and my written testimony incorporates the concerns and comments of both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. As has been stated here numerous times, the National Environmental Policy Act is our basic national charter for protection of the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals, and provides the means for implementing policy. The regulations issued by the Council of Environmental Quality in 1978, which implement NEPA, provide for alternative arrangements to the normal NEPA procedure in emergency situations.
The Forest Service and CEQ have used emergency provisions in the CEQ regulations three times, and BLM has used the alternative situations five times, and we're prepared to discuss those Forest Service situations if you wish, Madame Chairman. Generally, alternative arrangements are initiated where a clear emergency to human health, safety, or the environment is present, and the actions proposed is environmentally significant as defined by the CEQ regulations. Often, actions proposed to be taken in emergency situations do not arise to the environmental significance level, and, therefore, do not require alternative arrangements. For these situations, the Forest Service follows its normal NEPA procedures.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Forest Service and BLM believe that the procedures we use for requesting alternative arrangements to NEPA compliance for emergencies work. The existing authority is appropriate and adequate to administer our Nation's national forests and other public lands. We appreciate the Committee's interest in alternative arrangement provisions for NEPA, and we understand the Committee's desire to use extraordinary processes more broadly. We'd be happy to discuss any questions you have, Madame Chairman, Congressman Boyd.
I have with me, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, Bob Joslin, who not only has worked on the ground level, the field level of the Forest Service in all parts of the country, including the South, but also administers the programs of the National Forest System, and Rhey Solomon is our Deputy Director of Ecosystem Management and is our technical expert when it comes to NEPA, the appeals process, and those kinds of things. So, we hope that between the three of us, the dialogue will be helpful, and we can be as responsive as possible to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck may be found at end of hearing.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you very much, Chief. The Chair recognizes Mr. Joslin.
Mr. JOSLIN. Madame Chairman, I did not have any statement to make. I come with the Chief to answer any questions that I can for you and the members of the Committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. Well, then I'll begin with questioning, and I'll direct my questions to the Chief. How many times has the Forest Service applied for alternative arrangements
Mr. DOMBECK. Three times.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. About three times. And can you cite those times and specific occurrences?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOMBECK. Yes, the first situation was Bull Run Lake near Portland, Oregon, and the purpose of that was for protection of domestic water supplies. The second time was the situation that you mentioned in your opening statement, Madame Chairman, the Eighth Street fire in Boise, and the third time was the removal of the blowdown damage in the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat in east Texas, and that was a situation where I personally toured to view the work in progress and was very, very pleased with what I saw just a few months ago.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. As you know, NEPA was written with the understanding that there are times when expedited processes are needed. Also, the National Forest Management Act was written with that in mind and even uses mandatory language that requires the Secretary to move through the processes so we can remove the timber that can create an explosion of disease or insect infestation. And this is just common sense.
What doesn't make sense to us is that the Forest Service doesn't see the need to ever use these expedited processes other than the three cited that were allowed for in the law. Apparently, there must be some reason, and we need to be able to try to resolve this, because, as I review the law, the law says the Secretary shall do certain things, and I know it's frustrating for you, Chief, not to be able to see your agency move quickly. We've had discussions about this, and I know how you feel, I believe. Would you state and advise us, for the record, why you're unable to follow the NEPA requirements as well as NFMA requirements for moving very quickly?
Mr. DOMBECK. Well, let me answer that question in a couple of parts. Concerning the alternative arrangements, as I understand it—and Rhey is more of an expert in this area—that the criteria that are used are the threat to human health and safety and violation of law is the two criteria that we apply when we ask for alternative arrangements. The second part of the question regarding the slowness of the process, I think we have to go a long way to find anyone that isn't somewhat frustrated by that, and I have continually instructed the Forest Service, and, in fact, of my time as a BLM employee, likewise, that BLM—we have to be relentless about simplifying the procedures that we have. That doesn't mean that they be simplistic or not based on science or in any way not comply with the letter of the law from the standpoint of NEPA or the public involvement process and that type of thing. And this is something that there has been progress made in some areas, and I would cite one example and that's the section 7—rather, the consultation process with regards to the Endangered Species Act when Jack Ward Thomas was Chief and I was the Director of BLM. We gathered and looked for alternatives to streamline that process, and, basically, what we did in that situation was took a process that was a serial process and changed it to a parallel process, and it reduced the time frames by almost half. And, in fact, as a result of that effort, we reduced the backlog of ESA consultations by—a backlog of about 1,200 consultations to 0 in just a matter of—what's it, about 2 or 3 years, Bob?