Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Wildfire Preparedness
Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Wildfire Preparedness
Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Wildfire Preparedness
10818
WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ALEX FLINT, Staff Director
JAMES P. BEIRNE, Chief Counsel
ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director
SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel
FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member
DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel
(II)
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
CONTENTS
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 4
Conlin, Linda Mysliwy, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Develop-
ment, accompanied by Doug Baker, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tour-
ism, Department of Commerce ............................................................................ 16
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California ......................................... 2
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................................ 2
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 3
Scarlett, Lynn, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Depart-
ment of the Interior ............................................................................................. 8
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 25
Tenny, David, Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the Environ-
ment, Department of Agriculture; accompanied by: Jerry Williams, Director
of Fire and Aviation Management, Forest Service; Corbin Newman,
National Fire Plan Coordinator, Forest Service; Jack Blackwell, Pacific
Southwest Region, Forest Service; and Alice Forbes, Assistant Director
of Operations, Fire and Aviation Management ................................................. 5
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions ........................................................................ 45
(III)
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
NATURAL RESOURCES, AND
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in room
SD366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator CRAIG [presiding]. Good morning, everyone. The Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee will come to order.
Chairman Domenici is en route back, but he wanted us to get
started. We have had a series of two votes on the floor. So not to
detain any of you any longer and also to make sure we have ade-
quate time for your testimony and any questions we may ask, let
us start.
It is my pleasure to welcome Assistant Secretary of Policy Man-
agement and Budget for the Department of the Interior, Lynn
Scarlett. Thank you for being with us this morning.
Assistant Secretary, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Linda
Conlin. Linda, thank you for being with us this morning.
And the Deputy Under Secretary of Natural Resources in the De-
partment of Agriculture, Dave Tenny. Dave, thank you for being
with us.
We are here today to review the fiscal year 2002 fire season and
the impact of those fires on the environment and local business in
an effort to examine preparedness and the impact that could occur
in the coming fire season.
I ask the witnesses to summarize their statements. And I ask
unanimous consent that their full statements be a part of the
record. Each member will then be recognized in order of arrival for
purposes of statement and questioning.
So it is an important hearing this morning, as we have done ex-
amination to continue and to have a broader understanding also of
the impact of fire, not just on the environment, but on the com-
merce and the economies of communities associated and/or adjacent
to fires.
With that, let me turn to the ranking member of the committee
for any opening statement he would make, Senator Bingaman.
Senator.
[The prepared statements of Senators Akaka, Feinstein, Kyl and
Murkowski follow:]
(1)
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
2
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on a topic that is very impor-
tant for many of our communities. In Hawaii, we also have areas of drought and
high fire risk, so this hearing is timely and appropriate for multiple regions of the
country. I am interested to hear what the witnesses have to say.
Unfortunately, it appears that forest fires are inevitable. In North America, exten-
sive fires have been documented in the prehistoric past, in the near past when in-
digenous people occupied the continent, and in the historical post-contact past. With
the dramatic increase of people using national forests and public lands for camping,
hiking, off-road vehicle use and dirt bikes, the extension of residential areas into
forest lands, and natural causes such as lightning (which caused 15 percent of fires
last year), it appears that we are going to have wildfires around for the foreseeable
future. The question is how best to integrate them into forest management without
sacrificing more acres to invasive harvesting.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
3
the least of which was the Rodeo/Chediski fire, as well as the numerous community
collaborations underway in the state.
Forest communities want to protect more than their homes. Protecting property
and lives in fire prone forests is important. However, people live in forest commu-
nities because they appreciate, and in many ways are dependent on, the greater for-
ests that surround them. Towns and distant cities consume water flowing from for-
ests, in northern Arizona tourism plays a significant role in the local economy and
forests support the fish and wildlife habitat that are important to all citizens.
The interface area is much larger for people in these towns than for people devel-
oping policies in Washington. For example, the Greater Flagstaff Forests Partner-
ship (a collaborative group of 25 organizations dedicated to restoring forests in and
around Flagstaff) determined that their wildland/urban interface would cover
180,000 acresnot a small buffer around the town. Contrary to the false assump-
tion that a community will want to protect their homes first, the Partnership lo-
cated their first treatment site at a place called Fort Valley. The site is strategically
located to the southwest of the San Francisco Peaks and Kachina Wilderness Area
and is designed to protect the peaks from fire leaving the town.
You cannot effectively protect towns from degraded forests. Treating a small area
around towns merely gives the illusion of fire protection (particularly when an ade-
quate number of trees are not removed which is often the case). The Rodeo/Chediski,
Viveash, Cerro Grande and other fires have demonstrated extreme fire behavior
that defies suppression. Plume dominated fires, caused by high fuel loads, can cause
burning embers and spotting miles in advance of the main fire. Towns are not an
isolated component of the forest; they are human habitat in a forest ecosystem. In
dry forest types the greater forest will always burn and so will the towns if the
greater forest is ignored.
Hazardous fuel reduction around towns is a short-term response to a symptom of
sick forests, not a long-term solution. Forest fires are only one symptom of a sick
forest. So are bark beetle outbreaks, declining plant and wildlife habitat, declining
water yield and decreased recreational opportunities due to forest closures. The
problems we are facing are much greater than the geographically isolated wildland/
urban interface. The problem includes the entire forest, the total cost of suppression
and the long-term ecological and economic cost of catastrophically burned forest.
The data show that fire seasons are lengthening and fires are more frequent, severe
and larger. We cannot wait until communities are protected before treating the
greater forest. Mr. Chairman, we must fix forests with comprehensive restoration-
based treatments that are designed to restore forest health while simultaneously re-
ducing the threat of unnatural fire. This problem is particularly acute for my state,
where it will only take six or seven more Rodeo Chediski fires before we have sig-
nificantly altered the largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
4
These resources often come from other states. Alaska is not located adjacent to
any other state; therefore it is costly to get resources from other states to Alaska.
Also, Alaska lacks a wide range hydrant infrastructure. This requires water to be
transported by other means. This too is very expensive.
It is important to mention the damage that has been caused to forests in Alaska,
particularly in the Chugach Mountains, and on the Kenai Peninsula, by the spruce
bark beetle. The spruce bark beetle has drastically changed some forests in my
State. Over 5 million acres of trees in south central and interior Alaska have been
lost to insects over the last 10 years. This infestation has been called the most sig-
nificant terrestrial ecological disturbance to hit the south central region of Alaska
in recorded history.
These dead or dying trees, located near many private residences, are very suscep-
tible to fire. Wildfires have occurred in these infested forests. Coupled with the low
amount of snowfall Alaska has received the potential for further disaster is great.
We must reduce the environmental restrictions that limit the possibility for forest
management. Public land laws should not make it difficult to cut down the dead
or dying trees that are nothing but potential fuel for forest fires.
In general, this nations policy has to allow for responsible forest management
that includes the ability to remove, when appropriate, wildfire fuel from forests.
I ask the members of this committee to keep these facts in mind as we consider
acting on issues of federal wildfire management. We need to continue to fund fed-
eral fire suppression activities and require the Administration to work with state
and local agencies in a cooperative manner to ensure that these fires are fought in
the best possible way to protect people and property.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
5
STATEMENT OF DAVID TENNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPART-
MENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY: JERRY WIL-
LIAMS, DIRECTOR OF FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT,
FOREST SERVICE; CORBIN NEWMAN, NATIONAL FIRE PLAN
COORDINATOR, FOREST SERVICE; JACK BLACKWELL, PA-
CIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION, FOREST SERVICE; AND ALICE
FORBES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, FIRE AND
AVIATION MANAGEMENT
Mr. TENNY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to be
with you today. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
committee to talk about this important issue.
I think the first thing we need to do is thank you for the work
that was done to help us out in the omnibus appropriations bill for
2003. The repayment of the fire borrowing is extremely helpful and
timely. The funding that was provided at or near the levels that
were requested for fire operations and for suppression and further
important aspects of the fire plan are appreciated.
The additional authority for stewardship contracting is also
greatly appreciated. And we look forward to being able to use those
resources and that authority in a way that is going to be positive
in addressing the concerns that we are all here to talk about today.
I am joined today, for your information, by a number of people
from the Forest Service, who have a lot to do with the things that
we are talking about. Jerry Williams is our Director of Fire and
Aviation Management with the Forest Service. Corbin Newman is
our National Fire Plan Coordinator. Jack Blackwell is with us from
the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service. That is Califor-
nia. And then Alice Forbes, who is the Assistant Director of Oper-
ations, Fire and Aviation Management is out of our NICC in Boise,
Idaho. And certainly these folks are available, if you have questions
that you would like to direct directly to any of them. I would be
happy to accommodate those.
What I would like to doyou have the written testimony. And
in our seamless fashion, we have one piece of testimony between
the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior. I
would like to summarize my remarks by addressing a portion of
what we have stated in that testimony, and then Lynn Scarlett
from the Department of the Interior will carry on from there and
talk about the remainder of it.
I would like to address three things: First, a summary, a very
brief summary, of the 2002 fire season, what we observed, what oc-
curred; secondly, an outlook of what the 2003 fire season might
look like; and then finally, a brief discussion of what we are doing
to prepare for this upcoming fire season.
There is some good news about the 2002 fire season, believe it
or not. The good news was that because of the resources that were
made available to the agencies, we were able to succeed in pros-
ecuting fires on an initial attack in 99 percent of the cases. That
is important. We were able to pre-position our resources where we
needed them, where we knew the fires were likely to be severe.
And because of that, we were able to minimize, to a large extent,
the outbreak of large conflagrations.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
6
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
7
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
8
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
9
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
10
With the fire adapted ecosystems of North America, we have the challenging task
of reducing fuels and the vulnerability of our communities to wildfire while restor-
ing the health of our forests and rangelands. This challenge is national and long
term in scope. Of the three factors that most influence wildland fire behavior
weather, topography, and fuelland managers can effectively affect only fuel. Since
the severe 2000 wildland fire season, Congress has funded the National Fire Plan
for federal agencies to work on a long-term program to reduce fire risk and restore
healthy fire-adapted ecosystems in the Nations forests and rangelands. Federal
agency field units, States, Tribes, and other partners have been busy, putting into
action the concepts of the National Fire Plan. Bipartisan Congressional support pro-
vided the funding necessary in 2002 for 17,400 federal fire employees and thousands
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
11
of contract fire personnel to prevent, detect, and suppress wildland fires, treat haz-
ardous fuels, and provide leadership for the organizations. In 2002, despite the se-
vere drought, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior accomplished
a total of 2.2 million acres of hazardous fuels reduction; of that, almost 1 million
acres were in the wildland urban interface. This is 168,000 acres more than 2001.
We also reduced hazardous fuels on slightly more than 1million additional acres
through wildland fire use. For 2003, we anticipate treating 2.5 million acres of haz-
ardous fuels of which 1.1 million acres are in the wildland urban interface.
Recently, the Forest Service, Department of the Interior, National Association of
State Foresters and National Association of Counties agreed to a collaborative proc-
ess to identify fuels treatments. In order to more expeditiously protect communities
and improve forest and rangeland health, the parties agreed to coordinate this proc-
ess across ownerships and jurisdictions.
2002 FIRE SEASON
The 2002 wildland fire season was intense, difficult, and historic. Long-term
drought over most of the West contributed to an earlier and very severe fire season.
Fires burned in every type of vegetation from grasslands to subalpine pine and in
every type of ownership. Of the 7.2 million acres burned in 2002, only a few
wildfires were the large, uncontrolled fires seen on television. These were the fires
that burned in and around wildland-urban interface areas requiring extensive evac-
uations of communities, subdivisions, and ranches. Fire activity was intensified by
unfavorable weather conditions and in many situations posed a safety threat to fire-
fighters and members of the public.
Large wildfires can create unhealthy air conditions. In 2002, at the request of cer-
tain local health agencies, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and EPA cooperated in deploying air quality monitors near
where the public might be affected by the smoke. On the Hayman and Rodeo-
Chedeski fires, the smoke at all of the special sites did not reach unhealthy levels
as defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or state alert levels. On
the Missionary Ridge fire, the monitor at Bayfield exceeded the one-hour PM2.5
alert levels, which means that air quality was more hazardous to peoples health.
State of Colorado monitoring in downtown Denver, however, measured unhealthy
levels and were the highest levels ever measured. The Biscuit Fire in Oregon also
had high (unhealthy) levels from wildfire smoke. The smoke from these wildfires
reached more unhealthy levels and was of a much longer duration than any that
might be produced by prescribed burning. Prescribed burns are of shorter duration,
are done under conditions that disperse smoke, and are in compliance with states
smoke management programs.
When we realized the potential severity of the 2002 wildland fire season, we hired
seasonal firefighters early and we staged firefighting crews and equipment in loca-
tions where they could be mobilized quickly and effectively. Federal wildland fire
agencies had enhanced initial attack capabilities in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
Montana, and Nevada by pre-positioning resources ranging from air support, to
hand crews, to engines in strategic locations. Although several fires were large, the
additional resources made a difference in reducing the size of many of the fires.
Without the added National Fire Plan support, our response would not have been
as strong. Initial attack suppression activities were highly successful, as about 98%
of 2002 wildfires were stopped during initial attack. We sustained 62 days of Pre-
paredness Level 5, our highest level of activity, 22 days longer than the 2000
wildland fire season, another record year. Modular Airbourne Firefighting System
military aircraft were based in Colorado, Utah, Washington, Idaho, and California
to support ground fireline building activities. One battalion from the U.S. Army,
Task Force Destroyer (1/5 FA 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment) Fort Riley, Kansas was
also assigned for 30 days. International firefighting assistance was provided by Can-
ada, Australia, and New Zealand. These international resources provided a total of
thirty-nine 20-person hand crews, and 131 overhead or management personnel as-
sisted in fire suppression activities across the West.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WILDFIRE
For most of the twentieth century, all wildland fires were generally thought to
be bad. As a result, fires were suppressed as soon as possible to reduce their nega-
tive effect. Aggressive fire suppression was effective but had an unintended con-
sequence. The frequency and intensity of wildfires appears to have increased due
to the buildup of fuels such as dead and dying trees and dense growth of flammable
vegetation. Fire exclusion resulted in woody species encroachment into shrublands
and grasslands, altered wildlife diversity and populations patterns through habitat
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
12
modification, and increased disease, insect infestations, and invasive plant species.
This build up of fuel coupled with other factors like drought have raised increasing
concerns about the overall wildland condition and particularly the health of the for-
est and rangelands.
These conditions of increased fuel and severe drought have resulted in increas-
ingly large and severe wildland fires. Damage to watersheds is the most undesirable
environmental impact associated with these large and severe fires. Damage to wild-
life habitat and forests, temporary but reduced air quality, and erosion, also are the
undesirable effects of large and severe fires. Where these types of fire occur in the
wildland urban interface, the risks to people and the expense are greater.
However, where the natural fire return interval has been maintained through pre-
scribed burning or where the buildup of fuels, such as thick understory and dense
trees, have been thinned by environmentally sound forest management practices,
these wildfires can be beneficial. This is particularly so in plant communities that
have historically experienced frequent light fires such as ponderosa pine. Light and
moderate fires generally leave the soil intact, recycle nutrients, and stimulate the
regeneration of many beneficial plant species. These fires often create a patchy mo-
saic on the landscape, increasing the overall biological diversity or health of the area
over the long term.
2002 REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION
We thank you and your committee for your support of the men and women who
make up our firefighting corps. Our firefighters do an impressive job under adverse
conditions and they deserve our thanks and admiration. Firefighting is a high risk,
high consequence activity. Following the Thirtymile Fire tragedy in July 2001,
where four firefighters lost their lives, we reexamined our safety programs and
made a number of improvements. Through training and reinforcement, we are em-
phasizing management of firefighter fatigue, use of the 10 Standard Fire Orders and
the 18 Watch Out situations. We have revamped our training to include findings
and lessons learned from the Thirtymile incident. Firefighter briefings now include
standard components that address planned suppression operations, hazards and
risks, critical fuels and weather conditions, and other crucial information. We have
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
13
an improved fire shelter which is used as a last resort tool and a key component
of fire fighter safety equipment.
Despite our efforts, there were 23 fire-related Federal, states, or volunteer fatali-
ties in the 2002 wildland fire season. Over half the fatalities were contractors to fed-
eral agencies; most of the fatalities were the result of vehicle accidents, some attrib-
uted to fatigue. Therefore, we are including in FY 2003 contracts federal firefighter
work-rest guidelines to minimize fatigue for contracted firefighters and support per-
sonnel. Six fatalities resulted from 3 aviation accidents. The Forest Service and Bu-
reau of Land Management commissioned an aviation blue-ribbon panel that sur-
veyed the aviation program and made findings. Based on the findings, the Depart-
ments made several changes to the aviation program, including extensive inspec-
tions of airtankers as well as grounding other aircraft until air worthiness can be
assured. In addition, Sandia Lab in Albuquerque is developing increased aircraft
safety criteria for Forest Service contracted aircraft.
WHAT COMMUNITIES CAN DO
More than 2,000 structures were lost to wildfires last year. Of the structures de-
stroyed, 835 were primary residences, 46 were commercial properties, and 1,500
were outbuildings. Communities can help themselves to prevent this sort of loss in
the future. Indeed, with our State Forester partners through the State Fire Assist-
ance program, we assisted over 11,000 communities by developing local projects on
fire prevention, fire suppression, hazard mitigation, and creating FIREWISE com-
munities. In 2002, both Departments helped over 5,000 rural and volunteer fire de-
partments by providing training, protective fire clothing, and firefighting equipment
through the Volunteer and Rural Fire Assistance programs. Additional efforts will
promote partnerships, community action plans, and projects where communities can
themselves reduce fuel hazards, improve building codes, and create fire resistant
landscapes.
National fire prevention teams were activated throughout the year in many West-
ern states where fire danger was extreme. Teams were dispatched for month-long
assignments to assist local resources in assessing human-caused fire starts. Once
assessments are complete, these trained fire prevention professionals prepare a site-
specific strategy of unique fire prevention solutions for the area. Fire prevention
teams were placed in Salt Lake City, UT, Santa Fe, NM, Custer, SD, Seattle, WA,
Sequoia National Forest, CA, and Colorado Springs and Durango, CO.
In addition, citizens can take action through the FIREWISE program, which helps
people who live or vacation in fire-prone areas educate themselves about wildland
fire protection. Homeowners can learn how to protect their homes with a survivable
space and how to landscape their yard with fire resistant materials. A consortium
of wildland fire agencies that include the Forest Service, the Department of the In-
terior, the National Fire Protection Association, and the National Association of
State Foresters sponsors the program.
COSTS
There is no question that fighting these fires was expensivethe total cost for
both Departments was almost $1.6 billion. The Forest Service transferred approxi-
mately $1 billion from other accounts to fund fire suppression costs. We want to
thank Congress for acting upon the Administrations request for repayment. The
Forest Service has established a priority process to repay the accounts from which
funds were transferred, and every effort will be made to repay these in a timely
fashion.
Interior also had emergency wildfire response costs that exceeded funding avail-
able within the fire management appropriation by more than $250 million last year.
The Secretary transferred $240 million from the construction and land acquisition
accounts of the land management bureaus and BIA to cover most of the additional
costs for emergency suppression and stabilization. The fire program also repro-
grammed $14 million intended for fire facility maintenance and construction and
hazardous fuels reduction projects.
Recent criticism of how the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
spend funds to suppress wildfire is of great concern to the Departments and the
agencies. In response to criticisms that occurred during this past fire season, Forest
Service Chief Dale Bosworth in cooperation with Interior agencies promptly dis-
patched an accountability team to review specific expenses and policies that may
have contributed to unnecessary expenditures on large fires. As a result of this and
other interagency efforts, new procedures have been established that will focus on
cost containment strategies in suppressing wildfire and eliminating unnecessary ex-
penses; establish clearer financial management accountability of incident command-
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
14
ers and line officers; and provide for improved controls and incentives for suppres-
sion costs.
Additionally, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will fully im-
plement performance measures that reflect the level of risk reduced by treatments
as part of the interagency effort to increase accountability of Federal wildand fire
management efforts.
In implementing these performance measures, it is important to emphasize that
firefighter safety and the protection of communities will not be compromised. As we
focus on an efficient wildland firefighting organization, we must not lose sight of the
fact that fire suppression often is an expensive operation where major costs will be
most substantially reduced by accomplishing the goals of the Presidents Healthy
Forests Initiative and the National Fire Plan.
2003 SEASONAL WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK
At this time, our experts at the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC)
in Boise, Idaho, indicate that long term drought persists and is expected to intensify
over much of the interior West. Mountain snow pack and precipitation remains
below average for most of the western states with the exception of northern and cen-
tral California. The outlook for February through April calls for above normal tem-
peratures and below normal precipitation over the Pacific Northwest, Northern
Rockies, portions of the Great Lakes, and the Ohio River Valley. Unless the weather
patterns provide relief, 2003 has the potential for an above normal fire season in
these areas, especially in the interior West, the Lake states, and northern Maine.
Drought conditions and dense vegetation increase the risk of wildfires that burn
longer, faster, and more intensely. We know that fire historically played a positive
role in sustaining ecological stability. Where appropriate, we will manage wildland
fire use as prescribed in land and resource management plans. However, because
of the altered condition of many forests and grasslands, use of fire for forest man-
agement has become much more complex. It requires scientific support and new
tools to help plan, implement and monitor fire management activities. One of these
tools is the Presidents Healthy Forest Initiative.
THE PRESIDENTS HEALTHY FOREST INITIATIVE
In May 2002, working with the Western Governors Association and a broad cross-
section of interests including county commissioners, state foresters, tribal officials
and other stakeholders, we reached consensus on a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy
and Implementation Plan to reduce fire risks to communities and the environment.
The plan sets forth the blueprint for making communities and the environment
safer from destructive wildfires. The plan calls for active forest management focus-
ing on hazardous fuels reduction both in the wildland-urban interface and across
the broader landscape. Active forest management includes: thinning trees from over-
dense stands that produce commercial or pre-commercial products, biomass removal
and utilization, and prescribed fire and other fuels reduction tools.
In order for the 10-Year Implementation Plan to succeed, the Forest Service and
Interior agencies must be able to implement critical fuels reduction and restoration
projects associated with the plan goals in a timely manner. Often, however, the
agencies are constrained by procedural requirements and litigation that delay actual
on-the-ground implementation. As we testified last September, the three factors
most contributing to project delay are: 1) excessive analysis; 2) ineffective public in-
volvement; and 3) management inefficiencies. We have reached a point where we
must change to allow agencies to implement management decisions to achieve
healthy forests and rangelands.
On August 22, 2002, President Bush announced Healthy Forests: An Initiative for
Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities. The Healthy Forest Initiative would
implement core components of the 10-Year Implementation Plan, enhancing and fa-
cilitating the work and collaboration agreed to in that document.
The Presidents initiative directs us, together with Council on Environmental
Quality Chairman Connaughton, to: improve procedures for collaborative selection
and implementation of fuels treatments and forest and rangeland restoration
projects; reduce the number of overlapping environmental reviews; develop guidance
for weighing the short-term risks against the long-term benefits of fuels treatment
and restoration projects; and develop guidance to ensure consistent NEPA proce-
dures for fuels treatment activities and restoration activities. We will report today
on several actions the Secretaries have taken to accomplish these objectives.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
15
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
The USDA Forest Service and the Department of Interior have proposed two cat-
egorical exclusions that can be utilized in certain circumstances by the agencies to
carry out hazardous fuel reduction and post-wildfire resource activities and activi-
ties infrastructure rehabilitation. These two categorical exclusions were based on an
analysis of over 3,000 hazardous fuel reduction and post-wildfire restoration
projects. Our analysis of these activities has shown that these types of narrowly de-
fined actions have not resulted in individually or cumulatively significant environ-
mental impacts, and therefore, may be conducted without preparation of an environ-
mental assessment or environmental impact statement. We expect to publish final
categorical exclusions later this year.
A categorical exclusion may not always be the appropriate level of analysis; each
project is different and some may not meet the criteria for use of a CE. Therefore,
Chairman Connaughton has issued guidance which clarifies the policy on the prepa-
ration of environmental assessments for fuels treatments. The clarification address-
es the purpose and content of a model Environmental Assessment for fuels treat-
ments. The guidance is being applied initially to ten Interior and five Forest Service
projects to test the adequacy of the model EA to address the impacts typically found
in fuels treatment projects. Process lessons learned in developing these projects will
be shared widely throughout all agencies for application to additional projects.
The Forest Service has proposed revising its implementing regulations under the
Appeals Reform Act. Proposed changes are designed to encourage early and mean-
ingful public participation in project planning, rather than focusing the public on
review of a completed EA and on appeal of a decision after it has been made. The
proposal gives the line officer discretion over the timing of the 30-day notice and
comment period, rather than requiring that it take place after the environmental
assessment is complete. There would also be limitations on appeals based on early
project involvement and on raising new issues that had not previously been raised.
A final policy is expected to be published later this year.
The Department of the Interiors Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and the
BLM are proposing a series of changes to their administrative rules, to streamline
their appeals process for hazardous fuels treatment projects. Interior wants to en-
sure that appeals from decisions involving either forest or rangeland health are re-
solved quickly without depriving the public of the right to participate in the admin-
istrative process. Frequently, delaying a project can be the same as stopping a
project. The proposed rules would require OHA to resolve any appeal involving for-
est or rangeland health within sixty days from the filing of all paperwork from the
parties. Forest and rangeland health appeals will not be subject to any different
standards than other types of appeals. Under this proposal, they must simply be
handled first. The proposed rules also contain a number of technical changes that
will allow OHA to do its job more efficiently and apply rules more consistently.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration issued a joint guidance memo on Endangered Species Act Section 7 con-
sultation in October, 2002. It emphasizes the use of programmatic interagency con-
sultation under the Endangered Species Act for Healthy Forests Initiative projects.
It also emphasizes the grouping of multiple projects into one consultation. These
agencies also issued joint guidance in December, 2002 providing direction on how
to fully consider and balance potential short- and long-term beneficial and adverse
impacts to endangered species when evaluating proposed Healthy Forests Initiative
projects.
In addition to these Healthy Forests Initiative actions, the Forest Service has pro-
posed the addition of three new timber harvest categorical exclusions (CEs) to its
authorities. Projects would include limited timber harvesting of live trees, salvage
harvests, and sanitation of dead and dying trees for insect and disease control.
Projects of this nature occur routinely as part of managing National Forest System
lands.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
16
The Departments are currently developing public involvement methods and are
working with the state Governors, counties and interested parties to develop proce-
dures for stewardship contracting.
As the Committee knows, the Presidents budget included proposals for the
Healthy Forest Initiative. We look forward to working with your Committee to de-
velop Healthy Forest legislation and pledge our cooperation.
SUMMARY
With the outlook for an upcoming severe fire season, the five federal land-manag-
ing agencies and our partners at the State and local level are doing all that we can
to be prepared. Safety of firefighters and communities is our first priority. With the
fire adapted ecosystems of North America, we have the challenging task of reducing
fuels and the vulnerability of our communities to wildfire while restoring the health
of our forests and rangelands. This challenge is national and long term in scope.
The 10-Year Implementation Plan and the Wildland Fire Leadership Council will
continue to foster cooperation and communication among Federal agencies, States,
local governments, Tribes, and interested groups and citizens. With your continued
help, all the agencies can accomplish robust performance-based programs for the na-
tions forests and rangelands, and do so in full collaboration with state governments,
communities, Congress and the American people.
We look forward to working with you in implementing the agencys programs and
would be happy to answer any questions.
The CHAIRMAN. And now we will take Linda Conlin, Assistant
Secretary for the U.S. Trade and Development. It is nice to have
you here. And the same holds for you as regards your testimony.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
17
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
18
And lastly, in the recently signed 2003 omnibus bill, the Depart-
ment of Commerce received $50 million to undertake an advertis-
ing and promotional campaign to encourage international travelers
to visit the United States. Of course this campaign will involve the
promotion of what I call our national treasures or the natural
areas, which are so popular with international visitors.
Mr. Chairman, I hope, however briefly, that I have been able to
give the committee some sense of how catastrophic fires can impact
tourism in local communities and how the Department of Com-
merce, within the parameters of its mission, can help to alleviate
this impact.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of
this committee for holding this hearing. And I look forward to your
questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. That is a very interesting
aspect that many do not consider. And we are glad to have you,
and it is good to have this on the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Conlin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA MYSLIWY CONLIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR TRADE DEVELOPMENT
Thank you, Chairman Domenici and Members of the Committee for inviting me
to testify before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you for holding this hearing.
As we all know, last year we witnessed the second largest fire season in the past
50 years. And Colorado, Arizona and Oregon recorded their largest fires in the last
century.
Last fall, my Deputy, Doug Baker, and I joined colleagues from the Departments
of Agriculture and Interior on visits to several states impacted by fire. I personally
visited Colorado and Arizona. It was during my visit to Show Low, Arizona that I
truly came to understand first-hand the long-term natural and economic devastation
that these communities face when fire threatens and overruns them.
I flew into Show Low from Phoenix, which required flying over the Rodeo-
Chediski burned areas. That was my introduction to the Show Low community. It
was during a town hall meeting in Show Low the next day that I came to under-
stand the concerns of the ranchers, business-owners, families and local county offi-
cials and mayors. The people of Show Low were deeply impacted by the fires and
they were very fearful of what might face them in the future if their concerns about
forest management are not addressed.
Our national forests and public lands are managed for the benefit of the national
public, but the residents of Show Low and other communities we visited made it
clear that the manner in which they are managed most directly impacts the gate-
way communities near these lands.
They asked that the management of public lands promote stability and predict-
ability in the use and maintenance of the public lands surrounding their commu-
nities. And they asked that the managers of these public lands be allowed the flexi-
bility to adapt to changing social, economic and ecological conditions.
TOURISM AND SHOW LOW
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
19
cording to the Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona lodging and lodging tax rev-
enue were down nearly 4 percent in 2002 compared to 2001.
According to the National Park Service, 2002 visitation to Arizonas national
parks was down 8 percent compared to 2001. Arizona state park visitation in 2002
was down over 10 percent compared to 2001. Looking at the parks closest to the
fires, however, the declines are even more stark.
Fool Hollow Lake and Tonto Natural Bridge were two of the nearest state parks
to the massive Rodeo-Chediski fire. While the fire raged in June and July, 2002,
Fool Hollow attendance was down over 45 and 56 percent respectively, compared to
2001. Tonto Bridge was down nearly 34 and 45 percent for the same comparison
period. Year to date totals for Fool Hollow were down nearly 31 percent compared
to 2001, Tonto Bridge totals were down nearly 17 percent.
The Arizona Office of Tourism reported that wildfires might have affected travel
decisions for national park visitors. The Rodeo-Chedeski fire and media reports of
wildfire activity likely affected visitor patterns and discouraged travel to some of
these areas. We know that international travelers unfamiliar with state geography
are likely to believe that, for example, a forest fire in Yellowstone could prohibit
travel to the entire state of Wyoming. International and domestic travelers may
alter their plans to visit Western destinations, especially.
WHAT IS DOC DOING TO HELP TOURISM OVERALL?
My colleagues on the panel are the experts when it comes to land management
and I will leave that to them, but I would like to take this opportunity to address
some of the efforts made at the Department of Commerce to increase the number
of international visitors coming to the United States. Although many of these activi-
ties were initiated in response to the effects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist at-
tacks on tourism in the United States, these efforts will also benefit tourism in fire-
impacted communities as well.
According to the latest data, domestic travel is on the mend, but slower than an-
ticipated. Levels comparable to 2000 will not be reached until 2004. The year 2000
is considered to be a peak year for international tourism.
While the long-term forecast for international travel and tourism to the U.S. looks
promising with 32% projected growth from 2001 to 2006, the Department of Com-
merce is forecasting a flat 2002. Again, it wont be until 2004 before we reach the
peak of 2000 international visitation levels.
We have been aggressive in communicating to travelers from around the world
that it is safe to visit the United States. Since September 11, I have been heading
up the Tourism Policy Council on behalf of Secretary Evans to help ensure that U.S.
tourism interests are considered in Federal decision-making, and to help coordinate
travel and tourism efforts among 15 Federal agencies and offices.
The Commerce Department is also involved directly with travel and tourism in
the West. I took part in the signing of an historic agreement with the Western
States Tourism Policy Council (WSTPC), to set up a strategy of mutual support, co-
ordination and cooperation that will benefit states and towns throughout the West
that are dependent upon travel and tourism. The WSTPC is a coalition of the tour-
ism departments of 13 states (Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Ne-
vada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico).
In October of last year, the Department of Commerce awarded a $400,000 finan-
cial assistance award to the WSTPC. The funds were made available through the
Commerce Departments Market Development Cooperator Program (MDCP), a pub-
lic-private partnership developed to help small- and medium-sized U.S. firms ex-
pand exports that support jobs. The MDCP is a competitive matching grants pro-
gram that builds partnerships by providing federal assistance to non-profit organi-
zations involved in export promotion.
WSTPC will conduct training programs to help small and medium size businesses
in the gateway communities to develop effective marketing strategies to attract
international visitors. Trade missions to key markets in Europe and Asia by gate-
way communities business representatives will provide opportunities to meet with
potential buyers of their services and develop new business. An important element
of the project is the partnerships that will be established with public and private
sector suppliers locally, nationally and internationally.
We have also launched a special public/private sector Tourism Export Expansion
Initiative in Japan to help buoy travel flows to the United States, including the
Western States. Japan has historically been a top source market for visitors to the
United States.
In addition, in the recently signed 2003 Omnibus bill the Department of Com-
merce received $50,000,000 to support an international tourism promotion campaign
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
20
to encourage international travelers to visit the United States. Secretary Evans will
appoint representatives from the travel and tourism industry to a U.S. Travel and
Tourism Advisory Board to provide advice on appropriate activities for the funding.
In an effort to help states seeking aid to offset firefighting costs, the Department
of Commerce, through one of the International Trade Administrations sister agen-
cies, the Economic Development Administration (EDA), has provided direct assist-
ance to communities affected over the past few years by fire disasters.
In 2000, Los Alamos County, NM received a $100,000 investment to develop a
strategy for addressing and mitigating long-term economic impacts in Los Alamos
County resulting from fires. The evacuation of 18,000 people from Los Alamos
caused one to two weeks of business closures and resulted in incalculable stress on
area businesses. As you may recall, the fires in Los Alamos forced the closing of the
Los Alamos National lab, which stops the economic engine for the community and
to a great extent, for the region.
Also in 2000, Pueblo of Jemez, NM, received a $415,000 investment from EDA to
help establish a permanent base-of-operation as a first step in implementing the
Walatowa Woodlands Initiative. This project was designed to enhance forest health
and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire through fuel-load reduction.
In 2001, in the Village of Pecos, NM a $400,000 investment was awarded for the
construction of a 5,000 square-foot fire facility to house fire and emergency vehicles;
provide the training, conference, and office space necessary for the planning and
execution of major firefighting and fire danger reduction efforts; and will contain
emergency medical services vehicles.
These investments in improving fire protection will reduce the cost of development
and increase the chance of private investment in tourism related industry. Reducing
insurance costs in this heavily forested area will help existing businesses weather
the loss sustained because of the Viveash Fire and improve profitability for existing
and emerging businesses.
In September of 2002, EDA provided assistance to two Arizona communities as
well. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned 276,000 acres of the Fort Apache Reservation.
A EDA grant was provided to assist the White Mountain Apache Tribe with pur-
chasing equipment to salvage and process the charred timber still standing in the
area devastated by the fire. The grant award was $168,573 with a local match of
$42,076 for a total of $210,649.
The second award of $100,000 was provided to the Northern Arizona Council of
Governments to develop a long-term economic revitalization plan for Navajo,
Apache, Coconino, and Yavapai Counties. The plan will assist the impacted commu-
nities to recover, and be more resilient in future disaster situations.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have been able to give the Committee some idea of
how catastrophic fires can impact tourism in local communities and how the Depart-
ment of Commerce, within the parameters of its mission, can help to alleviate this
impact.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and I look
forward to your questions.
The CHAIRMAN. I am going to proceed based upon time of arrival.
So, Senator Craig, you are first. Senator Bingaman, Senator Thom-
as, then I will go unless some other Senator is in a hurry.
Senator Craig.
Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank all three of you for being here today
to testify about a much broader aspect of the character of fire and
wildfire on our public lands and resources than I think most people
realize. I know oftentimes when I am here and there is a fire in
Idaho, I get people asking me, Is it safe to go to Idaho? If they
have a trip planned, it is, Should I cancel? Most have no idea of
the expanse or size of those Western States. And they are con-
cerned. They express a great deal of concern.
I am going to read a statement. Dave, you do not necessarily
have to react to it. But my question will follow then. It will be a
comparison of what a State agency might be doing under the direc-
tive that I am going to read versus what the U.S. Forest Service
will be doing under the new stewardship authority that you have.
Governor Gray Davis recently determined that three California
counties are at risk of imminent fire danger and declared the coun-
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
21
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
22
vate lands, the private land holders, the residents, what are also
the values that we want to protect and maintain on the Federal
land, you have to have consistency of policy and approach.
The stewardship contracting authority that you mentioned, for
example, is a way to look at a landscape. It is end results oriented.
You takethe idea begins with what you want to achieve on the
ground and then moves you over a period of time toward that end.
And it requires a full integration of resources and policies in order
to make it work as well as it might.
And I might add, it is also a means of treating the landscape be-
fore we get to the emergency situation, to get ahead of the curve
to the extent that we can, so we do not have to scramble in an
emergency like we so often do. But as far as the authorities go and
as far as what needs to be done and the timeliness of it, there is
no difference between a piece of Federal land and a piece of State
land with respect to risk.
Senator CRAIG. My time is up. Please take this note and go back
and ask the Chief: What is the difference in the San Bernardino
Forest that would cause them to act that they are not doing in the
Nez Perce Forests of Idaho and the Red River drainage in relation
to Elk City? Because we have a wildfire of bug infestation and
death going on there.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
According to the Washington Post last week, there was a hearing
over in the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. Chief
Bosworth said his agency was struggling to develop a long-term so-
lution to a perennial problem; that is, finding enough money to put
out hundreds of wildfires each year. In most cases, the agency
transfers money from other accounts to pay for firefighting, a prac-
tice that lawmakers have criticized.
Here is a quote from Chief Bosworth. He says, The worst thing
we could do is be back in a situation like last year. It is absolutely
crazy to continue year after year wondering if we have to transfer
money to cover fire costs. Then a little later, the article quotes
Chief Bosworth as saying The Forest Service is planning for a
budget shortfall this summer. He expects to transfer up to $612
million now targeted for fire prevention to fire suppression.
And he thinks it is crazy for us to do this year after year. Is that
not exactly what we are doing? I mean, is there anything that is
going to happen between now and the fire season to head off this
exact problem that he is bemoaning here?
Mr. TENNY. I think there are a lot of ideas that have been floated
for addressing this recurring problem. One of the things that Chief
Bosworth mentioned, which is very helpful, was this flexibility that
was provided in the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. It al-
lows us to transfer or move suppression dollars to preparedness
dollars as needed, in order to pre-place resources in those areas
where we are going to find, or where we expect fire severity to be
the greatest. That enhances our ability on initial attack. That will
ultimately reduce costs. It has the impact of reducing cost, to the
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
23
extent that we can keep a fire from growing into a large conflagra-
tion.
The issue of what to do for the long term is one that, frankly,
will have to be addressed together because of the difficulty of that
situation. Our annual appropriations are funded at a 10-year aver-
age. It is very difficult to determine. Although we can have an out-
look, until the fires start to burn, it is difficult to determine exactly
what kind of fire activity and what cost is going to be incurred for
the upcoming season. We use our averages. And our funding levels
have been increasing, based upon those averages. We do the best
that we can with the available authority that we have to minimize
the disruption to the agency when we are in a position where we
have to borrow. But there are some long-term options that we could
work on together and consider.
Senator BINGAMAN. Yes. Let me just say, I think this notion that
your funding ought to be determined on the basis of a 10-year aver-
age, there is nothing written in stone that I am aware of that says
that. If we have a fire problem in the Westwe did last year, we
did the year before, we are going to again this yearwe ought to
put some extra money in and deal with it.
Another issue I would be interested in, we have this terrible
problem throughout New Mexico, and particularly in northern New
Mexico, as a result of the bark beetle having killed out a tremen-
dous number of our trees and expected to kill out a lot more. Is
there anything being requested by the administration in the way
of resources to deal with that particular problem?
Mr. TENNY. We are doing a lot ofthere are a couple of areas.
One is in research, where we are doing research on this kind of ac-
tivity so we can understand it better. There is a lot of good work
that is going on in New Mexico, as you know, to look at how to get
ahead of that curve because it is, like I mentioned before, like a
fire. And it does become a reactive situation rather than proactive.
We anticipate
Senator BINGAMAN. This is long-term research you are talking
about, right? You are not suggesting you have any resources to deal
with the problem this year or next year.
Mr. TENNY. Research is one aspect of it. What the agency is
doing in cases where we have these big outbreaks is prioritizing so
that we, first of all, protect those communities and structures and
resources that are going to be at imminent risk because of the out-
break and then try and contain it so that it does not spread further
to those areas that are presently not experiencing that kind of ac-
tivity.
What we do have coming forward that will be helpful is some of
the authorities that we are seeking underthat we are putting in
place or the administrative actions that we are putting in place
under the Healthy Forest Initiative that will enable us to move
more quickly and be more responsive in some of these areas. The
stewardship contracting can also be helpful on the prevention side.
On the proactive side, we are using the resources that we have
in those regions to address the situation as quickly as we can,
going through the regular process that we normally would have to
go through.
Senator BINGAMAN. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
24
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
25
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
26
I am also very interested in learning more about the effect of wildfire on tourism
and recreation. For over a decade, rural communities in Oregon have been told that
as their mills close and timber jobs are exported to other countries, a new recre-
ation-based economy will emerge. The fact that Oregon leads the country in hunger
and unemployment partially dispels that theory. The fact that each year we lose
large tracts of back-country forests to wildfire, and whole communities are evacu-
ated, further impacts the potential for tourism.
As we approach the 2003 wildfire season, I have serious concerns about the effec-
tiveness of fuels reduction and forest health efforts on the ground. Whether funding
or litigious obstruction is the culprit, not enough dollars are reaching the ground,
the backlog of fuels treatment is growing, and I expect many communities in my
state will again be staring down a wall of flames. It is frustrating to me because
scientists know what needs to be done, industry has new technologies to accomplish
ityet the two never seem to meet.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your strong focus on forest health
issues, and I look forward to working on a west-wide basis to neutralize the specter
of catastrophic wildfire.
Senator SMITH. On Senator Thomass point, there is a University
of Oregon report that the Forest Service and the BLM in Oregon
and Washington were given $242 million for fiscal year 2001. That
is specifically for national fire plan activities. Of that, about 10 per-
cent, in other words $25 million, was used to procure goods and
services, such as thinning, brushing, et cetera. But of the $25 mil-
lion, only $8.2 million was used for actual thinning work. So that
is 3 percent of the $242 million allocated to Oregon and Washing-
ton. So I guess my question is: Where did the other 97 percent go?
Senator BINGAMAN. Mr. Chairman, we need to cut back on what
goes into Oregon and Washington. It is obvious.
[Laughter.]
Senator SMITH. I was just stunned to see these reports. And I
just wondered if you can shed a little light on it, because
Mr. TENNY. I have not seen the reports directly. But what you
are saying certainly stirs a chord within. I would expect that what
we are seeing is a look at fire plan dollars that include suppression
activities. The Biscuit fire, for example, was $150 million just to
fight the fire.
And you make a great point. What happens if we could divert
those resources to the prevention side rather than the reactive
side?
Senator SMITH. I am just making the point that I think we have
the cart before the horse.
Mr. TENNY. Yes.
Senator SMITH. And I think that is the whole logic behind the
Healthy Forest Initiative. And I am not blaming any of you. I am
just saying we are fighting fires, and we ought to be thinning for
forest health, because there is an environmental benefit to that as
well. And to the point, I mean, those who would say Just leave
it alone, let it burnjust the Biscuit fire, I wonder if my col-
leagues realize that a half a million acres burned with enormous
intensity. And it incinerated 80,000 acres of spotted owl habitat,
80,000 acres of an endangered species. Owl populations are ex-
pected to climb by 20 percent.
The fire also burned 99 percent of the whole wilderness area; 99
percent of it is just gone. I have been there. I have seen it. It is
just sticks. And it is hideous looking. And so all of the riparian
areas have been cooked as well. And this was an area that was vis-
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
27
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
28
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
29
Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the point
that you have made, Mr. Chairman, and the point that Senator
Bingaman has made is critical.
I would just say to my colleagues that Mr. Tenny is a good man.
He has been very helpful to this committee. For example, we would
not have the county payments legislation without Mr. Tenny. He
has really reached out. I do not want to be hard on Dave Tenny
today.
But I think, with respect to the fire plan, it is time to end the
shell game, folks. There is a real shell game going on out there,
where everybody says that implementing the fire plan is a big deal,
and then you do not put the resources into actually getting the
work done.
I am going to leave here in a couple of minutes and go to the
Budget Committee where I am going to offer an amendment to in-
crease funding authority for implementing the fire plan. I think
Senator Domenicis and Senator Bingamans earlier statements
have reflected this bipartisan concern.
I look at these numbers, and particularly for the Fire Service,
they are not even close to adding up. Let me just give you one ex-
ample. Last year, $1.6 billion was borrowed just on the suppression
account. The budget this time calls for $800 million. So you scratch
your head and you say, Everything we are hearing from the sci-
entists now is that we are going to have infernos all over the West
this summer. I have clippings from all over my State. I am sure
that is true in New Mexico, and Idaho, and all over the West.
$1.6 billion was borrowed last time for suppression, while this
budget provides $800 million for suppression. I think we have all
seen the bipartisan concern that we would like to get away from
suppression and do more of what would be termed ecologically
sound forest management, and just have not been able to get the
resources for that either.
I do not like to shoot the messenger because the message is a
tough onebut my question for Dave Tenny is: What will you sup-
port by way of a bipartisan effort in the budget to get real on this
funding question? My first choice would be to double the budget au-
thority so that we could implement this fire plan.
Dave, you obviously cannot speak for the administration. I un-
derstand their budget authority. But tell us how in the world we
are going to come close to implementing this fire plan with the re-
sources that have been proposed and how you are going to react to
an effort in the Budget Committee to get some more resources.
I think flexibility is fine, Dave. Make no mistake about it. We
like that. It is clear on the ground that flexibility is the key. But
flexibility cannot be a substitute for being in the ballpark with re-
spect to resources. And we are not in the ballpark.
For purposes of today, all you can give is a personal opinion, be-
cause you cannot speak for the administration. But how are you
going to react to my efforts to try to get a more realistic level of
funding for the fire plan, an effort that is going to begin in about
20 minutes?
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
30
Mr. TENNY. I think the safest thing I can say is: I am going to
watch you with great interest. Obviously, the budget has been put
forward. And we know what the levels of funding are that were
provided in the 2003 budget. They were nearly to the levels that
werethe appropriations bill for 2003 was nearly to the levels of
the 2003 budget that was put forward. I acknowledge that there is
a problem that exists. I think we all recognize that. And there are
opportunities to address that.
There have been a number of ideas that have been floated. For
example, there was an idea that was floated in the budget pro-
posal, not this last one but the one before, to create a permanent
authority, for example, that would allow a reserve to be in place
to address some of the shortfalls on a permanent basis. That is one
idea.
There are other approaches that are out there. And the discus-
sion that is taking place is an important discussion. The outcome
is something that I think we all have to look together at resolving,
based upon the competing priorities and pressures that are on the
budget, obviously, and in terms of what makes sense. And I think
that is a discussion that is beginning that we need to have and con-
tinue.
Senator WYDEN. Well, a big chunk of the West is going to become
a rural sacrifice zone, if we do not fund the fire plan properly. I,
for one, am just not going to sit by and let these communities and
the good people that are in these rural areas lose their world. And
that is what is going to happen. So this is not an abstract question.
In 20 minutes, we will see where the administration is. I am
anxious to work with you. Of course I am going to work with Chair-
man Domenici and Senator Craig. We have done all of this in a bi-
partisan way. I will support what the administration seeks to do
on flexibility. I think that is constructive in a number of these
areas, to get away from this one-size-fits-all approach to natural re-
sources policy.
But when you borrow $1.6 billion last year for fire suppression,
and all the science indicates that we are going to have infernos this
summer, and then the budget comes in with $800 million for fire
suppression, you are not in the ballpark. You are just not in the
ballpark. We have to figure out on a bipartisan basis how to do bet-
ter.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you towards that
end. And I thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. If you do not do it on the committee today, we
will talk about it on the floor
Senator WYDEN. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. On the budget resolution.
Senator WYDEN. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski.
Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again,
I look forward to explaining our efforts again relating to our geog-
raphy. And as it relates to forest fires, in Alaska, we have just
come to accept, as a routine course, that during the summer we
will have fires. We will have acres and thousands and thousands
of acres up in smoke. And it is just something that we deal with
because we live in a State that has huge geography. And we have
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
31
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
32
Mr. TENNY. Yes, Senator. First of all, I should note that I have
a great mentor who knows Alaska very well. And it certainly is an
area that is on the front of our minds all the time.
The beetle infestation that you are referring to is something that,
although I have not seen it, I have had it described to me. I have
seen pictures. It is truly something to behold. And it does create
a very significant risk. We have been increasing our work on the
Kenai Peninsula. And our fuels treatment work is actually up, from
what I understand, about 20 percent with respect to where it has
been. Is that enough? No, because of the nature of the problem you
have described. It is expansive. It is far reaching. And it is perva-
sive throughout that part of the State.
We arethe National Fire Plan dollars are available nationwide.
They are available to Alaska, as well as to the lower 48 States. We
have some new authority in stewardship contracting. It would be
a good idea to look and see how that authority might play out and
how we might apply that authority up in Alaska.
We have the tools under the Healthy Forest Initiative that we
would like to use where appropriate and where we can use those
to address some of these situations as well, because the bottom line
is we are talking about the risk that is being created out there be-
cause we are not getting ahead of the problem. The problem is
ahead of us. And nowhere is it more pronounced than Alaska.
I think last year, of the total acres that burned, Alaska led every
other State in total acres burned. It is a little known fact, I think,
but Alaska burns more acres on average per year than any other
State.
The problems that you have identified are real. They are of great
concern to us. We would like to use the tools that we have and that
we are getting and apply them there, along with the funding that
is made available under the fire plan and take that trajectory that
we are on, where we are increasing the number acres that we are
treating, and see if we can take that out further until we can get
to the point where we are doing a lot more than we are doing now.
Five million acres, that is a lot of acres. But certainly, we can
do better than we are doing now. And that is the intent. And that
is certainly our objective.
Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I would like to hope that the funding
that you have referred to that can be made availableand we will
certainly work with you on thatthat those are not lost, if you
will, because we need to deal with the fire suppression, the antici-
pated fires that I think are quite likely this year.
In Alaska, we are no different than anywhere else in the West
this year. We have nowe have very little snow cover in the State
right now, which is incredible for us. So we are anticipating a ter-
rible fire year. So any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Akaka, do you want to ask some questions?
Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome.
Senator AKAKA. Welcome to the panel.
I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this hearing is very impor-
tant for many of our communities. In Hawaii, we do have these
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
33
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
34
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
35
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
36
mean, those are the options you have. And clearly, that is the bat-
tleground here that we face in trying to sort out how we apply or
allocate resources.
Well, I know your problem. We have to try to address that. You
know, the great environmental story will be written in a decade or
two that the environment killed the environment, and environ-
mentalists sat by and watched it die and burn and tied the hands
of those who tried to save it. And we ought to try to do something
about it here. I know the chairman is committed to that, as am I.
My last question: How many in the National Guard become ac-
tive in catastrophic fire years like last year, that we might need
this year, that we will not have this year because they might be
fighting a war or they might be on critical standby for the purpose
of national defense? And have you factored that in? And what do
you do about it, if you cannot use their equipment, you cannot use
their personnel, that are deployed elsewhere?
Mr. TENNY. That is an important question that we have been
grappling with here over the last several months. Last year we
were able to call up a battalion from the Army. And they were
available to do some of the work that we needed to get down out
on the ground. We have had conversations, and are continuing to
have those, in planning for the upcoming fire season with the Na-
tional Guard and with the Department of Defense.
From what I understand, based upon the information that I have
been given from those who are having those conversations, we have
the commitment to have the resources available when we need
them, notwithstanding the prospect of a war. What that means,
though, is that we need to be vigilant in communicating with our
counterparts in the Department of Defense and the National Guard
with respect to the forecast and when we are going to need these
people. And those are the discussions that are taking place right
now, so that those contingencies can be in place.
Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you. I am pleased to hear at least
that that conversation is going on and that calculation is being
made. That is critical, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Conlin, are you with them? Are you on your
own in terms of returning to your office? Are with you with the
other two people here testifying, or are you on your own?
Ms. CONLIN. I am on my own.
The CHAIRMAN. You are excused. You do not have to listen to us
if
Senator CRAIG. Well, I did have one more question of her.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are finished with questioning, are we
not?
Senator CRAIG. Could I ask
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead and ask it now.
Senator CRAIG. I did not want you to feel lonely, Linda.
[Laughter.]
Ms. CONLIN. I am just delighted to be here, that the connection
is made between tourism and economic impact because of the fires.
I am delighted to be here, Senator.
Senator CRAIG. How does an area recover long-term? And I cite
an example, Salmon, Idaho, south central eastern Idaho, 2000, cat-
astrophic fire, nearly a million acres burned. The town was shut
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
37
down for 45 days. It was smoke covered for 30 days. People with
respiratory problems left town. It is the jumping off point for all
the white water or most of the white water of the Greater Salmon
River systems. All of that disappeared.
I tried to help outfitters and guides that lost not only the sum-
mer outfitting, but many lost winter or the fall outfitting of elk and
lost their businesses as a result of it. But we could not directly con-
nect the fire-related situation to them, so they lost out.
How do we deal with that? That is just a lost story as it relates
to fire and fire impact. You have spoken to it today. Now many
these communities are small business communities. Small busi-
nesses do not have strong staying power in most instancesif they
lose a season, they are lostversus big businesses or counterparts
or associates of big businesses.
Some in Salmon benefitted. There were over 3,000 people de-
ployed there at one time. There were goods and services provided.
But by far, a majority of that community lost, because they lost
their tourism season. How do we deal with that? And how do we
respond to it? And how do we bring that tourism back quickly or
communicate effectively? And are there programs being looked at
to communicate that a fire in Salmon, Idaho, does not make all of
Idaho burn, and there are other parts of our State or other States
that are places to go see and do?
Ms. CONLIN. Well, Senator, it goes without saying that protecting
the resource is absolutely number one, so that it continues to sus-
tain travel and tourism over the long haul. Short term, it takes co-
operation between States and cities and the Federal Government
to really provide the information not only domestically but to inter-
national audiences about the extent of the damage, so that we in-
deed are still able to attract visitors to those places that were not
impacted by the fires. So we need to really make sure that informa-
tion gets out there.
And thirdly, we need to work together cooperatively to continue
to promote our public lands. And we do that. At the Department
of Commerce, we work very closely with cities, with States, with
regions. As I pointed out earlier, we have a very ambitious program
with the Western States Policy Council to promote our gateway
communities in the Western States in key international markets
that are top international markets. So I think it is a combination
of all of these three things, Senator.
I would also like to point out that at the Department of Com-
merce we have a network of offices, domestic offices, of the United
States and foreign commercial service, both here in the United
States, as well as our commercial officers that serve in embassies
throughout the world and in our key tourism-generating markets.
These officers directly work with us in trade development at the
Department of Commerce and with the private sector in those
countries to promote the United States and certainly our public
lands, which are indeed our treasures.
Senator CRAIG. Well, I thank you for that. We are headed poten-
tially for another big fire year in the Northwestern tier, if you will.
And, of course, it just so happens that we will be beginning the bi-
centennial of Lewis and Clark. And a fair amount of that country
is the trail of Lewis and Clark. I hope we are able to connect the
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
38
dots there and disallow that potential opportunity from being de-
stroyed by fire.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Craig, let me just suggest, I think you
remember, I am sure that these witnesses remember, that Healthy
Forests, the major kickoff initiative, occurred on the floor of the
Senate because New Mexico suffered the Los Alamos fire, which I
think, I think, so far is the most expensive fire to the government,
because it was determined to be through their negligence that it
started.
Therefore, compared to your towns, the Government paid for ev-
erything. So the 380 houses that burned, the business loss, mean-
ing the case that you just described, was actually paid. They filed
their claims. They had three claims offices, just like an insurance
company. And the companies would have cost over $1 billion to pay
everybody what they had suffered. It was huge in terms of the
acreage that was burned, but nothing like a million acres, the
things you have seen.
Senator CRAIG. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I believe that what I haveand as a result, so
you will understand, we went to the floor. And the concern, the
burning concern, was the urban interface issue, because that was
a perfect example. We almost, through an urban interface fire,
burned down Los Alamos National Laboratory. It happened that at
least there was that muchthe laboratories were insulated by
many, many hundreds of yards, but their buildings were not. So
significant buildings, none of which were dangerous, burned. The
laboratory suffered something like $230 million in losses for build-
ing structures and the like.
When we went to the floor, we decided that it was time to man-
date that the Government determine where the urban interface sit-
uations were in the country. You all know now. You have gone
through the exercise twice, I am told by my staff, in determining
where they are. You are finishing that up so that States and local-
ities and you all know this is a dangerous place. The urban inter-
face is not yet completed and taken care of. And you are moving
where you can in those areas.
I believe that one thing you can do that we can look at in terms
of your kinds of questions is to see whether or not the things that
are available for a disaster are all available. We find that some-
times you declare a disaster from a hurricane, and you get certain
kinds of relief. But you do not get the same kind of relief if it is
a forest fire. And I think it would be good to look and make sure
that it is just as broad.
Secondly, just the presence of the Federal Government to help
with tourism seems to me to be very important, if these people are
all suffering, hurting. At least somebody comes there and says, We
are going to help. And I would think that that is done by you and
others, as you suffer the problem. I do not think we can write that
into law. Either they care and are worried and help or they do not.
From my standpoint, the urban interface remains a huge prob-
lem, because we canif we burn down, as a comparison, we burn
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
39
350 houses in Los Alamos, or whatever the number, every big fire
burned 80 or 90 or 100 houses.
Senator CRAIG. We took down 2,000 houses last year.
The CHAIRMAN. See, and these houses, nobody paid you for them.
So those are huge, huge losses to the individual across the country.
And I think the disaster relief might be looked at, not in terms of
paying everybody for their loss, because the government then
would be the insurer of all of this, but it would seem to me that
maybe you can broaden the disaster relief to some extent there.
And it might be helpful.
Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is a valid point. The
loss of a home, obviously homes are insured. They have fire insur-
ance. And so I agree with you there. I think we need to be very
careful that we do not offset it so people living in those environ-
ments say, Well, gee, we do not need insurance because the Gov-
ernment will come in and take care of us.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And we do not need to clean it up either,
if it burns.
Senator CRAIG. Right. But what we could not determine, but
what was very determinable, at least when I went to outfitters and
guides and said, How many cancellations did you have as a result
of the fire? it was Well, we had X number. And here they were,
and here they are canceled. And that cost us so much money.
And we say to a small business, How much business have you
done on the average over the last 3 years versus how much did you
not do this year? Those are very real figures that are document-
able. And they are not covered in many instances. FEMA does not
pick them up.
You are right, though, if it were a hurricane, then that would be
a different environment.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I would suggest to you, and it may not be
worth it at this late date, but I would suggest to you that the files
of the settlements with the businessmen and businesswomen of Los
Alamos might reveal a formula that might be more helpful than
what FEMA is currently doing, because they went through months
of arguing with the business community. And they paid almost all
of them for some business loss; not joyously, not without rancor.
But there was a formula eventually that her little business in jew-
elry got some money, and his restaurant got something. And it
might be that that formula should be transferred over to be applied
more generally.
Senator CRAIG. We will take a look at that. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me close my questioning by suggesting that
we are going to remain interested here in this committee for the
time I am chairman with common sense approaches to your prob-
lems. That is, where are you running into impediments to do things
that make sense, that are common sense? And we want to try for,
in spite of laws that say to the contrary, Where is the common
sense solution? And then if it requires that we seriously debate
why the law is not applying common sense, we are glad to do that.
We are glad to try to amend laws that are causing conduct to be
totally without a common sense approach to our forests.
If we do not do that, it seems to me that we are going to get no-
where except one group is going to blame another group for what
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
40
Senator Craig has described as the gradual, if not more sudden, de-
mise of what used to be great forests. I can tell you, I am not from
a State like Senator Craigs, although mine has plenty of forests
and plenty of beautiful things to be seen. But when I was young,
the forests were beautiful places to just go walk, because you could
walk, you could see. As a matter of fact, I think I have told Senator
Craig, as a member of an Italian community in Albuquerque, we
used to visit regularly the mountains around Albuquerque because
mushrooms just like mushrooms from Italy grew in those beautiful
forests. And you could go up on a Sunday and they were there.
Most of the forests now are so cluttered tree to tree that you
could not walk, if you wanted to. And those areI think those are
the kind of real examples of what has happened that is not what
we would like to be the case 10 or 15 years from now.
With that, I am going to yield to Senator Murkowski for her
questions. And then we will recess.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just very, very quickly, and this is probably best directed to As-
sistant Secretary Scarlett. This is as the fire management plans
might relate to wilderness. It is my understanding that if you have
a wilderness area, there is nothing motorized that comes in. You
cannot bring that motorboat in. You cannot bring that chainsaw in.
So if we have a spruce bark beetle infestation and we have whole
areas of a wilderness area, an area that has been designated as
wilderness, then any kind of management plan would not apply.
Am I correct in that?
Ms. SCARLETT. I would respond to that in two ways. For the most
part, first in Alaska, you have forests that are in what we call con-
dition class one. That is, they are in their natural healthy condition
for the most part. And that is, of course, a great benefit and virtue
of Alaska.
On the other hand, as you pointed out, you do also have some
communities increasingly that are wildland urban interface com-
munities. And where you have what might be a natural cyclical
problem with disease or otherwise, it might then start to affect that
community.
What we are trying to do in terms of our prioritizing, as has been
discussed today with treatments, is not go out in those areas where
the forests are generally in healthy condition and have their cyclic
patterns of behavior and are not near communities, but rather to
target our efforts in areas right around communities, such as one
that you did describe, which is in somewhich is experiencing
some problems with infestations.
And so certainly that WUI community would be among those po-
tentially eligible for us going in and doing some treatments to help
to prevent the risk of loss of property, loss of lives, and further en-
vironmental damage.
Senator MURKOWSKI. You used the word treatments.
Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. That is our lingo for going in and actually
removing the diseased timber, removing underbrush. And it is im-
portant to note that this is not simply about thinning and leaving
stuff there so that it actually further creates a prospect for con-
flagration, but going in, thinning, pulling out the material.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
41
Now that will not treat the disease, it is important to note. But
what that can do is prevent the potential kind of exponential
spread. But again, I do want to underscore that we are talking
about WUI areas here, not outright wilderness areas.
Senator MURKOWSKI. I guess that is a concern that I have in the
Chugach National Forest. This is an area where certain parts of it
are being considered as wilderness designation. That national for-
est happens to be adjacent to quite a handful of population centers.
Now they are not population centers like the good Senator from
New Mexico was talking about. But these are communities, the lit-
tle community of Moose Pass, very, very, very concerned that there
will be a fire. And if we have not in fact done something to address
just the fuel buildup there, then their communities, their homes,
their livelihoods are going to be at risk.
There is a concern here that: Well, what happens if, in fact, we
have gone from a situation where it is just the Chugach National
Forest to an area that has now been designated as wilderness? And
I want to make sure that my constituents are not at risk because
we have decided to take a hands-off approach because it has now
been designated as wilderness.
It is one thing if we have healthy forests. But as I mentioned
earlier, in many, many parts of the State, these are sick and dis-
eased trees because of an infestation thatwe have not brought
this upon the forests. It has not been due to the fault of anybody
living in that area. It is just a sickness that is traveling through
our forests.
I want to be assured that in fact these residents that are living
near these areas are not going to be at risk either for life or prop-
erty injury.
Thanks for your comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much.
I am always amazed and have watched Alaska over the years,
that during the peak of the fire season when thousands of acres
will be burning somewhere in Alaska, by the character of that
State. And of course now, as it populates more, as you have said,
obviously it becomes even critically more important, even though
the destruction of potential resource value timber is ongoing.
Senator MURKOWSKI. I just have to share a comment. This sum-
mer we had some terrible fires out in the interior. And a constitu-
ent who had a mining operation, a significant mining operation
that was in the path of the fire, contacted me and said, What can
be done to save my property, my assets? His life savings had been
invested in it. And we were told by the Forest Service that the plan
was to hope for a change in the wind. And, you know, the good
news for him and for his family was that the wind changed.
The CHAIRMAN. The wind changed.
Senator MURKOWSKI. But he has the pictures that show just
where that wind changed. And it was too close for comfort. I appre-
ciate the opportunity to have this discussion this morning.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank you all very much. Obviously, this
committee remains extremely concerned about your preparedness
and your ability to be prepared and to continue to be and the de-
ployment of resources not only to fight the fire or to become
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
42
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
43
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
APPENDIX
RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
46
in areas that have burned heavily, such as the Bitterroot Valley in Montana did in
2000, or the Show Low, Arizona area did in 2002?
Answer. As I mentioned before, Arizonas fires were the worst in a century. Data
is still being calculated, and the continued passage of time will tell a more complete
story. Based on the information Ive alluded to there is no question that the tour-
ism-based industries and local economies have been negatively impacted by the
fires. In 2002, Arizonas lodging, national and state park visitation reports show
sluggish performance in the specific areas affected by the fires.
The Arizona Department of Revenue saw declines in lodging and lodging tax reve-
nue in 2002 compared to 2001. Sales tax and employment were also adversely af-
fected. Arizona national and state parks reported state-wide visitation declines with
the parks closest to the fires reporting the steepest declines.
The Arizona Office of Tourism reported that wildfires might have affected travel
decisions for national park visitors. The Rodeo-Chedeski fire and media reports of
wildfire activity likely affected visitor patterns and discouraged travel to some of
these areas.
Question 5. Many of these fires cause land disturbances and result in trails and
roads being closed due to the danger of falling trees, sometimes for several years
after the fire. In your experience, when the tourist cannot access the areas that they
had repeatedly used before, and they have to shift their recreation activities to other
areas, what happens in the long runare they likely to come back to the burned
area, or will they simply develop a new favorite area to visit in the future?
Answer. A lot depends upon the areas ability to rebuild and recover from the fire.
Part of the recovery also includes providing information to the public that they are
open for business again. While this is happening, many frequent travelers may form
an appreciation for a new favorite destination at the expense of the old site. So,
some of the loyalty could be lost. In contrast, with the rebirth of the destination and
an aggressive campaign to attract visitors, a new clientele will hopefully be devel-
oped. The key is having the resources to rebuild and inform potential visitors about
the attraction or destination. Unfortunately, many states lose the needed resources
to fighting fires.
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
47
threat of ash and sediment from wildfires clogging their ditches, reservoirs, and
drinking water intakes in the middle of this drought.
Question. Mr. Tenny, I would be interested to learn a little more about how the
Forest Service is working with local communities to guard against future water con-
tamination due to fires, as well as what they are doing now to rehabilitate those
affected watersheds.
From your response, the Forest Service seems to really appreciate the effects fire
has on existing municipal water supplies and is willing to work with the state.
Recognizing the drought conditions that the West, in particular, is facing, I think
that it is more important than ever for the Forest Service to commit to work with
the states in good faith on water issues. Unfortunately, some in the Forest Service
have tried to impose bypass flows in our national forests, and circumvent working
through state instream flow programs. You are aware that bypass flows are esti-
mated to cause a reduction in the dry-year water supplies available from water fa-
cilities on National Forest lands by 50 to 80 percent?
Isnt the Forest Services official policy to work with the states, pursuant to state
law in administering water?
Can I tell city officials in Colorado, as well as farmers and ranchers, that you and
the Forest Service, in general, are committed to working through the state instream
flow program and eliminating the perception of threats to existing water supplies
by imposing bypass flows?
Question. Colorado experienced its worst fire season on record last summer. My
compliments go to the brave men and women who risked their lives to fight these
fires. We also learned some lessons last summer and maybe you can tell me what
adjustments we are making in anticipation of this years fire season.
Particularly, how do we use our local resources in suppression operations?
How do we follow up with our communities to make sure we are reducing the
risk?
One other thing, with the drought and the forest conditions what can we do better
during the first 72 hours of a fire?
Question. Wildfires always seem to bring a lot of attention to the forest manage-
ment problems facing our national parks. However, interest and coverage of these
problems seem to wane as the fires die out.
In fact, remediation and rehabilitation in the aftermath of a fire that is often the
most costly and difficult part of the process. Reseeding, erosion control, and preser-
vation of archeological sites are costly and beyond the budget and resources of most
national parks.
Parks in my home state of Colorado received monies through the Burned Area
Restoration Program, but still are several million dollars short of funding to save
resources damaged in last summers fires.
How are you going to handle these budget shortfalls?
Question. Every state is facing significant fiscal challenges as they grapple with
budget shortfalls. Tourism is Colorados second largest source of revenue, contribut-
ing approximately $7 billion in a normal year.
Unfortunately, the 2002 fire season was not a normal year. Although hard num-
bers are still being gathered, the Hayman, Missionary Ridge, and other fires cost
the state of Colorado billions in tourist revenue.
In response to the fires in 2000 and 2002 park visits dropped 40% in the months
of July and August in Mesa Verde Park in Durango. Closure due to wildfires re-
duced their overall visitations by almost 30% for the year. Correspondingly, the sur-
rounding community of Durango suffered a 26% drop in tourist-related revenues.
Clearly, this reduction in visits reduces their revenues and overall projected budget.
We have then what amounts to a triple hit to the Parks available fundsthose
used to fight fires, those used for cleaning up the damage caused by fire, and a loss
of overall revenue because of closures due the fire.
What sorts of plans are in place to handle this type of unplanned funding deficit?
Question. I would like to commend the efforts of Mesa Verde Park Superintend-
ent, Larry Weise, and his staff for saving park resources, structures, and most im-
portantly, lives, in last years devastating Missionary Ridge fire near my hometown
of Ignacio, CO.
Obviously, as fires are raging, there is not time to draft and complete Environ-
mental Impact Statements (EIS) for fire-fighting efforts. I am wondering what kind
of flexibility you are going to give parks in the future in dealing with wildfires when
sufficient time does not exist to complete the EIS process?
Question. As you know, thinning projects have been very successful in my home
state of Colorado. Partnerships between parks and local communities have particu-
larly been effective in reducing fire risk in the critical urban interface areas. How
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
48
do community-based thinning programs fit into the Park Services wildfire reduction
plans in the future?
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
49
QUESTIONS FOR DAVE TENNY FROM SENATOR DOMENICI
Question 1. Please provide the Energy and Natural Resource Committee a list of
all known major insect and disease outbreaks (over 300 acres in size) by State. In-
clude data on the rate of spread, what steps have been taken to control the spread,
sanitize the infestation, or salvage the timber killed by the pathogen. Additionally,
provide data on each project including NEPA documents that have been started and
when they are expected to be completed, and finally please indicate when each
project is expected to be implemented (a copy of the desired format is attached addi-
tional information can be added).
Question 2. What steps can the Federal government take to be good neighbors,
before the start of this coming fire season, in order treat federal stands that are
adjacent to those areas target by Governor Daviss Emergency declaration?
Question 3. I would also like to know what we can do in other areas where we
have huge insect and disease outbreaks to clean them up before they burn?
Question 4. I have seen a number of reports on some of the damage that was done
to Mexican and Northern Spotted Owl activity centers in Arizona and Oregon last
year. Can you expand upon that information for some of the other areas that have
burned over the last three years and some of the other threatened or endangered
species habitats that have been impacted?
Question 5. Has the agency made any systematic nationwide attempt to assess the
damage, and the impacts of that damage to Threatened & Endangered Species,
caused by these large catastrophic fires over the last decade?
Question 6. At least twice in the last three years we have seen relatively small
rain storms after fires that have done significant damage to the burned watersheds.
The one I am most familiar with is the Viveash Fire in 2000 in New Mexico, when
rains caused terrible damage to those watersheds. This past year after the Mission-
ary Ridge Fire, outside Bayfield and Durango, Colorado, rains did significant dam-
age as well. Could your people put together a study to examine the short and long-
term costs of having to deal with these rain-after-fire events over the last decade?
Question 7. Please describing the air pollution problems that these fires cause,
and what your people do, in relation to the health of the fire fighters, when they
are exposed to these pollutants day-after-day?
Question 8. I understand there have been a number of instances over the last cou-
ple of years that have caused State environmental protection agencies to consider
evacuation of communities due to poor air quality during these large project fires.
What are the costs of this type of air pollution on these communities and on your
fire fighters?
Question 9. How many acres of planned hazardous fuels treatments and burned
area rehabilitation and restoration projects had to be terminated in 2002 because
funding for those activities was transferred to fire suppression?
Question 10. How many years will it take to treat the total number of acres cur-
rently in condition class 3 status under a best-case-scenario analysis?
Question 11. Wildfires are getting bigger and more expensive to fight. The 2002
wildfires cost both the USDA and DOI over $1.4 billion and scorched over 7.1 mil-
lion acres. The National Fire Plan is designed to address wildfire threats on all
lands, public and private. What is the Administration doing to provide wildfire as-
sistance for State and private lands? What are the needs?
Question 12. How are State and local firefighting resources integrated into federal
wildfire suppression response?
Question 13. Are State and local officials integrated into the decision making proc-
ess?
Question 14. I see from Forest Service harvest data that in the late 1980s you
harvested 650,000 and 960,000 acres of forest a year in some type of treatment.
During those years the agency was very focused on getting insect and diseased
killed trees harvested and removed before they were hit with fires. In 2001, that
level fell to less than 250,000 acres. Now the Forest Service is having a devil of a
time getting these areas treated before they are hit by fire. What has changed since
the 1985-1990 period and today? It seems to me that the same laws, and many of
the same regulations that were used then are still in place. If that is the case, then
what has caused the change in the number of acres?
Question 15. Given the Administrations policy initiatives and the new steward-
ship contracting authority that youve been provided, is it possible to increase treat-
ment levels in these high risk stands above the levels we saw treated in the 1980s?
Question 16. What is the Forest Services policy on priority when it comes to large
insect infestationsdo they still receive the highest priority for treatment?
Question 17. In the past the Forest Service has acquired the equipment from
DOD. I understand the program to do this was changed last year, and the FS and
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
50
the States are no longer eligible to receive equipment during the initial screening
phase of this process. As a result, there is great difficulty in finding suitable equip-
ment to provide to the local and volunteer fire departments. What is the Forest
Services position on this issue?
Question 18. Would you support legislation to restore the Forest Service and your
State partners to the initial screening phase for this excess equipment that is no
longer needed by the Department of Defense?
VerDate 11-SEP-98 11:20 May 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87-020 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3