[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FOREST HEALTH CRISIS IN THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Monday, September 22, 2003, in Lake Arrowhead, California
__________
Serial No. 108-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
89-420 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Monday, September 22, 2003....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Lewis , Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bialecki, Hugh, Ph.D., President, Save Our Forest Association 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Blackwell, Jack, Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Bonnicksen, Thomas M., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Forest
Science, Texas A&M University.............................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Grindstaff, P. Joseph, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority.......................................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Hansberger, Hon. Dennis, Chairman, San Bernardino County
Board of Supervisors....................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Jensen, Jay, Legislative Director, Western Forestry
Leadership Coalition....................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Phillips, Eddie, Americans for Forest Access................. 76
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Rosenblum, Richard M., Senior Vice President, Transmission
and Distribution, Southern California Edison............... 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 75
Tuttle, Andrea E., State Forester, California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection............................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Watson, Jay Thomas, Director, Wildland Fire Program, The
Wilderness Society......................................... 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
West, Allan J., Member, National Association of Forest
Service Retirees........................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE FOREST HEALTH CRISIS IN SAN BERNARDINO
NATIONAL FOREST
----------
Monday, September 22, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Lake Arrowhead, California
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in the
Ballroom of Lake Arrowhead Resort, Lake Arrowhead, California,
Hon. Richard W. Pombo [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Gibbons, Walden and
Cardoza.
Also Present: Representative Lewis.
The Chairman. The Committee on Resources will come to
order. The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
forest health crisis in San Bernardino National Forest.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. Today, the Committee on Resources will take a
closer look at one of the most prominent and ominous case
studies in this nation's growing forest health crisis. As we
will hear from an impression slate of witnesses today, Lake
Arrowhead and her sister communities are teetering on the edge
of catastrophe, ransacked by Bark Beetles, ravaged by drought
and deprived of meaningful management for too long, this
region's dangerously overgrown forests are an ill-placed
lightning strike or an errant campfire away from the kind of
catastrophic wild fire that has become all too common out West.
By now the consequences of large-scale catastrophic wild
fire are known to everyone. Communities are displaced or worse.
This summer, the mountain community of Summer Haven, Arizona
tragically lost several hundred homes to a fast moving fire, a
hotly destructive wildfire. Old growth forest ecosystems are
annihilated.
In a field hearing earlier this summer, this Committee
heard testimony from a Government witness who testified that
Colorado's Hayman fire caused almost 100 percent mortality in
several thousand acre stand of centuries old Ponderosa Pine.
Many of the cathedral-like old growth that were destroyed were
between 300 and 600 years old, among the oldest trees in the
American Southwest.
Wildlife habitat is decimated on an enormous scale. Last
summer's Biskit fire in Oregon scorched over 80,000 acres of
old growth habitat to the endangered Northern Spotted Owl.
Arizona's Rodeo and Chedeski fire sterilized several
hundred thousand acres of prime habitat for the federally
protected Mexican Spotted Owl. These horror stories about the
impact of wildfire on wildlife are far from unique or isolated.
Watersheds that provide clean drinking water to millions in
the West are plundered by the mud, soot and ash that flow in
the blackened wake of large wildfires. The Hayman fire dumped
more mud and other contaminants into Denver's primary source of
drinking water than had been deposited in the critical water
source over the previous decade. In addition to jeopardizing
the water source of millions, post-fire erosion and
sedimentation also does irreversible damage to federally
protected fish and other riparian life forms.
As we will hear today, Southern California' most important
watershed and the fish and wildlife that rely on it for their
habitat, face similar risks if bold and immediate action isn't
taken.
Finally, each summer many wildland fire fighters lose their
life. In the days just prior to a hearing in Congressman
Walden's posted in Oregon last month, several battle weary fire
fighters lost their life while returning home late one evening
from fighting a wildfire. These are the tragic human and
environmental consequences of the West's forest health crisis.
Clearly, this disaster status quo is no longer acceptable.
That is why the House of Representatives passed the
bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act earlier this summer.
This bipartisan bill would streamline the cumbersome
bureaucratic procedures that currently force many projects like
those desperately needed here in San Bernardino to endure a
decisionmaking process that usually takes between three and 5
years. The slow-moving process is the primary reason that
Federal foresters treat only about 2 million of the 190 million
acres of forest lands at unnatural risk of wildfire each year.
When catastrophe is imminent, such a glacial decisionmaking
process is wholly unacceptable. Our bipartisan legislation
takes a balance and thoughtful approach to fixing this
obviously broken process.
As a final point, I would note that one of the largely
unheralded benefits of our broadly supported healthy forests
legislation is that it will make the project planning process
significantly more cost effective, thus freeing up tens of
millions of dollars for forest health projects in the San
Bernardino National Forest and elsewhere. The Chief of the
Forest Service has said that his Agency's line officers spend
over 50 percent of their time, energy and resources on
planning, paper shuffling and other bureaucratic functions, a
particularly shocking number in the current fiscal environment.
A report published by the Forest Service last year
concluded that streamlining the Forest Service's administrative
procedures in ways like these outlined in Healthy Forests
legislation could free up $100 million for more worthy on-the-
ground pursuits, like protecting our forests and communities
from catastrophic wildfire.
While substantial, these cost savings won't be enough in
and of themselves. That is why the President and supporters of
the Healthy Forest legislation of Congress have vowed to fund
this program in a significant way, when enacted. That is a
commitment I share and a commitment I look forward to acting on
after the President signs this important environmental
legislation into law.
It is with that I thank our witnesses and those in the
audience for joining us today and I look forward to this
important hearing. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that our
colleague, Mr. Jerry Lewis, be allowed to sit on the dais and
participation in the hearing, without objection.
With that, I'd like to recognize our colleague and our host
for the event, Mr. Lewis.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
Today the Committee on Resources will take a closer look at one of
the most prominent and ominous case studies in this nation's growing
forest health crisis. As we will here from an impressive slate of
witnesses today, Lake Arrowhead and her sister communities are
teetering on the edge of catastrophe. Ran-sacked by bark-beetles,
ravished by drought, and deprived of meaningful management for too
long, this region's dangerously overgrown forests are an ill-placed
lightening strike or an errant campfire away from the kind of
catastrophic wildfire that has become all-too-common out West.
By now, the consequences of large-scale catastrophic wildfire are
known to everyone.
Communities are displaced--or worse. This summer, the mountain
community of Summerhaven, Arizona, tragically lost several hundred
homes to a fast moving and hotly destructive wildfire.
Old growth forest ecosystems are annihilated. At a field hearing
earlier this summer, this Committee heard testimony from a government
witness who testified that Colorado's Hayman fire caused almost 100
percent mortality in a several thousand acre stand of centuries-old
ponderosa pine. Many of the cathedral-like old growth that were
destroyed were between 300 and 600 years old, among the oldest trees in
the American Southwest.
Wildlife habitat is decimated on an enormous scale. Last summer's
Biscuit Fire in Oregon scorched over 80,000 acres of old growth habitat
for the endangered Northern Spotted Owl. Arizona's Rodeo-Chediski fire
sterilized several hundred thousand acres of prime habitat for the
federally protected Mexican Spotted Owl. These horror stories about the
impact of wildfire on wildlife are far from unique or isolated.
Watersheds that provide clean drinking water to millions in the
West are plundered by the mud, soot and ash that flow in the blackened
wake of large wildfires. The Hayman fire dumped more mud and other
contaminants into Denver's primary source of drinking water than had
been deposited in that critical water source over the previous decade.
In addition to jeopardizing the water sources of millions, post-fire
erosion and sedimentation also does irreversible damage to federally
protected fish and other riparian life forms. As we will here today,
southern California's most important watershed, and the fish and
wildlife that rely on it for habitat, face similar risks if bold and
immediate action isn't taken.
Finally, each summer, many wildland firefighters lose their life.
In the days just prior to a hearing Congressman Walden hosted in Oregon
last month, several battle-weary firefighters lost their life while
returning home late one evening from fighting a wildfire.
These are the tragic human and environmental consequences of the
West's forest health crisis. Clearly, this disastrous status quo is no
longer acceptable.
That is why the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan
Healthy Forests Restoration Act earlier this summer. This bipartisan
bill would streamline the cumbersome bureaucratic procedures that
currently force thinning projects, like those desperately needed here
on the San Bernardino, to endure a decision making process that usually
takes between 3 and 5 years. This slow moving process is the primary
reason that federal foresters treat only about 2 million of the 190
million acres of forestlands at unnatural risk to wildfire each year.
When catastrophe is imminent, such a glacial decision making process is
wholly unacceptable. Our bipartisan legislation takes a balanced and
thoughtful approach to fixing this obviously broken process.
As a final point, I would note that one of the largely unheralded
benefits of our broadly supported Healthy Forests legislation is that
it will make the project planning process significantly more cost
effective, thus freeing up tens of millions of dollars for forest
health projects on the San Bernardino National Forest and elsewhere.
The Chief of the Forest Service has said that his agency's line
officers spend over 50 percent of their time, energy and resources on
planning, paper-shuffling and other bureaucratic functions--a
particularly shocking number in the current fiscal environment. A
report published by the Forest Service last year concluded that
streamlining the Forest Service's administrative procedures, in ways
like those outlined in the Healthy Forests legislation, could free-up
$100 million for more worthy on-the-ground pursuits, like protecting
our forests and communities from catastrophic wildfire.
While substantial, these cost savings won't be enough in-and-of
themselves. That is why the President and supporters of the bipartisan
Healthy Forests legislation in Congress have vowed to fund this program
in a significant way, if enacted. That is a commitment I share, and a
commitment I look forward to acting on after the President signs this
important environmental legislation into law.
It is with that that I thank our witnesses and those in the
audience for joining us today. I look forward to this important
discussion.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee.
We'd all like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation
to the Committee and the Members for coming to beautiful
downtown Lake Arrowhead and the San Bernardino National Forest.
This is truly one of the most magnificent recreation areas in
the entire country and the forest itself has been noted for its
beauty for decade after decade. And as a result of that, we
have visitors who come from all over the country particularly
in these large numbers from Southern California.
In recent years, however, the Lord has not exactly been
with us, for drought has been present for about 5 years. With
that, the Bark Beetle which is ever present in the forest has
had its own way and as you can see from these pictures and I
know that you have seen it from the air, your staff flew over
by way of helicopter yesterday, literally millions of trees
standing beautiful, beautiful pine trees standing dead.
As you know, over a number of years and it takes many years
to remove these trees, there's bound to be fire. A lightning
strike just at any moment could lead to a devastating fire, but
I must mention to you that a rather amazing cooperative effort
has gone together in our region and our station in connection
with this crisis.
About three or 4 weeks ago we had a relatively minor fire.
It covered about 1500 acres. If everybody had not been ready,
willing and capable of responding the way they did that fire
could have reached the forest and we might not be having this
hearing today.
I might mention in connection with that, a lot of people
were evacuated from their home and I want to mention that Wayne
Austin manages this wonderful facility and Mr. Austin opened
the doors of the facility, charging those who needed to stay
like Motel 6 rates, and literally accommodated many, many of
those who were otherwise without a home. Phenomenal response
across the community to this crisis.
So far your Committee, as well as the Congress, has stepped
up its level of interest and concern. The support from your
staff, I just cannot express enough appreciation for. The
Secretary of Agriculture came to the region and gave it a high
priority in terms of the Administration's beginning to
understand how severe it is.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your
allowing me to be with you. The witnesses are the most
important, but I wanted to mention just one more thing, my
friends from Lake Arrowhead and the mountains who are the
audience. The Chairman told me that he sent me a notice,
somehow much staff didn't let me know it, that is, on few
hearings where we're doing real work, the Chairman does not
wear a tie and he warned me of that according to his statement
earlier, so in deference to my Chairman, thank you very much.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. I don't wear it unless I have to. Well, thank
you very much. Obviously, this is an issue that Jerry has
brought to the Committee's attention many times in the past and
we've talked quite a bit about the condition in the forest that
he represents and it's our pleasure to have the opportunity to
be here and to learn more from the people out here on the
ground.
I'd like to recognize Congressman Cardoza for an opening
statement.
Mr Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to not read
my prepared opening statement because I think what you've said
previously really does cover this for the most part. I'd just
like to thank you for the work you've done in trying to save
important national forests like this one and the work that this
Committee has done. And also thanking Mr. Lewis for bringing
this to our attention.
I think what you've talked about, about the healthy forest
building, a bipartisan bill, it should be a bipartisan bill.
You can't drive up here and see the devastation in this forest
and see the pictures that are on the wall without thinking that
something serious needs to be done and that we need to take
some correction action. So thank you for the work you've done
and I look forward to the testimony here today.
The Chairman. Thank you. Congressman Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Again, Mr. Chairman, I will also submit my
written testimony for the record, only to reiterate what every
one of us in this room knows by being here today is that the
demands are no longer casual with what we have before us in
this forest health problem and crisis. They are no longer
casually to be looked upon and put off for a time. They demand
action. They demand action now, not later and you can see that
if we don't do something the rapidity of which this disease and
the dead trees will expand throughout not only this forest, but
all forests, will certainly take what we know and what we love
as our national forest system and put it into the charcoal bin
because any fire will rapidly through this, taking lives,
taking homes, taking property, taking recreational opportunity,
taking the ecosystem which supports many of us along with it.
So Mr. Chairman, I think the urgency by which we must
address the health, not only Southern California's forests, but
all the forests in this country, demand rapid action and I want
to thank you for your leadership on this. I want to thank you
for having this hearing and I look forward of our witnesses
today and I would like to welcome them when they appear.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Congressman Walden?
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank Congressman Lewis for inviting us to come to his District
to see this great part of the world. I also want to point out I
got the memo, I read the memo, I didn't wear the tie so your
memos are always noted.
Mr. Chairman, as one of the co-sponsors of the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act, I'm pleased that we are here today to
see first hand what other forests around the country are
facing.
I represent a District in Oregon, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, that suffered from severe fires last year. Mine and
part of a colleague's of mine saw over 500,000 acres burn in
one fire alone, the Bisket fire you referenced in your
testimony, consuming 80,000 acres of Spotted Owl habitat, but
burning more than 500,000 acres of Federal forest lands,
costing taxpayers $150 million to extinguish.
This summer, we had another fire in the heart of my
District that we all smelled the smoke of when we had a hearing
in Redmond. That fire, the B&B Complex, has now consumed 91,000
acres and worse, it has destroyed areas that go up into the
watersheds.
There was an AP story this weekend pointing out that a
hydrologist, Kerry McCallum, says that B&B was higher in the
watershed than the other fires in the area and therefore, this
area is going to suffer from extraordinary erosion and
obviously the mudflows like we heard about in Colorado.
This has to stop. We all know that if this was our
backyard, we'd go out and prune and thin and clean up the dead
and dying timber. And the problem we face from the Federal
Government standpoint is that so many of these projects, when
proposed by the Forest Service are appealed by a limited
number, a handful of interest groups. And in fact, General
Accounting Office found that 59 percent of the appealable
thinning projects in America's forests were appealed, 59
percent.
The Chief of the Forest Service has told us before that his
people have to do five or six alternatives knowing full well,
for every project they want to do, knowing full well that most
of those alternatives will never be seriously considered.
So we're wasting a lot of time and money while our forests
burn and as a native Oregonian I prefer my forests green and
healthy, not black and dead. These are our American forests. If
this was public housing, I think we'd be accused, as stewards,
of being slumlords because these forests are disease-ridden,
bug-infested and subject to catastrophic fire.
And so we have to do better. We have to change the law so
that our professional foresters can do the work they need to
do, so we have healthy, green sustainable forests for
generations to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Thank you. As I introduce our first Panel of
witnesses, I would state that this is an official hearing of
Congress and one of the things that this Committee has tried to
do over the past several months is to be much more active in
getting Congress outside of Washington and going out and
learning for ourselves, looking at what's happening and hearing
from people who may normally not have an opportunity to testify
before a congressional hearing.
We've had a number of field hearings all over the country
and this is part of that effort, but it is an official hearing
of Congress. As a result of that, I would request that the
audience maintain the decorum that is necessary and required by
House rules during the hearing. As part of that, you will hear
a number of witnesses today. Some you will agree, some you
won't agree with. But I would ask that the audience not show
any favoritism or negative to any of the witnesses that are
here today in order to maintain the decorum here. So I would
request that you not show responses from the audience.
I'd like to introduce our first Panel of witnesses. We have
Mr. Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest
Region, U.S. Forest Service; accompanied by Mr. Gene Zimmerman,
Forest Supervisor, San Bernardino National Forest, U.S. Forest
Service.
Mr. Blackwell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JACK BLACKWELL, REGIONAL FORESTER, PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY GENE
ZIMMERMAN, FOREST SUPERVISOR, SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST,
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Blackwell. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, Members of the
Committee, Congressman Lewis, I'll submit my formal testimony
for the record and try to summarize it as quickly as I can.
We thank you for the opportunity to talk about our forest
health crisis and the urgent need to treat our national
forests. The Lake Arrowhead is at the heart of the most serious
forest health situation in California. In my 35 years of
Federal service, I have never seen a more serious situation
where human lives are so threatened by wildfire. The Department
supports the Healthy Forest Initiative and H.R. 1904, the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
Historically, the mixed conifer forest here was quite open
with mostly larger trees. A lack of natural fire or active
management has changed those conditions for the worse. The
forest is now choked with mostly smaller trees, often hundreds
per acre. The result is a tremendous buildup of hazardous
fuels. An unprecedented 4-year drought has weakened the trees
and brush allowing the Bark Beetles and disease to reach
epidemic proportions. Four hundred seventy-four thousand acres,
this is a little figure that's just been arrived at through
inventory this past week, 474,000 acres of public and private
lands are experiencing severe tree loss that poses an extreme
threat to life and property.
The mountain communities have nearly 100,000 structures
worth approximately $8 billion and 100,000 people live within
this forest boundary and 24 million live within a 2-hour drive.
Two weeks ago, not far from here, the 14,000-acre Bridge
fire forced the evacuation of 1,500 people and closed one of
three mountain community evacuation routes for over a week. The
combined response to this fire was a very successful dress
rehearsal for the fire we hope we never see. The pre-planning
work was exceptional and the fire suppression work was
outstanding. Every single person evacuated returned to their
homes safe and sound.
I believe the Healthy Forest Initiative will play a key
role in helping us avoid potential disasters such as the one
threatening San Bernardino today. It's a common sense approach
that restores forests and range land health and reduces the
threat of catastrophic fire to communities and natural
resources.
Forest health problems do not recognize ownership
boundaries. That means the public and private partnership is
essential in tackling the threat. The forest has forged such a
partnership with state and local governments and the private
sector. Two inter-agency organizations have evolved from this
partnership, one in Riverside and one in San Bernardino County.
They are called Mountain Area Safety Task forces or MAST and
have a wide range of committed partners that I have outlined in
my written testimony.
Working with local stakeholders, the MASTs have developed a
comprehensive, three-part strategy to address the public safety
and forest health issues. The strategy focuses on emergency
preparedness, protecting communities and evacuation routes and
on longer term needs. Implementing this strategy will
significantly reduce the threat to communities and natural
resources and restore healthy forest conditions. I believe this
strategy is an excellent model for other areas of the nation.
I'd like to especially acknowledge the work done by Fire
Safe Councils in relaying information to communities and in
developing community-based solutions and the contribution of
MAST partners, ESRI and Southern California Edison.
In terms of emergency preparedness, the San Bernardino
National Forest has nearly 40 percent more fire fighting
capability than it did just 3 years ago, thanks to the National
Fire Plan. Our region is also providing additional engine and
crews on an as-needed basis down here.
The California Department of Forestry has also
significantly increased their fire fighting resources and has
provided other vital support as I'm sure my colleague, Andrea
Tuttle, Director of CDF, will discuss.
The Forest Service has increased its fire prevention
resources and has redirected $3.2 million in state and private
forestry assistance that help local communities. The Forest
here has a $9 million budget this year for treating hazardous
fields. In cooperation with its partners, the priority is to
improve safety along the evacuation routes and protect
communities by reducing fields around them.
The Forest Service has projects completed or underway that
improve safety along 111 miles of evacuation routes, reduce
fuels on 12,800 acres and protect critical communication sites.
Critical work is also being expedited through special emergency
exemptions for contracting and use of categorical exclusions to
speed the planning process and the use of emergency
consultation process for ESA consultations.
The Forest Service will be taking advantage of the new
categorical exclusions the Healthy Forest Initiative has made
available. We are making good progress, but there's much more
to do. In the long run, to be successful, we must actively
manage the forest if we are to restore the forest to health,
reduce the threat of large catastrophic fires and provide long-
term protection to communities and watersheds.
That means stemming of dense stands of trees not only near
communities and along roads, but in the rest of the forest. It
will require a long-term effort, one for which the Forest is
already planning. It took years for the forest to get into the
condition that it is in and it cannot be fixed overnight.
I am very concerned that our experience on the San
Bernardino will happen again in many other areas of California.
We have millions of acres of national forest in California that
are dense and overgrown. Given the rapid growth of communities
in California's wildlands, those conditions create the
potential for some truly disastrous wildfires. This is
especially true in the Sierra Nevada.
We have seen glimpses of that future in the 2001 McNalley
fire which burned 150,000 acres in the total perimeter. It
threatened three giant Sequoia groves, several communities and
forced the evacuation of 2,000 people.
We must find other ways to actively manage the forest, stem
overcrowded stands and return the forest to health. And when
wildfires will occur, we must continue to respond quickly and
effectively.
We are making good progress in California. Thanks to
National Fire Plan funding, we have reduced fuels in almost a
quarter of million acres of California's national forests and
expect to complete another 75,000 acres this fiscal year.
Nearly two-thirds of those treatments are in the wild land
urban interface. We have made significant increases in our fire
fighting resources and over the past 2 years the Forest Service
has provided 191 grants, totaling over $11 million to local
communities and organizations to help reduce wildfire hazards.
We are proposing changes to the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan amendment that will improve our ability to reduce fuels
and protect old forests. We have already reviewed the Northwest
Forest Plan in California and are looking at changes to help
reach the goal of healthier forests more quickly there.
We look forward to using the tools provided by the Health
Forest Initiative. These will improve our ability to actively
manage forests. We continue to work closely with our Federal,
state and local partners at the forest level and throughout the
California Fire Alliance at the state level.
A number of Fire Safe Councils is growing across the state.
These community-based organizations are doing excellent work.
They're increasing the awareness of the problem and they're
helping local residents take action to reduce the risk of
wildfire to themselves and others.
As our Chief, Dale Bosworth, observed in his August
testimony to you, it will take decades of work to restore these
forests to healthy conditions, providing our society is willing
to focus on this issue over time and commit the needed
resources.
We must take a comprehensive, strategic approach and have
all the necessary tools available to actively manage the land.
We also must work cooperatively to draw on the strengths of all
involved.
I am committed to doing everything I can to avert disaster
in Southern California and to restore California's national
forests to healthy conditions. The San Bernardino National
Forest is a wake up call we all must heed.
This concludes my testimony. I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to be here today before Supervisor Zimmerman and
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:]
Statement of Jack Blackwell, Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest
Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chairman Pombo and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to talk with you about the forest health crisis we face on
the San Bernardino National Forest and the urgent need to treat our
national forests to reduce the severe threat of catastrophic wildfire.
I am also pleased that you chose Lake Arrowhead as the location for
this hearing since this community and its residents are located at the
heart of an environmental crisis. I have with me today Gene Zimmerman,
Forest Supervisor for the San Bernardino National Forest.
As the Forest Service has testified before the House of
Representatives and the Senate, the Department of Agriculture strongly
supports the President's Healthy Forests Initiative and H.R. 1904, the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
Background
At 672,000 acres, the San Bernardino National Forest is not one of
the nation's largest national forests, but with 24 million people
living within a two hour drive, it is certainly one of the nation's
most heavily used forests. It provides some of southern California's
most valuable recreational open space in an ever-expanding sea of urban
development, and it also contains otherwise dwindling habitat for
wildlife and plants, 40 of which are considered threatened or
endangered species.
The San Bernardino National Forest is going through a significant
cycle of drought-related, vegetation mortality. As of July 2003,
approximately 474,000 acres in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto
Mountains on both private and public lands were experiencing severe
tree loss, ranging from ten percent of all the trees in a given area to
100 percent. The four-year drought has weakened trees and brush
allowing bark beetles, root disease and dwarf mistletoe to reach
epidemic proportions.
Historically, this forest was fairly open, with mostly larger
trees. Today, a very different forest, one choked with mostly smaller
trees--often hundreds per acre--all competing for limited moisture and
nutrients. Much of the area is in the mixed conifer forest type in
which frequent wild fire is a natural event. However, much of this
forest has not burned in 90 to 120 years, an average of three to four
skipped fire cycles. The result is a tremendous build-up of hazardous
fuels. Using prescribed fire to reduce the fuels has been difficult
because of the risk to communities within the national forest
boundaries.
Mechanical removal of the fuels has not kept up with the fuel
build-up for several reasons. Some community covenants have restricted
landowners since the 1920's from tree removal activities on private
land within the National Forest. The Forest has not had an active
timber harvest program for nearly 10 years. There are no lumber mills
in southern California and now the current removal of dead and dying
trees is difficult and expensive.
Approximately 100,000 people live within the Forest boundary. If a
large fire occurs, it is likely to threaten the lives of many residents
and forest visitors. The mountain communities have nearly 100,000
structures, assessed by the San Bernardino County Assessors Office at
approximately $8 billion. The dead trees and vegetation mortality lead
to an increased risk of catastrophic wildfires that likely would
threaten life and property and could damage public utilities and other
infrastructure.
Two weeks ago, the 1,400 acre Bridge Fire at the foot of the
mountain forced the evacuation of 1,500 people and closed one of three
key mountain community evacuation routes for over a week. I am very
proud of the hard work of the Forest Service staff and our partners
during this fire and in the months before. Every single person
evacuated from Running Springs during the Bridge Fire was able to
return safely to their home. The pre-planning that went into fighting
this fire was exceptional and was the deciding factor in bringing that
fire to a safe end.
The President's Healthy Forest Initiative would play a key role in
helping us avoid situations such as we see on the San Bernardino
National Forest today. The initiative is based on a common-sense
approach to reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires by restoring
forest and rangeland health and ensuring the long-term safety and
health of communities and natural resources in our care.
Cooperation is Key
The forest health situation in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto
mountains does not recognize ownership boundaries or agency
responsibilities. That means a public and private partnership is
critical in providing an integrated and coordinated approach to address
the crisis Forest-wide.
The San Bernardino National Forest has forged such a partnership
with State and local government agencies and private sector. There are
two interagency organizations that evolved from that partnership, the
Riverside County and the San Bernardino County Mountain Area Safety
Task Forces or MASTs. Each MAST includes representatives from
individual agencies and organizations such as the USDA Forest Service,
California Department of Forestry (CDFFP) county fire, sheriff and
solid waste management, CalTrans, air quality management districts,
municipal fire and water districts, state and county offices of
emergency services, Environmental Systems Research (ESRI) and Southern
California Edison.
Working with stakeholders in local communities, the MASTs have
developed a comprehensive strategy to address the public safety and
forest health issues on both public and private land. The foundation of
the strategy is to collaboratively develop one plan, and then implement
the plan based on each agency's jurisdiction and resources.
Implementing this strategy will significantly reduce the threat to
people and communities as well as to the environment, and will restore
the forest to more healthy conditions. This is one of the most
extensive, pre-event planning efforts to ever take place for a national
forest and its surrounding communities. I believe it is an excellent
model of collaboration for other areas in the nation.
The MASTs strategy has three parts:
Emergency Preparedness Response--Develop and implement a
coordinated plan with other emergency response agencies which provides
for public and employee safety by identifying evacuation routes,
staging areas, and safety zones;
Fuel Reduction Around Communities and Key Evacuation
Routes--Remove extreme levels of fuel around community's public
infrastructure and key evacuation routes; and
Long-Term Planning and Treatments--Actively manage
national forest lands to improve stand vigor and restore forest health.
Encourage and assist homeowners in clearing vegetation and removing
excess trees on their property.
The contribution and dedication to the cause of all of the involved
partners is noteworthy. The generosity of ESRI and Southern California
Edison are notable examples. ESRI has provided essential technical
assistance and Geographical Information Systems software. The company
has assigned its best people to assist the MASTs efforts and has
provided computer mapping software and assistance so valuable its worth
would be difficult to calculate.
In April 2003, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
directed Southern California Edison and other utilities in the affected
counties to take action to remove trees that could fall on power lines,
recognizing the danger they pose. Southern California Edison's
contribution to removing dead and dying trees in both public and
private lands in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains alone
will be over $300 million and includes reimbursing homeowners for doing
this work.
The forest health partnerships on the San Bernardino National
Forest go beyond financial commitments. Firesafe Councils are playing
an essential role in relaying information to communities and thousands
of interested citizens, and in developing community-based solutions and
priorities. The MASTs rely heavily on their help. The San Bernardino
National Forest Association's Fire Education Volunteers and Volunteer
Fire Lookouts, and CDF's Volunteers in Prevention provide countless
hours and effort dedicated to educating the public about fire
prevention. All of these groups are vital to the public understanding
and support necessary for the overall long-term success of the
strategy.
Emergency Preparedness Response
Southern California wildland firefighting capability is already
considered to be one of the highest in the country on a ``normal'' fire
year. Since 2001, fire suppression resources on the San Bernardino have
increased by nearly 50 percent as a result of the National Fire Plan,
providing additional aircraft, engines and crews. Moreover, fire
suppression resources from other national forests are rotated through
San Bernardino National Forest as they are needed. The CDFFP has
increased their fire fighting resources by 25 percent in southern
California. CDFFP has also supplied a crew to assist making evacuation
routes safer, and is providing direct assistance to private landowners.
This year the Forest Service to date has redirected $3.2 million in
State Fire Assistance and Community Protection/Community Assistance
funding for wildfire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction for
communities in the San Bernardino National Forest areas. In an attempt
to reduce human-caused fire ignitions, the Forest has also increased
the fire prevention workforce and supplemented that workforce with
additional resources such as volunteers and grassroots organizations.
Fuel Reduction Around Communities and Key Evacuation Routes
The San Bernardino National Forest has also been approved for $9
million in hazardous fuels treatment for the current fiscal year. The
San Bernardino National Forest, in cooperation with its state and local
partners, is moving forward with work to remove dead trees along
evacuation routes and reduce fuel hazards. The San Bernardino National
Forest has five projects underway or completed that will help make 111
miles of roads safer to use as evacuation routes. It has 13 fuel
reduction projects underway or completed that treat 11,600 acres, and
is in the planning stages for two more projects covering 1, 200 acres.
These projects will enhance protection of local communities and homes.
Four projects are underway that provide added protection for critical
communication sites.
The San Bernardino National Forest is expediting this critical work
in several ways, requesting and receiving a special exemption to
shorten the contracting process. The San Bernardino National Forest has
worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a Memorandum
of Understanding to expedite the consultation process and has been
using the emergency consultation process and timelines whenever
possible.
The San Bernardino National Forest has used categorical exclusions
contained in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures
for timber stand and wildlife habitat improvement to expedite
environmental review on seven projects and decisions issued before
March 10, 2003, that have avoided sensitive species, threatened and
endangered species, and archaeological resources. In the future, the
newly finalized categorical exclusions for fuels treatments provided by
President's Healthy Forest Initiative will further increase the San
Bernardino National Forest's capability to do urgently needed fuels
treatments.
The San Bernardino National Forest has made good headway, but there
is much more to do. In 2004 the Forest will continue these types of
projects, treating additional acreage and maintaining work completed
earlier to reduce the fuel load in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
The San Bernardino National Forest is working with the communities to
design and implement demonstration projects to show what a healthy
forest really looks like.
Long-Term Planning and Treatments
During the last year, the focus of work by the MASTs has been on
meeting essential, immediate public safety needs. The San Bernardino
National Forest is now beginning to plan for the long-term work that
must be done. Active forest management is critical to improving stand
vigor, minimizing vegetation mortality, and reducing the threat of
large stand-replacement fires. That means thinning dense stands of
trees. It took a long time for the San Bernardino National Forest to
get into this unhealthy forest condition and it cannot be fixed
overnight. It will take a lot of time and effort by the Forest Service
and its partners to return the Forest to a healthier condition.
Looking Beyond the San Bernardino NF
I am very concerned that what we are seeing on the San Bernardino
National Forest will happen again in many other forested areas in
California. Forest conditions--dense and overgrown--on other national
forests in California are similar to those on the San Bernardino. Those
ecological conditions, combined with the massive influx of people into
California's wildlands and the rapid growth of communities in and
around those wildlands, particularly in the Sierra Nevada, have created
the potential for truly disastrous wildfires.
Many of California's national forest ecosystems have evolved with
fire. However, as we have seen on the San Bernardino National Forest,
in many areas we cannot rely on fire to restore them to healthy
conditions. The risk is too great, the forests are too dense, there is
too much fuel, and too many people living too close to the forests.
Under these conditions we must find other ways to actively manage the
forests, thin the over-crowded stands and return the forests to health.
When wildfires do occur, we need to continue to respond quickly and
effectively.
We are making good progress throughout California:
Over the past two years, we have reduced fuels on almost
a quarter of a million acres of California's national forests and
expect to treat another 75,000 acres in 2003. Nearly 75 percent of
those treatments are in the WUI;
We have significantly increased our wildland firefighting
resources and provided 191 grants totaling over $11 million to local
communities and organizations, helping them reduce wildfire risk. For
example, this year the San Bernardino National Forest awarded $800,000
in grants to local counties and Fire Safe Councils;
We are proposing changes to the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment. I feel strongly that these proposed changes will
improve our ability to reduce fuels and protect old forests, wildlife
habitats, watersheds, and communities. We will continue to place
priority on treatments in the WUI and treat sufficient area in the
wildlands to ensure success in the urban interface;
The Pacific Southwest Region recently completed a review
of the Northwest Forest Plan Forests in northern California. We found
problems similar to those we found in the Sierra Nevada, and we are now
working with local Tribes, counties, and interest groups to make
changes that will help us reach our goal of healthy forests more
quickly and efficiently;
We are looking forward to applying the tools provided by
the Healthy Forest Initiative. These will improve our ability to
actively manage forests and reduce dangerous accumulations of hazardous
fuels with greater speed and efficiency and better protect watersheds
and habitat; and
We are working closely with our federal, state and local
partners at the Forest level and, through the California Fire Alliance,
at the state level to better coordinate our efforts. The number of Fire
Safe Councils is growing across the state. These community-based
organizations are doing excellent work in increasing awareness of the
problem and helping local residents take action to reduce the wildfire
risk to themselves and others.
Summary
The forest health situation on the San Bernardino and throughout
the Pacific Southwest Region is very dynamic. The key to avoiding
potential catastrophic wildfire is by taking a comprehensive, strategic
approach with all involved organizations, and having all the necessary
management tools available to use. Long-term success will also require
building and maintaining relationships and cooperative planning that
draws on the strengths of everyone involved.
I am committed to doing everything I can to avert disaster in
Southern California and restore the rest of California's national
forests to healthy conditions. The San Bernardino National Forest is a
wake-up call we must heed. This concludes my testimony. Both Forest
Supervisor Zimmerman and I would be happy to answer any questions the
Committee might have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you and Mr. Zimmerman, I understand
you're here to help answer questions, specifically with San
Bernardino Forest.
Mr. Zimmerman. That's correct.
The Chairman. Mr. Blackwell, in your testimony you talk
about the density on the forest and that there were hundreds of
trees per acre. What would be a more natural stand in this
forest here?
Mr. Blackwell. One size doesn't fit all, but I know we'll
have some other experts today who may wish to query on that,
but 40 to maybe a high of a 100 trees per acre with most of
them at the lower end, perhaps 40 trees per acre.
The Chairman. Talking about taking aggressive action on our
forests, if we don't--if Congress and the Federal Government
doesn't step forward at this point, what do you predict and I
know that's a difficult thing to do, but what do you predict
would happen with this forest here if we're not taking action
and doing the kind of things and giving you the ability to do
the things you need to do?
Mr. Blackwell. Well, the worse case is serious loss of life
and property and if we don't take action, sooner or later
that's going to happen. We know these fires today have more
resistance to control, they burn hotter with more intensity,
they're more difficult to put out. We see that across the West
and this national forest is no different. The situation here
though is far more serious with these 100,000 people living
within the boundary.
The Chairman. In terms of the investigation and the insect
infestation, if we don't take some kind of action, Forest
Service doesn't take some kind of action, and that continues to
spread, does it not just kill off the forests?
Mr. Zimmerman. Conceivably, the worse case scenario we
could be left with a forest with no conifer trees or at least
very few.
The Chairman. What would replace it?
Mr. Zimmerman. Brush, shrubs, perhaps a few small trees,
hopefully a large reforestation program, a lot of slash on the
ground, incredible hazard for fire in the meantime.
The Chairman. What impact would that have on watershed?
Mr. Zimmerman. I think you'll hear later today from a
person involved in the Santa Ana Watershed and some of the
reading that I've done is catastrophic effects on some of the
watersheds, particularly if there's a large fire, in terms of
the downstream effects on water quality as well as the cost to
treat that water, so it's usable downstream.
The Chairman. Just refresh my memory, approximately how
many acres is the San Bernardino forest?
Mr. Zimmerman. Slightly over 800,000 acres gross, about
200,000 of that is private land, so there's about a 640,000
acres net national forest land inside the boundary.
The Chairman. So a lot of the private land that is held
within the forest are the areas that are inhabited?
Mr. Zimmerman. Yes.
The Chairman. And one of the things that has been proposed
and people have talked about is just limiting the treatment of
the forest and the public lands to within a half a mile of the
urban wild land interfaces, as they call it.
In a forest like the San Bernardino forest, what impact
would that have if we limited the ability to treat within a
half mile of the urban areas and what impact would that have if
we did have a catastrophic fire?
Mr. Zimmerman. First of all, I don't believe that narrow a
protection zone around the forest will provide adequate
protection. Many of these fires start down in what we call the
front country, down in the chaparral, down below, and by the
time they move up the hillside under or across the hillside
coming up the slope, they have a pretty wide front and when
they hit the top or hit the private land with that real wide
front it spreads the fire fighting resources very thin. It also
puts a lot of community buffer boundary at risk and the
probability of us being able to contain a fire of that narrow
boundary would be very, very low.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Cardoza?
Mr Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, if we were to
engage in different kinds of forestry practices, basically
clearing out dead trees and such, would in fact we have the
situation we have now with the devastation and the beetles?
Mr. Zimmerman. I don't believe so. I think we get forest
practices that we can employ that are pretty light on the land,
there's equipment that's light on the land. There's a lot of
work that can be done by hand with manpower crews, youth
employment programs and that sort of thing.
We do know that there will be impacts as we treat the land,
but we know that those impacts are much less than the impacts
of a catastrophic wildfire and that's the balancing act that we
have to take here.
Mr Cardoza. How does the interface between state lands,
private lands and Federal lands work? Obviously, beetles don't
know where geographic boundaries are, so if the state isn't
managing its land adequately, that can adversely affect private
land and Federal land, even if they're doing a good job on
those other two areas?
Mr. Zimmerman. At this point, the population of beetles is
so high that it doesn't make any difference what people have
done in the past to manage the lands. The beetles are going
everywhere and when they attack trees, you can write them off.
Mr Cardoza. It's my observation that these problems have
been exacerbated as new regulations have come on line, for
example, Timber Harvest Plans have been a bit more difficult.
Recently, in the State of California, they just passed a new
proposal for additional regulations on Timber Harvest Plans.
Can you speak to how that may adversely or beneficially, if
I'm wrong, affect the situation?
Mr. Zimmerman. I think perhaps Andrea Tuttle could better
answer that. Jack, do you want to answer that?
Mr. Blackwell. I have no first hand experience either. I
hear concern about that.
The Chairman. Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Zimmerman, you and I have worked personally closely
together over all these months as this crisis has begun to
explode upon us. It's apparent that it's going to take years,
not just weeks or months to get a handle on the number of dead
and dying trees and it seems as Mr. Blackwell indicated, every
week the number is exploding upon us. So there's a huge cost
that is involved in progressively taking out those dead trees
over a long period of time. As a practical matter, it is
important that we move forward on public land, private land,
state, Federal land regardless.
I would ask both of you what is happening in terms of the
Forest Service as it relates to priority of budgets. Are you
confident that there is a level of understanding as well as a
shifting of priority that will cause the budget year ahead of
us to see a significant adjustment upward in the palm of the
Forest Service?
Mr. Blackwell. I'm confident there's a great awareness and
understanding and speaking from my level at the region, I will
move dollars, funds and people around to the highest priorities
in the region. It would be irresponsible for me to do anything
else and that's what I've done in the past year, shifting funds
down here. I will continue to do that, again, as needed.
There's, as I said, good awareness in the Administration
and I believe increased budget requests from us and I'm hopeful
that we'll see some of that increased funding.
Mr. Lewis. As you know, when the Secretary of Agriculture
was here, she made a public commitment of $5 million of
additional money to meet the challenges here, to begin to
mitigate against this problem. Just recently, we've learned of
$30 million in the 2003 supplemental that is going to be
applied to the forests in this region and I would hope that a
significant piece of it will be flowing for mitigation
purposes.
Is the local forest organization prepared and ready and
able to handle a significant increase, a rapid increase in
those dollar quotes.
Mr. Blackwell. Maybe I'll let Gene answer that.
Mr. Zimmerman. Yes, I'll comment on what we've done this
past year. We've spent $9 million on this effort in the past
several months with a very small organization. I think we spent
that money quite efficiently. A lot of the work that we're
talking about doing is very expensive in the range of up to
$4000 per acre using contractors to do that work.
So moving from $9 million to $12 million or $10 million is
not a real big jump. Of the $30 million that you mentioned, $10
million will be coming to the Forest Service is my
understanding and $20 million to local governments, so with the
$10 million that's earmarked, less about $2 to $3 million
through normal appropriations coming to the Forest, about a $12
million program next year, again, they'll say isn't that a big
jump from this past year's program. In terms of our capability,
I think we've got all the capability in the world to spend that
money and do it wisely.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, your being here is a reflection of
the priority the Committee gives to our Healthy Forest
Initiative, should we find ourselves in a circumstance where a
major fire takes place, we've already heard about the
beginnings of the potential devastation that that would mean to
the region.
In the meantime, this forest, the effort to save this
forest could very well become a model for the country and in
connection with that, one of my friends recently, who was more
expertise than I, suggested that we ought to be considering a
major nursery program, that is presently collecting seeds with
the same DNA as the forest that's here, attempting to put
together a package that would perhaps fund major nursery
efforts, to grow sizable volumes of trees and begin a plan for
planting trees now to replace that which could be before us.
Could you comment about that prospect?
Mr. Zimmerman. You're exactly right. We've already awarded
a contract for seed collection this fall, that's part of our
priority work in restoration of the forest. We can have those
seedlings planted in a variety of nurseries up and down the
state and other places in the West actually have them grown
there from local seed and then bring them back here and plant
them after they've grown for a couple of years.
Mr. Lewis. Is there specific funding required to increase
that effort? Among the dollars that are flowing should the
Committee be considering a special authorization that would
ratch it up, what is pretty much a standard effort on the part
of the Forest Service?
Mr. Zimmerman. We are going to need considerably millions
of dollars in the restoration efforts, so you're exactly right.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you for
your presence here today. Your testimony is indeed enlightening
to all of us and I'm sure to the people in the audience as
well.
Mr. Blackwell or Mr. Zimmerman, if you did nothing, could
this forest recover without intervention?
Mr. Blackwell. I don't believe so. I'll let Gene elaborate.
Mr. Zimmerman. Perhaps it would, but it would take
hundreds, if not a thousand years. I'm not an ecologist. I call
it a sawdust forester, but it would go through a long
evolution, particularly--this is fire prone country, so if we
were to have one fire and kill a lot of what's left and leave a
lot of materials still behind because it won't all be consumed
in the first fire, perhaps cones will open up in that first
fire and some new trees will start, but typically a second fire
will follow or a third fire. And pretty soon, you have a barren
landscape with no viable seed to start a new forest and then
you'll start all over.
Mr. Gibbons. I've seen some of the moonscapes in the Sierra
Nevada range that have followed after a very hot fire. There is
nothing there, barren sand, simply eroding away.
Let me ask a question also, with the $9 million which you
say is treating 12,800 acres or the $12 million which Mr. Lewis
has alluded to, and you have said in your testimony as well,
can you stay ahead of the advancement of the disease and dying
trees in this forest at that rate?
Mr. Zimmerman. At some point in time there will be more
trees left to die. At that point maybe we'll gain on this.
Whatever we have, I guess--we've lost another 100,000 acres,
have been affected. I shouldn't say lost, had been affected by
mortality in the last 6 months. On the Forest Service side,
we've only treated 12,800 acres.
Mr. Gibbons. So you're losing 100,000 acres in 6 months.
The $12 million is only going to cover say 15,000 of those
acres. You're vastly behind the power curve on this issue.
Mr. Zimmerman. I suggest you're right.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask another question. The cost of
fighting a fire, reforestation, compare that to the cost of
treatment of a forest?
Mr. Blackwell. Well, the cost of fighting a fire is far
greater than the cost of treatment. There's just no question
about it. And that's where the dollars can be saved. The
Healthy Forest Initiative makes so much sense. Rather than
spending $1 billion or $1.2 billion a year ago in suppression,
if we could be putting funds like that into treatment, we
wouldn't have the need for suppression costs like that.
Mr. Gibbons. So it's my grandmother saying an ounce of
prevention versus a pound of cure.
Mr. Blackwell. Exactly.
Mr. Gibbons. Is what we need. Let me follow up by the
economics of treating, the thinning program. What do you do
with the large trees that you cut down? What is the process
through which they go? California, in this area, doesn't have
saw mills to take advantage of the lumber. What happens to
these trees?
Mr. Zimmerman. This is an incredibly tough problem here.
Some of the material is going to a generation plant near Palm
Springs. Some of it goes up north to saw mills, a very small
percentage is going to a saw mill up north. Some is going to
land fills, using it as daily cover on the land fills. A lot of
on the Forest Service side we're going to pile and burn in
place. Using crews, by hand they'll pile the slash and we'll
burn it in wet season or using tractors, we'll pile it.
We're chipping with large commercial chippers. And we're
also using air curtain destructors and I think Supervisor
Hansberger might address that issue, but there are a large
amount of bins that have fans that help dump the material in
and burn. That's an expensive process, just like the land fill
process is.
Mr. Gibbons. Could the economics of thinning be advanced by
having a commercialized capability for dealing with this? In
other words, the cost of thinning be mitigated in some fashion
by having commercially available individuals who can treat
forests?
Mr. Zimmerman. Yes. A large part of the money for
treatment, particularly on the private lands is going to the
disposal site or the waste stream side, as we're calling it and
if we could alleviate part of that cost, it would make more
money available for actual treatment and make the whole
operation more efficient economically.
Mr. Gibbons. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
testimony today. I'm always reminded that the arguments of
emotion trump science. It's too bad we can't use science as the
basis by which we treat our forests. Thank you for your
presence here today.
The Chairman. Mr. Walden?
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Later, in Chairman
Hansberger's testimony before the Committee, he's going to say,
among other things, that the dead trees are rotting at 3 to 5
times faster than normal. Can you explain to me why that's
occurring?
Mr. Zimmerman. I can't explain that. I think we all have
that intuitive reaction to what's going on out there. I've seen
no science to support that, but I believe all of us feel like
that deterioration is rapid and more rapid than we would
expect.
Mr. Walden. That then presents costly alternatives and
problems for trying to get these trees dealt with by people
doing the falling?
Mr. Zimmerman. And it would also present significant safety
hazards down the road in a year or two for the people who are
working on this material.
Mr. Walden. Now I want to go back to a comment about the
wild land urban interface because I recognize that there's an
extraordinary need to deal with these treatments around wild
land urban interface, and I know that some of the fires up in
my part of the world, they were spotting two to six miles out,
embers were flying still hot and starting grass fires. Can you
telling me if there's any sound, scientific basis to not treat
these forests back up in the watersheds away from the wild land
urban interface? And second, is there any way that a fire
reaches 2600 feet from a community and says OK, I'm going to
stop here? At least here, the Senate is trying to water down
this bill and say put virtually all the effort within a half
mile of a community and I don't think that's going to solve the
problem.
Mr. Blackwell. There's no way that a fortress like approach
just around the community will work. These fires, as you said,
have been observed in Oregon, spot great distances and not only
must we treat the wild land urban interface, but we must treat
some of the forests out there. We just must.
Mr. Walden. It seems to me the other issue that some in the
Senate seem to be hung up on is this issue of not treating old
growth, somehow protecting that and I'm all for preserving the
best of our forests, but it strikes me that if you've got a big
old tree that's disease-ridden, why would you leave it because
it's big and old when it needs to be removed versus protecting
the smaller diameter trees that are healthy? Is that how you
manage today in thinning?
Mr. Blackwell. No. My answer would be that we need a
diversity of age classes in forests. There are species,
habitats that are very dependent on each and we need early soil
conditions, we need mid-soil conditions and we need some
percentage of old forest. The problem is it can't all be old
forest, it just doesn't work that way.
Mr. Walden. And is there a way that we can set a breadth-
height diameter and call it old growth and have that work for
your management strategies?
Mr. Blackwell. There is no science basis for an arbitrary
diameter limit cutoff. There's some social reasons, sometimes,
that we've tried to do this, but there is no science basis.
Mr. Walden. No science-based reason to do that. OK. And I
guess the other question, I was stunned, frankly, driving up
here to come around the corner and see a high school. I mean
I'm not used to that in a forest, quite like that.
And then it amazed me that 100,000 people are up through
here. I just noticed one road in and out. Has anybody done any
studies to say what mortality may occur if you get a runaway
fire coming up thee canyons?
Mr. Zimmerman. I don't think there's been a study per se.
All of us in the emergency service side of this equation are
very, very concerned about the possibility of a large rapidly
moving fire, put against the issue of evacuation. And at the
same time trying to get equipment up the hill while we're
trying to get people down the hill.
There are three evacuation routes off the San Bernardino
Mountains that are public highways.
Mr. Walden. Are they all as windy and twisty as the one we
came up?
Mr. Zimmerman. None of them are straight.
Mr. Walden. When Congressman Lewis is done with the
appropriations process, you're going to have a----
[Laughter.]
Right there. In all seriousness, you could get yourself
twisted pretty tight thinking about the ramifications. I mean I
look at some of the exit problems we had in some of our forests
getting small communities evacuated. My God, if a fire comes
blazing up these hills at 120 mile an hour Santa Ana blowing
it, what do you do?
Mr. Zimmerman. We're very concerned about that. I will say
this, we are concerned about--the first we had a large fire
this summer, about hysteria, if you will on the public side. We
had the Bridge fire a couple of weeks ago. People who lived
directly above that fire in Running Springs, in the Running
Springs area were equally professional as the fire fighting
services, they were very orderly, they knew what they to do and
they did it when they were told to do it. So if we experience
that with 1500 people, I hope we can have a similar situation
when we have perhaps several thousand people at risk.
Mr. Walden. How many thinning projects do you have in the
planning stages right now in this forest?
Mr. Zimmerman. We have probably 15 projects that are in one
state or another of planning, relative to dealing with the
problem that we have at hand that we're talking about here
today.
Mr. Walden. And given the progress of those, how many have
been appealed or do you anticipate being appealed?
Mr. Zimmerman. None have been appealed. We're working right
in the urban interface right now and I think almost everybody
and all the mainstream environmental folks seem to be well
aligned with this notion that we have to do something right in
the urban interface. It's when we get deeper into the national
forest, that distance that you were talking about earlier, that
perhaps the arm wrestling is going to begin.
Mr. Walden. And when you say the wild land urban interface,
how are you defining that?
Mr. Zimmerman. We're working right now on what we call kind
of a triage fashion. We're going around the community just in
treating a very narrow area 200, 500, 600 feet wide.
We anticipate coming back and then moving deeper into the
forest because we know that's not adequate.
Mr. Walden. As you've already alluded to.
Mr. Zimmerman. I know I've gone over time. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank our first panel
for their testimony and for answering the questions. I'm going
to excuse you two gentlemen and call up our next panel. Thank
you.
I'd like to call up the second panel. On Panel Two, we have
the Honorable Dennis Hansberger, Chairman, San Bernardino
County Board of Supervisors, accompanied by Dr. Thomas
Bonnicksen, Professor, Department of Forest Science, Texas A&M
University; Ms. Andrea Tuttle, State Forester, California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Mr. Alan J. West,
member of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees;
and Mr. Jay Jensen, Legislative Director for the Western
Forestry Leadership Council.
Thank you all for being here. I'd like to remind the
witnesses that under Committee rules, you must limit your oral
statements to 5 minutes, but your entire written testimony will
appear in the record.
I'd like to now recognize Chairman Hansberger for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DENNIS HANSBERGER, CHAIRMAN, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. Hansberger. Honorable Members of the Committee,
Chairman Pombo, thank you very much for your presence here
today. As Chairman of the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the
citizens of our county, we thank the Committee for its work to
protect our forests and for its special interest in this
extreme situation.
The drought has left our forests vulnerable to the Bark
Beetle infestation. While the County has done much to address
this threat, the problems dwarfs the resources at our disposal.
Other forest regions may have as many dead and dying trees,
but this forest is the most widely visited in the Nation and
the most populated, containing $8 billion worth of homes and
businesses. Our County has aggressively attacked this crisis
and has already spent or committed over $6 million of general
fund monies. We've taken steps to remove dead standing fuel.
We've created lumber staging areas to store equipment, deck
logs and managed wood products at a lower costs. We've sited an
incinerated on Forest Service property to reduce the burden of
managing wood products at our land fills.
Nine months ago our solid waste system managed 5 tons of
wood waste per day. We have now exceeded 500 tons per day which
has an expense of several hundred thousand dollars a month to
our cost.
The residents of this county are at the heart of this issue
and deserve to be recognized today. They have removed far more
dead and dying trees than all other agencies combined. They
have risen to the occasion and done what is necessary for
themselves, their neighbors and our mountain communities.
The economic hardships are enormous and beyond the means of
many mountain home owners, one third of whom are considered low
or moderate income by Federal standards. These are working
families, the elderly, the disabled who risk foreclosure,
draining their savings, using up their equity and going into
debt. We appreciate the Southern California Edison working
partnership with us to reduce the fire hazard and the cost of
tree removal. However, this collaboration does not relieve
citizens from that economic burden.
The Board of Supervisors authorized the Mountain Area
Safety Task force known as MAST to be the mechanism to manage
this multi-jurisdictional agency. MAST works to coordinate fire
prevention, emergency responsive evacuation and is looking
years ahead at reforestation. Equally vital to our success,
Fire Safe Councils have effectively involved the community
through their volunteer efforts, community projects, public and
town hall meetings. There were just a few weeks ago over 700
people in this room and the halls adjacent to it meeting on
those very subjects.
The efforts of MAST and the Fire Safe Councils were put to
the test just 2 weeks ago during the Bridge fire. Many men and
women who fought that fire are here today. Their hours of
multi-agency planing and preparation paid off. No lives or
homes were lost and the fire was stopped before it reached the
community of Running Springs.
Today, I'm asking that Congress reexamine national policies
that require up to 4 years of study before fuels can be
treated. The fuels we are studying are dying, dying in our
neighborhoods, not in our years, not in 4 months, but in less
than 4 weeks. The process simply does not fit the problem and
by the time we study it, it will be and is, too late. I implore
this Committee and Congress to reconsider the policies that
guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars for relief after the
ravage of catastrophic fire, but nothing to prevent it.
This disaster is predictable and with the solutions
provided by the President's Healthy Forest Initiative,
responsible and professional land managers will have the
ability to effectively reduce hazardous fuels.
I also am asking Congress to consider the environmental
permitting and review processes that will allow us to more
rapidly develop projects and facilities that would reuse
renewable resources. Facing this ecological disaster, we want
to take advantage of new technologies that do not rely on
fossil fuels to create energy.
We have created a bureaucratic process that hamstrings
common sense procedures and keeps qualified professionals from
being able to do their jobs. Our County has urged the President
to declare a Federal emergency in our forests and open the door
to additional support needed to address this crisis. Your help
is needed to establish this declaration.
In closing, had the vision embodied in the Healthy Forest
Initiative been realized many years ago, our forest communities
would not be facing this crisis today. We have the makings of
the worse fire in American history.
Mr. Chairman and Members, we ask you to give us the
assistance, tools and regulatory relief needed to prevent such
a historic tragedy.
Finally, I would like to thank Congressman Lewis for his
commitment to the safety of our citizens, also his efforts to
work with Congress to find funding where none had previously
existed. We wish we had brought you here today to enjoy our
forests, however, we do sincerely appreciate your efforts in
making them healthy and safe and beautiful again. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansberger follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dennis Hansberger, Chairman,
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
The County of San Bernardino would first of all like to express its
appreciation to the Committee for the work it has done to protect our
forests and for taking such a special interest in the extreme and
unprecedented crisis we face.
Had the vision embodied in the Healthy Forests Initiative been
realized many years ago, San Bernardino County's forest communities
would not be facing the crisis we have today. Our forest is clearly
overgrown, and this density created a perfect environment for drought
and pestilence. Had we managed the forest as nature intended and in a
manner consistent with the way we found it centuries ago, we would be
living in harmony with our environment rather than taking expensive and
exhaustive steps to protect ourselves from it.
Years of drought have left the millions of evergreens in our forest
communities vulnerable to bark beetles, and these insects have turned
entire tracts of once-emerald forests brown with death. The County has
done much to address the threats posed by this situation, but the
problem dwarfs any and all resources at our disposal.
The County of San Bernardino alone has so far invested more than $6
million in the effort to address this crisis. This funding comes from a
very limited source. Because of state and federal mandates and other
inflexible needs, the County has true discretion over only a small
fraction of its annual budget, and these dollars are under constant
threat of being commandeered by the state to help solve California's
fiscal crisis.
Tree Mortality Emergency
All of San Bernardino County's mountain communities--from
Wrightwood to Oak Glen, including the densely populated communities of
Lake Arrowhead, Crest Forest, City of Big Bear Lake and the rest of the
Big Bear Valley--are heavily impacted by this emergency. In some
neighborhoods in these communities, 100 percent of the trees are dead.
As of January 2003, the U.S. Forest Service had mapped more than
99,500 acres of dead trees in the San Bernardino County portion of the
San Bernardino National Forest. Of that, approximately 72,500 acres are
on public lands and approximately 27,000 exist on privately held
residential and commercial land. Of these 27,000 acres, more than
21,000 acres have greater than 20 percent mortality, with properties
within most of the Crestline/Lake Arrowhead communities experiencing 80
percent to 100 percent mortality on each lot. This is more than a 300
percent increase from the mapping performed in October 2002.
After a brief spring respite from February through May 2003, the
mortality returned in full force in June and some say worse than before
with trees dying in weeks, not months. The numerous amounts of dead
trees within private, public, and developed lands pose serious threats
to life and property from fire, falling and damage to public utilities
and other infrastructure. In addition to the devastating impact on
private/residential property, the majority of the communities are host
to high-volume tourist and vacation activities. On certain weekends,
some communities host more than 150,000 visitors on top of a base
population of 97,000 people.
It is important to note that, if luck prevails and no catastrophic
fire occurs, the trees that are dead are rotting 3 to 5 times faster
than normal. This creates a serious falling hazard. There have been
several incidents involving trees falling with damage to structures and
utilities. Also the longer the trees stand dead, the more reluctant
tree fellers are to climb them and will call for a crane to remove them
rather than climb them. This often doubles the cost of tree removal.
The potential for fire hazard is unprecedented. If a fire starts
within or near the mountain communities, homes, lives, and the forest
could be destroyed. According to the County Tax Assessor, the mountain
communities that make up approximately 45,817 improved parcels have
approximately $7.6 billion in assessed property valuation including
residential and commercial property. This does not include the value of
non-taxable infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and utilities.
Fire officials usually declare the fire season for the area
beginning in June, and ending in late October. Strong warm winds are
prevalent throughout this time, and gusts have been measured at up to
120 miles per hour. Given the current state of the forest, this is a
recipe for an unprecedented wildfire disaster.
Barriers to Success:
Unfortunately, the efforts to date are dwarfed by the magnitude of
the problem. There are several barriers to rapid and complete response
of this problem:
Financial: Removing the trees and diminishing the risk in
a particular area relies primarily on the efforts of the private
landowners, who bear the total cost of removal. Most property owners
have hazardous dead trees and fuel located adjacent to their homes and/
or on nearby slopes. Typically, tree removal in these cases requires a
crane and highly-skilled individuals. Local contractors currently
charge from $1,000 to more than $10,000 for each tree that is within 20
feet of a structure. Trees further away from a structure are generally
$200 to $500 to remove. It is common, however, to find 80 percent to
100 percent mortality on a single property, which can equate to as many
as 20 to 30 dead trees on one lot. Therefore, tree removal bills
average $5,000 to $10,000. This is a significant expense to property
owners, and the majority cannot afford removal. Some property owners
are taking out second and third mortgages on their homes to pay for
tree removal. However, others cannot afford to take out these
mortgages. The County is researching the creation of a Special
Assessment District in which a municipal bond could be issued and the
removal work performed under contract, thus providing a more rapid
response. However, under California law this would require a two-thirds
vote of the property owners and is not an immediate viable option.
Lack of Resources: Last year, there were only half-a-
dozen tree removal companies scattered across the mountain, so the lack
of adequate competition originally created an expensive and unstable
market. The County, working with community Fire Safe Councils, has been
actively trying to attract tree removal companies and loggers from
Northern California and other parts of the United States to come into
the area to foster competition and create more of a balance in supply
and demand. That would lower the cost to the private resident. A
significant degree of success has been obtained in that there are now
two dozen companies that provide services to our mountain communities.
Uncertain Funding Sources: Some of these companies have
expressed reluctance to come to Southern California and enter our
market. Companies outside the area mainly ask, ``What assurance do I
have to get paid if I set up an operation in Southern California?''
Prior to the implementation of the Block Concept and the participation
of Southern California Edison, contractors were competing against each
other on a door-to-door basis against two dozen other contractors. The
competition has had a significant positive effect in the reduction of
costs that each homeowner must pay. Prices for tree removal over the
last year have dropped by two-thirds. This highly competitive market
did not allow tree companies to grow and increase their tree removal
capacity because of the lack of consistent predictable income. In some
cases, companies refused to enter the market because of the hit and
miss, door-to-door revenue generation process.
Lack of Landfill Capacity and Options: Trees produce a
significant amount of solid waste. For every truckload of logs there
are two to three truckloads of branches--``slash''--that join the
County's solid waste stream. When lumber prices fall, as is the case
now, those logs join the slash and other waste the County has to
handle. The County's current solid waste management system is not
designed for and cannot manage the amounts of wood waste being created
today. The system is funded primarily by a flat rate charged to
residents based on the average amount of waste produced by their
communities. This rate cannot begin to cover the tonnage the County
must now handle.
Prior to this emergency, the County's Solid Waste Management
Division (SWMD) processed 5 tons of wood waste per day. As soon as the
County Fire Department began issuing tree removal notices, the amount
of wood waste skyrocketed to more than 200 tons per day. Now that the
lumber market has been saturated and prices have declined, the stream
is approaching 500 tons per day.
Environmental Permitting: Other areas of the country that
routinely produce vast amounts of wood waste are home to a number of
viable solutions ranging from traditional lumber mills to the use of
wood chips to create electricity, methane, and even ethanol. These
businesses are reluctant to set up shop in our forest because of the
length and complexity of the environmental review process. Our
emergency is predicted to last five to seven years, but environmental
review and the land use approval process takes two to three years. This
limits the ability of an investor to obtain a return on their capital
and equipment. Time frames need to be shortened. This inability to
remove dead standing wildfire fuels poses a much greater threat to the
environment than reasonably streamlining the environmental approval
process.
Crossing Barriers
The County is crossing these ``barriers'' and has established a
systematic program to utilize our existing resources and establish an
infrastructure sufficient to establish a long-term solution to the
problem. The effort that will be assisted by the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program grant that will result in the removal and disposal of
more than 4,560 trees on developed private and non-federal public
properties.
The program includes a series of tasks ranging from citizen
participation, mapping the mountain areas to determine priority tree
removal areas, coordinating efforts with Southern California Edison,
using logging engineers and market specialists to provide technical
assistance with removal and disposal/reuse techniques, minimizing
impacts on solid waste systems, organizing tree removal by blocks,
assisting low income home owners in the cost of tree removal, and
reducing the per tree cost by aiding in the collection and disposal of
slash and debris created by the block by block removal of trees.
Additionally, the County will coordinate with all other allied agencies
through the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce (MAST).
Citizen Participation
First and foremost we must commend the actions of our citizens.
They have risen to meet this challenge head on. County citizens have
removed more trees, either voluntarily or under order of the County
Fire Department, than all other government agencies combined.
Tree Removal Fund
The Board of Supervisors has created a $1 million revolving fund to
assist in removing dead trees. This fund was created using several
sources of County and Federal funds. This fund will be used to provide
working capital to assist households particularly those with low income
in the removal of their trees. It is also to be used to conduct tree
removal enforcement actions on properties that refuse to cooperate with
tree removal notices. In addition, the Board of Supervisors has also
created a $2 million contingency within the County's General Fund. In
other efforts to assist the low-income households last year, the Board
has allocated $85,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds.
Business Assistance
County Economic and Community Development Department has been
providing low interest loans to assist tree removal contractors and
licensed timber operators. These loans can be from the thousands to the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have provided financial
stability and have allowed businesses to increase tree removal capacity
by acquiring more equipment, chainsaws, vehicles and acquiring
additional employees. Recently ECD received support from the U.S.
Forest Service in the form of $124,000 Grant to support wood milling
and wood product development.
County Financial Contribution
The County has already dedicated thousands of staff hours to manage
this ongoing emergency without reimbursement or compensation. The
County's Solid Waste Management Division (SWMD) in just the past nine
months has spent approximately $2 million, including amortized capital
costs, to process approximately 60,000 tons of bark beetle waste. We
anticipate our costs in FY 03/04 to exceed $4 million. The Fire
Department has spent $405,000 in salaries alone. Public Works
Transportation has spent $138,600 for additional roads activities and
slash crew activities. There has been no assessment on the damage done
to roads by heavy equipment in the tree removal operations. The Flood
Control District allocates $132,000 to support the State CDF tree
removal crews. The Sheriff's Office has spent more than $100,000 in
responding to this emergency.
Other Funding Sources
USFS
The County recently received two grant approvals from the U.S.
Forest Service for $200,000 each. One to operate a slash crew made up
of County prisoners. A second was to support the operation of the
staging area that is being used by the tree removal contractors.
National Resource Conservation Service
The County was also exploring a grant from the National Resource
Conservation Service Emergency Watershed Protection Program (NRCS). The
County in cooperation with the NRCS endeavored to develop a damage
assessment that would then be forwarded to Congress with an appeal for
an allocation of supplemental Federal funding. The County was prepared
to provide a hard match of 25 percent within in the last week the
County was notified that the NRCS would not be forwarding our proposal
for consideration.
Other Attempts At Funding
The County explored the feasibility of creating a Special Tax
Assessment or Tax District. This District would have charged property
owners an annual assessment or tax. For that fee, a Forest Management
Plan could have been prepared, property owners would have received free
tree removal, and more importantly, the Assessment District would have
had the ability to bond to fund future disasters, or meet matching
requirements of any future grant. Before an Assessment District could
be implemented, all property owners in the proposed district boundaries
must vote on the assessment. California law requires two-thirds voter
approval for such an assessment, and it became clear to the County that
this level of support does not exist at this time for this option.
Federal Support
In February 2003, Congressman Jerry Lewis secured approximately
$3.3 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, under Public Law 108-7, for Riverside
and San Bernardino counties to utilize toward tree removal programs on
private properties in the San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests.
On March 7, 2003, Governor Davis signed a Declaration of a State
Emergency for the San Bernardino Mountains. The Governor at that time
forwarded the local proclamation of emergency to the President. The
Boards of Supervisors for Riverside and San Bernardino counties have
continued to adopt Local Emergency proclamations for the individual
counties since March and April of 2002 respectively.
The County of San Bernardino has strongly urged the President to
declare a federal emergency for our mountain communities, which would
open the doors to the additional support that is needed to address this
crisis.
Finance/Administration
The County Office of Emergency Services is responsible for
gathering and reporting expenditures of the Bark Beetle Emergency
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program the County was awarded on June 26,
2003. Total grant expenditures are $3,564,134.66 with $2,673,101
federal share and $891,033 county share.
The Office of Emergency Services has developed a system that
records all expenditures related to the Bark Beetle Emergency HMGP Tree
Remediation Grant. System reports are used to request grant
reimbursement from the State Office of Emergency Services as well as in
efforts to obtain additional funding and grants for the Bark Beetle
Emergency.
Public Education
Providing information to the public about this emergency and how
they can deal with it and possibly mitigate its effects is critical to
mission success. The County has been involved in creating and printing
informational items regarding the Bark Beetle, reforestation, erosion
control, and evacuation planning. A public outreach program coordinated
by the Mountain Area Task Force (MAST) has been implemented to inform
and educate the mountain communities. The County provides leadership in
the Public Information Section of MAST. In cooperation with the Fire
Safe Councils, the County and allied agencies have held numerous
community meetings, on various topics related to the emergency with
overwhelming attendance. Each of these meetings has been attended by
100 to 700 people.
Partnership with ESRI
The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) of Redlands,
California, is the largest provider of geographic information systems
software and expertise in the world. The County and other MAST agencies
have worked with ESRI to develop maps that show the growing tracts of
dead and dying trees and merge them into a database that allows users
to track the crisis and develop strategies. This information is being
developed into a web-based platform, which will be available to
agencies and the public.
Data Gathering and Access to Public Information
LA key component of providing information to the public is
collecting and centralizing a location that it can be accessed. This is
a job for the Internet. Data mapping and statistics gathering has been
an integral part of the Bark Beetle Emergency. The San Bernardino
County Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services is in the process
of collecting critical statistics related to tree mortality in the San
Bernardino and Angeles Forests.
This data will be used for Natural Resource Conservation Services
(NRCS) funding, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMPG) funding, Pre-
Disaster Mitigation funding, and other programs that might be
available. The statistics relate to the number of dead trees, community
population, total number of structure, and parcel values.
Tree Removal Efforts
To address the problem the County has worked collaboratively with
the general public, Southern California Edison, the U.S. Forest
Service, the California Department of Forestry, the California
Department of Transportation, and other agencies. The following efforts
are underway:
Hazard Tree Abatement Program: The County Fire Department
operates a Hazard Tree Abatement Program that inspects trees on private
property, issues tree removal notices, and conducts follow-up in all
unincorporated areas of the mountains. This program has the legal
authority to cite private property owners to remove hazard trees and
fuel when the private property owner fails to do so. To date, County
Fire has issued more than 5,000 tree removal notices. Typically, if the
private property owner who received the tree removal notice fails to
remove the dead trees within a stated time frame, such as 30 or 60
days, the County will pay a contractor to remove all of the hazardous
fuel on the property, and lien the property for reimbursement. This
program was very successful until mid-2002 when the impacts of the
four-year drought and bark beetle infestation began to accelerate
significantly. County Fire does not have the funding to remove all of
the dead, hazardous fuel for property owners who fail to comply.
The high cost of tree removal lead one mountain neighborhood to
develop a cooperative agreement involving everyone in the neighborhood.
This neighborhood concept did indeed reduce costs for property owners
and, once implemented, the ``Block'' concept was born. County Fire is
implementing the block concept in cooperation with Southern California
Edison. County Fire is working more diligently with property owners to
contract directly with tree removal companies, and working to assist
property owners in ensuring cost-effective removal.
Southern California Edison: Southern California Edison
(SCE) has been directed by the state Public Utilities Commission to
completely remove all trees that could possibly fall into SCE
electrical transmission lines. County Fire, Running Springs Fire, Crest
Forest Fire and all involved fire agencies are collaborating with SCE
in the removal of dead trees adjacent to electrical transmission lines
that are threatening evacuation routes and causing high fire hazard
areas. Again, the block concept is being implemented. SCE pays the
licensed contractors directly for the tree removal. However, the
County's role is to implement a programmatic approach for all tree
removal, including non-SCE trees, that ensures cost-controls to the
homeowner, which ensures that the homeowner will receive the most cost-
effective and affordable service.
County Slash Crews: The County Fire Department in
cooperation with the Sheriff's Department has created a crew of County
inmates to assist in the removal of slash, which consists of branches
from the removed trees. Slash removal can account for 30 percent to 50
percent of the cost for a tree removal, so these crews provide a
valuable service to homeowners.
CDF State Inmate Crews: California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CDF) has a program that trains minimum-security
inmates to climb actively infested trees on private property and cut
them down. It is important to note that the County of San Bernardino
provides one half of the funding for this program. By State
regulations, CDF crews can only cut and spray actively infested trees
not located adjacent to structures on private property. In January of
2003 these crews were reassigned by MAST to work on evacuation routes.
These same inmate crews also provide hand crew support during fires.
Activities on Adjacent Federal Land: More than 60 percent
of the dead and dying trees are on federal land. The San Bernardino
National Forest will soon be advertising for timber harvest sales and
service contracts with product removal. It is crucial to the safety of
residents who live adjacent to these federal lands that immediate
action is taken.
Financial Assistance for Tree Removal
Of the approximately 97,000 full-time residents affected by the
mortality, approximately 30 percent are classified as low or low-
moderate income per the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department or some other similar low-income standard. While not all of
the persons are property owners, there are those who do own their
homes, and their properties do have dead or dying trees. Low and low-
moderate income property owners are typically senior citizens or
disabled persons. The FEMA grant includes an allocation of $500,000 for
financial assistance to individuals who meet the HUD guidelines for low
and moderate income. In addition to assisting low-income individuals,
in an effort to facilitate block tree bidding a sliding scale may be
developed for those property owners within a block bid area who
otherwise could not participate financially. As identified above, those
that are targeted as eligible to receive financial assistance will be
targeted during the block tree removal notification process. A voucher
will be issued to the successful contractor to be redeemed from the
County for the work performed on these specific properties.
Solid Waste Management
In response to the Bark Beetle Emergency, the County's Solid Waste
Management Division has been handling an unanticipated increase from 5
tons per day of green waste to a current 400 tons per day. This amounts
to additional County expenditures of more than $12,000 per day, or more
than $320,000 per month.
The Solid Waste Management Division is responsible for the disposal
and diversion of the waste trees and material generated from the Bark
Beetle Emergency.
Homeowners currently pay private tree companies to haul the tree
waste to one of two locations: the Heaps Peak Transfer Station, located
in Running Springs, or the Burnt Flats Wood Waste Processing Facility
in Lake Arrowhead. Both sites are currently running at maximum
capacity, with the Burner site operating 24 hours per day. The amount
of wood waste is expected to more than double when Southern California
Edison ramps up its mandated tree removal program. Solid Waste
Management's next phase is to begin log storage and processing at the
closed Cajon landfill, which is next to a rail line. This will
facilitate less expensive long-range transportation.
The operation at Heaps Peak consists of chipping and grinding for
use for erosion control or alternative cover on our landfills, and
approximately 500 tons per week for Colmac Energy, a biomass facility
in Mecca, located in Riverside County.
In cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and Caltrans, the
County was able to site, permit and operate the first incinerator in
more than 20 years in Southern California. This is the first time in
known history that Caltrans allowed a county to pave an unpaved State
Highway.
The Burnt Flats facility consists of two wood waste incinerators,
which each burn approximately 7 tons per hour. These are operated 24
hours per day, six days per week. The County is in the process of
purchasing a third, larger burner, which is anticipated to burn between
11 and 14 tons per hour.
An industrial work area was developed by the County in less than 3
months to accommodate equipment storage, log decking and other tree
removal related operations for six tree removal contractors and
licensed timber operators. They have so far been able to remove
thousands of trees off of privately held lands.
Between December and June, much of the wood was diverted to Sierra
Forest Products, a sawmill near Bakersfield. The mill paid loggers for
their loads brought to the mill. However, a drop in lumber prices in
late June forced Sierra Forest Products to lower the price they paid
loggers for the wood. Since that time, we have seen a sharp increase in
the amount of wood brought to our disposal facilities. As an example,
during the week ending July 20, 2003, our disposal facilities received
1,303 tons. The following week, ending July 27, 2003, our disposal
facilities received an additional 1,188 tons.
In the last nine months, Solid Waste Management has spent
approximately $2 million, including amortized capital costs, to process
approximately 60,000 tons of bark beetle related waste. We anticipate
our costs in FY 03/04 to exceed $4 million. Our portion of the FEMA
grant assistance recently secured by Congressman Jerry Lewis is
approximately $850,000.
Our County is constantly researching and attempting to foster
markets for the wood in order to divert it for better and higher uses.
The biggest challenge in most of the markets appears to be the high
cost of transportation.
Our County is currently working to foster the location of two
sawmills, one in Lake Arrowhead and one in San Bernardino, in addition
to working with paper companies and other outlets throughout the
western United States, Mexico and even China.
Beetle Control Study
County staff has obtained mixed messages from experts as to the
effectiveness of pheromone traps to trap Bark Beetles so they avoid
destroying trees. Therefore, County staff will work with the U.S.
Forest Service and other scientists on a study to determine if there is
a feasible infestation control mechanism for future implementation.
Field surveys may be a part of this task, and a report is expected to
be generated at the end of the study period.
Participation in the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce
Due to the magnitude of this problem, the Mountain Area Safety Task
Force (MAST), a multijurisdictional task force, was formed in 2002 to
develop a mitigation and emergency plan to address this problem.
Agencies in MAST include representatives of the San Bernardino County
Fire Department, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works
(Divisions of Transportation and Solid Waste Management), San
Bernardino National Forest (USFS), California Department of Forestry
(CDF), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans), South Coast Air Quality
Management District, (SCAQMD), Southern California Edison (SCE),
California Highway Patrol (CHP), California State Office of Emergency
Services (OES), San Bernardino County OES, and community
representatives of the Fire Safe Councils.
MAST has been working on a strategic-type plan to coordinate
efforts to ensure that all aspects of the issue are being addressed.
The MAST has developed a plan to address the tree mortality issue. The
plan is arranged into the following three (3) phases: immediate, mid-
term, and long-term. The plan was designed with the understanding that
work could be performed in any one of the phases simultaneously:
Immediate phase: Identifying critical community
infrastructure and removing impediments and/or potential impediments to
ensure safe evacuation routes, distribution of utilities and
communication service;
Mid-term phase: Addressing forest management practices;
and
Long-term phase: Improving forest health and community
safety.
The main workload in completing the current tasks is removing
affected (dead and/or dying) trees. The removal of affected trees will
help reduce the direct threat to lives and homes. Additionally, in
conjunction with local Fire Safe Council's awareness efforts, the
removal of the affected trees will reduce the fuel loads, create
defensible space, and lessen the impacts from wildfires.
A four-point action plan has been developed to implement the above
phases which includes:
Assure public safety (develop evacuation plans and clear
potential hazard trees from transportation routes);
Obtain assistance to secure funding through local, state,
and federal legislators;
Reduce fuel and create fuel breaks in strategic
locations. This means working to eliminate dead standing trees, reduce
tightly packed ground vegetation, and create defensible space around
developed areas; and
Develop commercial use or disposal options for waste wood
products.
The County's program is consistent with the MAST plan.
Long-Term Maintenance and Recovery
It has been determined that tree removal of the affected areas
would exceed $200 million. Suppression and damage from a fire in these
same areas, however, could exceed tens of billions of dollars.
The County of San Bernardino's approach provides a long-term
programmatic solution in that it offers public services for effective,
low-cost tree removal. This framework provides the basis to receive
other grant funding to continue these services.
Conclusion
Once again the County expresses it's appreciation to the Committee
for the interest it is showing in our emergency and the support you
have provided.
The County would be remiss if it did not acknowledge the efforts of
our federal representatives, particularly Congressman Jerry Lewis and
Senator Dianne Feinstein, and various federal and state agencies to
secure funding and resources to address this emergency.
Every action the County has taken in response to this crisis and
every dollar that has been spent has focused on the tens of thousands
of human lives that could be lost if this challenge is not met and our
mountains erupt in wildfire.
The County of San Bernardino is committed to dedicating every
available resource to address this emergency, but with one million
trees already dead and dying and many more to follow, this crisis is
well beyond the capabilities of local government and private citizens.
The County will continue to work with the federal government to secure
the funding necessary to manage this threat, and the County urges
Congress to untie the hands of the U.S. Forest Service so that it may
quickly respond to a quickly dying forest.
[Attachments to Mr. Hansberger's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.007
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Bonnicksen?
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS BONNICKSEN, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST SCIENCE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Dr. Bonnicksen. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I'm a Professor of
Forest Science at Texas A&M University with over 30 years of
experience working in California's forests and other forests in
the nation. I'm also a Member of the Board of the Forest
Foundation in California. I wrote the book America's Ancient
Forests describing the history of America's native forests and
I'm co-founded of the International Society of Ecological
Restoration.
With that, I would comment that I, too, like Jack Blackwell
have never seen a disaster of this magnitude and I say that not
because we haven't lost a lot of forest insects because we
have, but this is the first time we've lost an entire forest on
one mountain range and a forest that is so heavily populated.
Nothing like this has ever occurred in my experience or in my
knowledge of history. And my grave concern is not just for this
forest, but this forest represents what could happen next in
the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It's poised and ready to be
devastated as well.
The cause. Many people think the cause is drought. That's
not the cause any more than that's what puts the forest in the
Sierra at risk. It's overstocked dense forest unnaturally thick
so that the trees are weak, unhealthy, and incapable of
resisting massive attack. All the drought did was trigger the
infestation. It didn't cause it.
We've known that this forest in the San Bernardino
Mountains was subject to this kind of devastation long ago. I
actually facilitated a workshop here in Lake Arrowhead in 1994.
It's 10 years ago now in which all the people from the various
agencies and community interest groups got together to address
the fire hazard in Lake Arrowhead. And they came to the
unanimous conclusion that management was needed in the forest
and it parallels the national fire plan, actually anticipated
it in many ways. But nothing happened.
Why did nothing happen? Well, in part, because people, in
general, have not seen the hazard. It's not evident like it is
now. Also, people have an image of forest as natural when
they're thick and green and we have an aversion of cutting
trees, even though they don't mind pruning their garden.
And there is also an environmental component. This became a
recreational forest and for that and many other reasons nothing
happened. So now we're facing the results of inaction. We have
a disaster that will end up in the history books. Our great
grand children and our great, great grandchildren will be
reading the history of the loss of an entire forest. This
again, is truly history.
But let me tell you there's another point of history that
they'll be reading about and that's us, what did we do to
respond to this disaster? That will also be in the history
book. We can write that history now or we can tell them in that
book we did nothing and that's why they're reading it in a
forest without trees.
So what should we do, right here and now? Some people think
what we ought to do is just remove the dead trees, pile, slash,
burn and then we're safe. If you do that and only that, if you
look at those pictures over there, I think you'll get an idea
of what this forest is going to look like. It's going to be a
474,000 acre parking lot because I've seen what happen when a
large percent of the trees are dead and are removed. When I'm
talking about 100 percent, I mean restored.
What we have to do is remove these dead trees quickly by
doing that protects whatever trees remain because those trees
that are left really represent the future forest. We have to do
it in a way that protects the soil. We have to be sensitive to
wildlife by leaving snags and logs in the ground and in
essence, we have to do it right because we must not just reduce
the fire hazard, we must use this opportunity to also rebuild
the new forest that those kids are going to be reading about a
century from now. We'll either be their heroes or their
villains, it's up to us.
We have to also work quickly in the Sierra Nevadas to think
those forests so that this doesn't happen there as well.
What will we get when we're done? If we use the historic
forest as a model, we'll get a forest that's diverse,
beautiful, full of large trees as well as all the other ages of
trees that are need, full of wildlife and we will have saved or
solved the endangered species problem. Why? Because the
historic forest that's the model for the future for us we hope
to rebuild is a forest in which there are no endangered
species. Why not use it as a model for our forest?
And finally, who will paid for it? Unfortunately, in this
case we're going to pay for it, but as part of that payment, I
think we ought to invest in infrastructure. We have the ability
to process wood now and in the future when the forest is being
maintained so that this never happens again and the forest we
leave to those kids reading the book is a forest that they'll
not only be proud of, but they'll be able to keep. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bonnicksen follows:]
Statement of Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Professor, Department of Forest
Science, Texas A&M University, Visiting Scholar and Board Member, The
Forest Foundation, Auburn, California
Introduction
My name is Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen. I am a forest ecologist and
professor in the Department of Forest Science at Texas A&M University.
I am also a visiting scholar and board member of The Forest Foundation
in Auburn, California. I have conducted research on the history and
restoration of America's native forests for more than 30 years. I have
written over 100 scientific and technical papers and I recently
published a book titled America's Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to
the Age of Discovery (Copyright January 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
594 pages). The book documents the 18,000-year history of North
America's native forests.
Forest Devastation and Restoration
With millions of dead trees covering approximately 350,000 acres of
the San Bernardino Mountains, this forest is lost. Bark beetles
feasting on over-crowded, moisture-stressed trees will have killed
about 90 percent of the pine trees when they end their rampage. Then,
Lake Arrowhead and other communities here will look like any treeless
suburb of Los Angeles.
Among the saddest aspects of this forest being wiped out is that
the devastation was predictable and preventable. In fact, specialists
representing many interests and agencies came together in a 1994
workshop to do something about the unnaturally thick forests in the San
Bernardino Mountains. They knew that communities like Idyllwild, Big
Bear, and Lake Arrowhead were in imminent danger from wildfire. The
workshop produced a report charting a course to improve the safety and
health of the forest and surrounding communities. The recommendations
were never acted on. Now, an entire forest is lost.
Instead of acting to restore the forest and protect human lives
before the crisis reached critical mass, politicized debates and
overbearing regulations created inertia--a complete standstill during
which the forest grew so dense, devastation became inevitable.
Throughout the 1990s, extremists here advocated ``no cut''
policies, wanting no active management for the forest. Their battle cry
was ``leave it to nature'' despite indisputable evidence that the
forest's imperiled health was entirely unnatural, brought about by a
century of absolute fire suppression and completely stifled harvesting.
Now we are stuck with a dangerous, unsustainable forest.
Unfortunately, it is too late to save the San Bernardino National
Forest. It is not, however, too late to learn from this disaster, to
restore the forest to its original grandeur, or to save the forests of
the Sierra Nevada that will undoubtedly face a similar fate if we
continue down our current path. Indeed, we can anticipate similar
catastrophes throughout our Western forests if we do not change our
ways. We have already seen the beginnings of forest devastation in
Arizona and Colorado.
In the San Bernardino Mountains, there are simply too many trees.
Drought has contributed to the crisis, but it is not the underlying
cause. Forest density is ten times what is natural--300 or more trees
stand on an acre where 30 would be natural and sustainable. Over-
crowded trees must fight for limited nutrients and water, and, in doing
so, become too weak to fight off insect attacks that healthy trees
effectively repel.
Our national forests, growing older and thicker, look nothing like
their historical predecessors, with some having reached astronomical
densities of 2,000 trees per acre where 40-50 trees per acre would be
natural. Consequently, plant and animal species that require open
conditions are disappearing, streams are drying as thickets of trees
use up water, insects and disease are reaching epidemic proportions,
and unnaturally hot wildfires have destroyed vast areas of forest.
Since 1990, we have lost 50 million acres of forest to wildfire and
suffered the destruction of over 4,800 homes. The fires of 2000 burned
8.4 million acres and destroyed 861 structures. The 2002 fire season
resulted in a loss of 6.9 million acres and 2,381 structures, including
835 homes. These staggering losses from wildfire also resulted in
taxpayers paying $2.9 billion in firefighting costs. This does not
include vast sums spent to rehabilitate damaged forests and replace
homes.
The monster fires that have been ravaging our Western forests are
of a different breed from the fires that helped maintain forest health
over the past several hundred years. Forests that just 150 years ago
were described as being open enough to gallop a horse through without
hitting a tree are now crowded with logs and trees of all size--you can
barely walk through them, let alone ride a horse. The excessive fuel
build-up means that today, every fire has the potential to wreak
catastrophic damage.
Historically, our forests were more open because Native American
and lightning fires burned regularly. These were mostly gentle fires
that stayed on the ground as they wandered around and under trees. You
could walk over the flames without burning your legs even though they
occasionally flared up and killed small groups of trees. Such hot spots
kept forests diverse by creating openings where young trees and shrubs
could grow.
We need to return our forests to their natural state. We need to
alleviate the threat to thousands who live in danger throughout
Southern California, and ensure that residents of Northern California
and throughout the West are spared the trauma and fear that people here
live with daily.
Fortunately, we as modern foresters have the knowledge to restore
our forests. We can minimize the fire threat, accelerate forest
restoration, and protect human lives.
The Road to Recovery
The natural pine forest will soon be gone from these mountains. The
most important question now is, what will replace it?
There are two choices for the future of this forest, and no middle
ground for debate. First, leave the forest alone. This would placate
those who advocate ``letting nature take its course,'' though it would
not result in the historically natural mixed-conifer forest that
millions have enjoyed for centuries. Leave this forest alone, and we
will perpetuate the unnatural thick forests of oak, fir, cedar, and
brush--we will pass to future generations an unending cycle of
destruction from fire and insects.
Our second option is to restore the natural fire- and insect-
resistant forest through active management. And we must consider the
entire forest, not just small strips of land around homes or near
communities. Removing fuels around homes makes sense, but to think that
a 100-foot wall of flames ravaging a forest will lie down at a small
fuel break, or that swarms of chewing insects cannot penetrate these
flimsy barriers, is to live with a false sense of security.
The recipe for restoring San Bernardino forests is simple. Cut the
dead trees, remove or chip the slash to reduce fuels, and leave enough
snags and logs for wildlife. Then thin what's left to ensure that
surviving trees grow quickly and to protect them from fire because they
will become old growth in the future forest.
Next, begin rebuilding the forest by planting native trees in gaps
left by beetle-killed trees. Additional gaps will have to be opened and
planted at different times and places to ensure that the restored
forest has groups of trees of different ages. This will take five or
more decades. By then seed from adjacent trees will fill new gaps and
the forest will look relatively natural since some sites will grow
trees 120 feet tall in 50 years. It will take centuries to replace the
largest trees.
This would be natural forestry not plantation forestry. That means
using nature as a guide for creating a healthy, diverse forest that is
fire, insect, disease, and drought resistant.
Restoring the forest is easy. Paying for it is not. Reducing the
fire hazard and restoring the forest could cost as much as $1,000 to
$4,000 per acre. Prescribed burning can help, but it is too dangerous
and expensive to rely on, and brings with it air quality and health
risks that will prevent its widespread use.
Practical solutions for forest restoration must therefore include
the private sector. Redirecting tax money to forest restoration would
help, but there just isn't enough to do the job. Success requires
government and the private sector to work together. That means private
companies harvest the trees needed for restoration and in exchange they
get to sell wood products. This is just common sense--why allow insects
or fire to wipe out our forests when we can use them in a way that also
restores them? Wood is a renewable resource we desperately need.
Complete Restoration
To fully restore our forests to health, we must fully understand
the key issues in the forest health and management debate. Perpetuating
myths in the name of advancing a particular cause does not serve the
public interest. Our national forests belong to all people, and should
serve all our needs. We need to dispel the popular misconceptions that
mislead the public and hinder the implementation of sound forest
policies. Only by understanding the facts can we make informed
decisions about our forest heritage.
Myth 1: All fires are good and forest management is bad.
This argument confuses small, naturally occurring fires with large
conflagrations, calls all of them good, and blames forest managers for
wanting to thin our incredibly thick forests and remove the fuel for
monster wildfires.
Today's catastrophic wildfires are bad for forests. When a
devastating fire finally stops, it leaves a desolate moonscape
appearance. The habitat for forest dwelling wildlife is destroyed,
small streams are boiled dry, fish die and their habitat is smothered
by silt and debris. The fire also bakes the soil so hard water cannot
get through, so it washes away by the ton. All that is left are the
blackened corpses of animals and fallen or standing dead trees. Often
there are too few live trees left to even reseed the burn and the area
soon becomes covered with a thick layer of brush that prevents a new
forest from becoming established for many years.
Historically, natural fires burned a far different kind of forest
than the uniformly thick, overpopulated forests we have today. Forests
of the past were resistant to monster fires, with clearings and patches
of open forest that acted as mini-fuelbreaks for fires that were far
smaller and far less hot. These light fires naturally cleared away
debris, dead trees and other potentially dangerous fuels.
Fires can't burn that way in the forest of today. They bite into a
superabundance of fuel, burn super-hot, destroy wildlife and
watersheds, and leave a desolate landscape scarred by erosion and
pitted with craters. This is why forest management, which involves
thinning in order to make our forests more like they used be--naturally
resistant to fire--is so desperately needed.
Myth 2: Wildfires and massive insect infestations are a natural way for
forests to thin and rejuvenate themselves.
On the contrary, ``no-cut'' policies and total fire suppression
have created the overcrowded forest conditions that enable fires to
spread over vast areas that never burned that way in their known
history. The resulting devastation is not natural. It is human-caused.
We must accept responsibility for the crisis we created and correct the
problem.
Myth 3: If management is unavoidable, then deliberately set fires, or
prescribed fires, are the best way to solve today's wildfire
crisis.
It is naive to believe we can have gentle fires in today's thick
forests. Prescribed fire is ineffective and unsafe in the forests of
today. It is ineffective because any fire that is hot enough to kill
trees over three inches in diameter, which is too small to eliminate
most fire hazards, has a high probability of becoming uncontrollable.
Even carefully planned fires are unsafe, as the 2000 Los Alamos fire
amply demonstrated.
Not only that, there are very limited opportunities to burn. All
the factors, such as fuel moisture, temperature, wind, existence of
defensible perimeters, and available personnel, must be at levels that
make it relatively safe to conduct a prescribed burn. This happens so
rarely that it would be impossible to burn enough acreage each year to
significantly reduce the fire hazard. Plus, prescribed burns inherently
introduce air quality and health risk concerns.
Myth 4: Thinning narrow strips of forest around communities, or
fuelbreaks, is more than adequate as a defense against
wildfire.
Anyone who thinks roaring wildfires can't penetrate these flimsy
barriers could not be more mistaken. Fires often jump over railroad
tracks and even divided highways.
Fuelbreaks are impractical because forest communities are spread
out, with homes and businesses scattered over huge areas. It would be
virtually impossible to create an effective thinned ``zone'' to
encompass an area so large.
In addition, fuelbreaks only work if firefighters are on the scene
to attack the fire when it enters the area. Otherwise, it drops to the
ground, and moves along the forest floor even faster than in a thick
forest. Furthermore, there is always the danger of firefighters being
trapped in a fuelbreak during a monster fire.
Catastrophic fires roaring through hundreds of square miles of
unthinned, overgrown forest simply do not respect a narrow fuelbreak.
Frequently, firebrands--burning debris--are launched up to a mile in
advance of the edge of a wildfire, and can destroy homes and
communities no matter how much cleared space surrounds them. When
catapulted embers land on roofs, destruction is usually unavoidable.
Fuelbreaks are a necessary part of a comprehensive community
protection program, not a cure-all solution in and of themselves.
Myth 5: Removing dead trees killed by wind, insects, or fire will not
reduce the fire hazard.
Experience and logic say this is false. Do logs burn in a
fireplace? If dead trees are not removed, they fall into jack straw
piles intermingled with heavy brush and small trees. These fuels become
bone dry by late summer, earlier during a drought. Any fire that
reaches these mammoth piles of dry fuel can unleash the full fury of
nature's violence.
Acting quickly to rehabilitate a wind or insect-ravaged forest, or
a burned forest, is one of the surest ways to prevent wildfires or
dampen their tendency to spread.
Myth 6: We should use taxpayer money to solve the wildfire crisis
rather than involve private enterprise.
The private sector must be involved.
A minimum of 73 million acres of forest needs immediate thinning
and restoration. Another 120 million also need treatment. Subsequent
maintenance treatments must be done on a 15-year cycle. The total cost
for initial treatment would be $60 billion, or about $4 billion per
year for 15 years. Then it would cost about $31 billion for each of the
following 15-year maintenance cycles.
This is far more money than the taxpayers will bear. But if private
companies could harvest and thin only the trees required to restore and
sustain a healthy, fire-resistant forest, it could be done. In
exchange, companies sell the wood, and public expenditures are
minimized.
Unfortunately, there aren't any shortcuts. Human intervention has
created forests that are dense, overgrown tinder boxes where unnatural
monster fires are inevitable. This means we must manage the forest to
prevent fires in the first place. We have to restore our forests to
their natural, historical fire resistance. Thinning and restoring the
entire forest is the only way to safeguard our natural heritage, make
our communities safe, and protect our critical water sources.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Tuttle.
STATEMENT OF ANDREA TUTTLE, STATE FORESTER, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
Ms. Tuttle. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, and Members of the
Committee. On behalf of Governor Davis and Secretary for
Resources, Mary Nichols, I appreciate this opportunity to
testify on the role of the State of California in this
extraordinary tree mortality situation.
As you have heard, this situation is a combination of
drought, of poor forest management and explosive beetle
populations, but this outbreak is just one example of what is
happening throughout the West and Alaska. We have over the
years been watching this area become a visual sea of orange.
Over the past several years I've been here in 1999 we had a
severe immediately north. This was the Willows fire which
consumed around 62,000 acres and it is not regenerating well.
Just recently, Regional Forester Jack Blackwell and I toured
the area on our preparedness review on the status of evacuation
planning and I accompanied Governor Davis here in April as he
took an inspection tour.
By necessity, the state and Federal first response has been
to address the acute risk of wildfire, recognizing the severe
threat posed by the dead fuels, Governor Davis proclaimed a
state of emergency in March of this year, directing state
agencies to clear evacuation routes in community shelter areas
and to streamline state permit and contract procedures.
Governor Davis also signed an executive order in June of
this year to augment state fire suppression capability in the
three counties. As a result, we have added 212 fire fighters on
53 CDF engines. We've deployed 10 additional engines and 40
crew members to three counties. A fire fighting helicopter and
crew is assigned to San Diego County and four additional
conservation camp fire crews were added in Southern California.
The California National Guard has prepared its fixed wing
aircraft in prepositioned ground support and the Office of
Emergency Services is prepared as necessary.
All affected local governments have undertaken many
specific activities. San Bernardino oversight and San Diego
have activated their emergency operation centers and we are
managing this as an emergency through the instant command base
multi-agency organization which you've heard about, the
Mountain Area Safety Task Force.
I cannot stress enough the importance and strength of the
inter-agency cooperation in formulating our preparedness plans.
Jack Blackwell and myself, Gene Zimmerman, my Unit Chief, Tom
O'Keefe and Tom Tisdale and all of our staffs with the
counties, I commend the County Boards of Supervisors, we have
all been forced to work together in ways that we have never
experienced before.
From the State of California, CDF has taken a lead role in
clearing evacuation routes, temporary community shelter sites.
We have reduced the paperwork for cutting trees on private
lands and coordinated implementation of the Endangered Species
Act with the Department of Fish and Game.
The Department of Transportation has provided trucks for
hauling tree waste to disposal sites and has stockpiles signs,
cones and heavy equipment for clearing routes in the event of
evacuation.
The Waste Management Board and the local air pollution
control district has streamlined air quality permits for air
curtain burners in use at the transfer sites. The Highway
Patrol has worked closely with local sheriffs and law
enforcement in unprecedented cooperation between law
enforcement and fire officials in the event we need to get
responders in while getting evacuees out.
The California State License Board is conducting field
inspections. We have participated in the table top exercise to
prepare for wildfire in the area. Every strike team, every fire
fighter coming into Southern California from other parts of the
state is given a copy of the special Red Book and a mandatory
briefing to inform them of the extraordinary fire behavior that
they may encounter here which will exceed anything that they
have ever experienced before.
With respect to the tremendous amount of dead wood and
slash, the Energy Commission, the Governor's Office of Planning
and Research and the California Power Authority are working
with Southern California Edison on the feasibility of locating
a biomass power plant.
As you've heard, our pre-fire preparedness was put to the
test. I won't tell you about that fire again, but basically had
conditions been windier or drier, the outcome could have been
far different.
We thank Congressman Lewis, Senator Feinstein and Secretary
Veneman for your efforts in working to bring additional funding
to this area. Significant progress has been made. This has not
been simple for these many agencies to come together. This is a
complicated many agency program.
Fire season in Southern California is far from over and
this condition will extend for many years before this acute
threat has passed. With the emergency preparedness now fairly
well developed, we're ready to transition into these longer
term questions that you're talking about today. Again, I thank
you for your Federal assistance and your attention to this
matter and we look forward to working closely with you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tuttle follows:]
Statement of Andrea E. Tuttle, State Forester,
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Chairman Pombo and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Governor Davis and Secretary for Resources Mary
Nichols I appreciate this opportunity to provide information regarding
the role of the state of California in this extraordinary tree
mortality situation in the three southern California counties of San
Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego.
History of the Problem
As you have heard from other speakers, the nearly 400,000 acres of
standing dead conifer, oaks and chaparral are the result of a
combination of three primary factors: First, we have experienced four
years of an unprecedented drought. The 01/02 winter was the driest year
in recorded history. Last winter's precipitation was near normal but
with significantly less snow fall than normal and, while not a drought,
it did contribute to the drought effects. This has significantly
weakened the trees. Second, many of these forest and chaparral stands
are in an unnatural, overstocked condition due to a history of
aggressive fire suppression coupled with a lack of forest management,
i.e. lack of harvesting to reduce competition. Third, natural
background levels of beetle infestation have suddenly reached epidemic
proportions, taking advantage of the weakened condition of the trees
and their inability to produce sap. Trees use their sap to ``pitch
out'' insect eggs. Drought stressed trees don't have enough moisture to
create the sap, therefore the larvae hatch and devour the tree from the
inside. This outbreak is just one example of millions of acres of
national forests now affected by beetle kill throughout the western
states and Alaska. What makes this example especially compelling is the
presence of the mountain communities of homeowners and recreational,
tourist-based economies completely lying within U.S. Forest Service
Direct Protection Area.
The extraordinary nature of this die-off became especially clear
last fall when vast areas of the conifer forest became a visual sea of
orange. I have been on several reconnaissance tours of the area over
the past several years: in 1999 I observed the Willows fire which
consumed over 63,000 acres immediately adjacent to Lake Arrowhead to
the north; early this summer USFS Regional Forester Jack Blackwell and
I conducted a preparedness review on the status of evacuation planning;
and more recently in April I accompanied Governor Davis on an
inspection tour. With each trip we have witnessed ever expanding
mortality.
California's Response
Recognizing the severe threat of catastrophic fire posed by the
dead fuels, Governor Davis proclaimed a State of Emergency in March
2003 directing state agencies to clear evacuation routes and community
shelter areas, and to streamline state permit and contract procedures.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)
initiated numerous tasks in cooperation with the Governor's Office of
Emergency Services (OES), the United States Forest Service (USFS),
local government agencies and Fire Safe Councils. Priorities for
immediate action were originally set in four areas:
Creating safe evacuation routes by clearing dead trees
and removing vegetation;
Creating safe shelter-in-place centers;
Creating safe communications centers on USFS land; and
Creating strategic community protection zones by clearing
dead trees, thinning forests, and reducing flammable vegetation.
This list has subsequently grown as we work with all agencies and
levels of jurisdiction to include all the key task areas of evacuation
planning, tree removal and waste disposal, and suppression
preparedness.
After the State of Emergency declaration in March, Governor Davis
also signed Executive Order D-69-03 on June 20, 2003, to augment state
fire suppression capability in the three counties. As a result, we were
able to increase staffing on 53 CDF engines, which added 212
firefighters, and the deployment of ten refurbished fire engines and 40
crewmembers to the three counties. One firefighting helicopter and crew
was leased, staffed and assigned to San Diego County, and four
additional CDF Conservation Camp fire crews were added in Southern
California. Additional funding allowed the California National Guard to
prepare its fixed-wing aircraft and pre-position ground support
equipment for immediate response in the event of a wildfire in the
area. OES has developed and implemented a quick response plan to deploy
OES engine strike teams into mountain communities as necessary. In
support of these actions the expenditure of approximately $8.3 million
was authorized.
Local Government Actions
All affected local governments have undertaken many specific
activities. As you will hear in more detail, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and San Diego Counties have activated their emergency operations
centers and have worked cooperatively through their respective offices
of emergency management. San Bernardino and Riverside Counties manage
the emergency through an incident command-based, multi-agency
organization known as a Mountain Area Safety Taskforce (MAST). San
Diego County created a similar organization called the Forest Area
Safety Taskforce (FAST). These groups include the county emergency and
public works organizations, local Fire Safe Councils, the USFS, CDF,
OES, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans), California Department of Fish and Game and local utility
operators. These organizations developed and operate from strategic
plans that serve to guide planning, preparedness, evacuation response,
and mitigation activities.
Interagency Cooperation
I cannot stress enough the importance and the strength of the
inter-agency cooperation we have experienced with our partners in
formulating these preparedness plans. Cooperation between Regional
Forester Jack Blackwell and myself, between Forest Supervisor Gene
Zimmerman and CDF Unit Chiefs Tom O'Keefe of San Bernardino County and
Chief Tom Tisdale of Riverside, and between our staffs has been
tremendous. At every step along the way, the federal, state, county and
special districts have worked together in ways they have never
experienced before.
From the State of California many agencies have participated.
CDF has taken a strong role clearing evacuation routes,
temporary community shelter sites and fuel breaks utilizing inmate
crews. We have reduced the paperwork for cutting trees on private
lands, and coordinated implementation of the Endangered Species Act
with the California Department of Fish and Game, especially with
respect to protecting the Southern Rubber Boa snake.
The California Department of Transportation has provided
trucks for hauling tree waste to disposal sites, and stockpiled signs,
cones and heavy equipment for clearing roads in the event of
evacuation.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board has
permitted expanded use of the transfer sites for the tremendous volumes
of wood waste, and the local Air Pollution Control District has
streamlined air quality permits for the air curtain burners. Those
burners can efficiently dispose of large quantities of forest waste at
very high temperatures with very little air emission.
The California Highway Patrol has worked closely with
local sheriffs and law enforcement in designing and coordinating
evacuation plans to help get responders in while getting evacuees out.
The Contractors State License Board, in coordination with
CDF, is conducting field inspections to insure that the public is
protected from fraudulent business practice.
We have participated with all the MAST agencies in San
Bernardino County in a tabletop exercise to prepare for a wildfire in
the Lake Arrowhead area.
Every strike team, every firefighter coming into southern
California is given a copy of this special Red Book, a Structure
Protection Pre-Plan, and mandatory briefing to inform them of the
extraordinary fire behavior they may encounter, which may exceed
anything they have ever experienced before.
Biomass Options
As we move into longer term consideration of how to dispose of the
tremendous volumes of dead wood and slash, the California Energy
Commission, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and the
California Power and Conservation Financing Authority are working with
Southern California Edison to evaluate the feasibility of locating a
biomass power plant. Inventories of available biomass are underway with
the assistance of ESRI, a GIS and Mapping Software vendor which has
voluntarily provided GIS mapping services and satellite imagery. CDF is
working with CalTrans and Southern California Edison to survey tree
mortality along the highways, evacuation routes and utility lines, and
the USFS is working with CDF to co-fund a team of CDF foresters to
assist.
Recent Fire Activity
All of our pre-fire preparedness was suddenly put to the test
earlier this month with the ignition of the Bridge Fire below the
communities of Running Springs and Smiley Park. In a short time period
the fire extended to 1400 acres moving up through chaparral that had
not burned for 50 years. Fortunately, aggressive initial attack and an
increase in humidity slowed the fire shortly before it reached the dead
conifer zone. Reports indicate that the multi-agency response was
excellent, voluntary and mandatory evacuations were conducted
efficiently, and residents were prepared and cooperative. However, had
conditions been windier and drier, this outcome could have been far
different. This served as a sudden, startling wake-up call. It was a
clear indicator of the flammability of the fuels and the speed with
which a catastrophic fire could suddenly occur.
Conclusion
We thank Congressman Lewis, Senator Feinstein and Secretary Veneman
for their efforts in working to bring additional funding to this
serious situation. Each entity brought resources to the table, but more
is needed. The state continues to work closely with FEMA to determine
what additional assistance may be available.
As you can see, significant progress has been made but the
continuing threat is enormous, and there is still much remaining to be
accomplished. Nature is taking its course and has presented us with an
ecological change on a scale that we have not experienced before.
Academic researchers are anxious to document and study this extreme
change.
All the agencies are to be commended for coming as far as they have
with as complicated a problem as they were faced with. We have made
progress. The players are engaged. We have a good start on setting up
the mechanisms for receiving funds and putting them onto the ground.
Our first responders will do the very best they can if and when a
wildfire occurs. The job of educating residents and visiting tourists
on fire safety, evacuation planning, and tree clearance will be a
continual one. With the entry of Southern California Edison and the
large scale utility line clearance program we can start to think more
comprehensively of long term biomass disposal options.
It has not been a simple thing for the multiple agencies to face
this. Everyone has had to work very hard, and I extend my sincere
appreciation to them. Our firefighting season in Southern California is
far from over, and this condition will extend for many years before the
acute threat has passed.
Again, I would like to thank you for the federal financial
assistance we have received and for the outstanding support provided by
USFS and FEMA in dealing with this threat.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. West?
STATEMENT OF ALLAN J. WEST, MEMBER,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES
Mr. West. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lewis and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on issues relating to the management of our national
forests. You have a copy of my statement. I would just like to
cover the highlights for you.
I come before you today as someone who's devoted much of my
professional career to fire management. As Director of Fire and
Aviation Management, and as Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry for the U.S. Forest Service, I have responsibility for
fire protection over most of our nation's wildlands. In
retirement, I chair the Watershed Fire Council of Southern
California.
I would like to address a few issues and potential
solutions as they relate to the situation we find here in Lake
Arrowhead and most of our western wildlands. The local citizens
and most of our fire professionals will tell you they are
sitting on a powder keg waiting to explode. With the number of
dead and dying trees, and the volume of vegetation on the
ground, all intermingled between houses, it's just a matter of
time before disaster strikes.
Devastation to important watersheds, wildlife habitat and
personal property could set new records in terms of losses. The
potential of entrapment of citizens is of grave concern.
Wildland firefighters are dedicated to protecting lives,
property and natural resources. However, under the conditions
we find our forests today, their safety is of critical concern.
These forests are under stress because of limited
precipitation and increased annual growth that compete for the
available moisture. When the trees are not vigorous, Bark
Beetles attack, become established and then kill the trees.
Active sanitation salvage programs during the 1950s, 1960s
and 1970s, served to keep these stands relatively thrifty, but
logging was opposed and consequently, the big bag timber
company at Redlands closed, so today there are no ready markets
for thinnings, except for firewood.
Some suggest that the answer to destructive wildfire is to
let them burn, just protect the little area around communities
and residences and let nature take care of the rest. This fails
the common sense test in many ways. Communities, fish, precious
water supplies are equally at risk from the after fire floods
and mudflows in unprotected and unstable watersheds, miles from
the communities. It ignores the fact that our national forests
are intermingled with private lands and it ignores the impact
of smoke from forest fires on air quality and human health.
As suggested by Northern Arizona University Professor, Dr.
Wally Covington, treatment should be considered on the
landscape of 100,000 to a million acres. Bark Beetles are not
deterred by the thick bark of large trees. Evidence of this are
the dead 400-year-old Ponderosa Pine throughout the San
Bernardino National Forest.
While some may argue that big trees should not be removed
because they are fire resistance, history has demonstrated that
big trees, while relatively resistant to fire, also burn.
Many people do not want human intervention in the forest.
Let the status quo might summarize as let's manage the forest
as prior to European settlement. Common sense tells us we
cannot ignore the presence of 280 million Americans in this
country, nor the demands they make on our forests. There can be
no more vivid example of the don't touch fallacy than right
here on the San Bernardino National Forest.
Annual appropriations must become an integral part for
forest health maintenance. The Forest Service must have a
program to address all aspects of forest health including
prioritization. Some funding must be available to each forest
supervisor so they can minimum skills and monitor and treat
unhealthy forest conditions.
Direct thinning projects have an important role. They are
expensive, but effective. Fortunately, substantial portions of
these stands need treatment and have added-on value: their
potential markets for much of the material that needs to be
removed as lumber, forest products and production of energy.
The story of fire suppression in forestry in the last
century is a great success story. In the early 1900s we were
burning as much as 50 million acres a year. Today, 3 to 5
million acres is a bad fire year.
In the early 1900s, removal from our forests exceeded
growth. Today, in spite of the significant population
increases, growth exceeds removals. But our forests face a
growing threat of fire, insect and disease because of
overstocking. Fire can and should be used as one of the tools
for reducing excessive fuel loading, but pre-treatment by
mechanical removal is required in many areas before fire can be
used without excessive damage and liability risk.
Mr. Chairman, many of the views of the National Association
of Forest Retirees is in this book, Forest Health and Fire, an
Overview and Evaluation and we would like to submit this for
the record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. West follows:]
Statement of Allan J. West, National Association of Forest Service
Retirees, and Chairman, Watershed Fire Council of Southern California
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:
On behalf of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on issues
relating to management of our National Forests. The association has
members located throughout the nation who possess a unique body of
knowledge, expertise and experience in the management of the National
Forests, forestry research, and state and private assistance. I come
before you today as someone who has devoted much of my professional
career to fire management. As Director of Fire and Aviation Management
and as Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry for the U.S. Forest
Service, I had responsibility for fire protection on most of our
Nation's wildlands, both public and private. In retirement I chair the
Watershed Fire Council of Southern California.
The National Association of Forest Service Retirees believes that
management of our National Forests must be based on sound science,
technical feasibility, economic viability, and common sense.
Unfortunately too much of today's debates about these valuable lands is
based on myths and a ``Let's pretend'' approach.
In my brief time with you I would like to address just a few of the
issues and potential solutions. They relate to the situation we find
here in the Lake Arrowhead area and most of our western wildlands. The
local citizens and fire professionals will tell you they are sitting on
a powder keg waiting to explode. With the number of dead and dying
trees and the volume of vegetation on the ground, all intermingled
between houses, it is just a matter of time before disaster could
strike. Any fire escaping initial attack and burning into this beetle-
killed area could be catastrophic. Devastation to the important
watersheds, critical wildlife habitats, homes, businesses and personal
property could set new records in terms of losses. The potential
entrapment of citizens is also of grave concern.
Since my retirement 10 years ago, each year I have become
increasingly more concerned with fire fighter safety, especially as I
view the continuing decline in the health of our forests. There are
locations to which you simply cannot, in good conscience, dispatch
personnel. Wildland fire fighters are dedicated to protect lives,
property and natural resources. However, under the conditions we find
our forests today, their safety must be of critical concern. Even with
all our modern equipment, helicopters, aircraft, advanced planning and
highly trained firefighters, there is high potential for
conflagrations.
Moisture Stress
The forested areas of the San Bernardino, and other southern
California forests are on the borderline of tree growth, because
average annual precipitation is just over 12 inches. As a result the
trees are in moisture stress any time precipitation is below normal.
When stress is increased due to drought or overcrowding, the trees are
especially vulnerable to insect attacks and to the problems of high
ozone levels (once called ``The X Disease''). Foresters, entomologists
and plant physiologists have long recognized that maintaining low stand
densities in all size classes is essential to maintaining forest health
in this particular situation.
While there have been periodic outbreaks of insects, an active
sanitation/salvage program during the 50's, 60's, and 70's served to
keep the stands relatively thrifty. Unfortunately, the environmental
movement that opposed logging disrupted the program on the San
Bernardino and adjacent forests. Consequently the Big Bear Timber
Company at Redland closed, so there is no ready market for thinnings
except for firewood. There is adequate annual growth in the local
forests, along with thinning and beetle and disease salvage, to support
a modest-sized wood products industry. Effective forest management to
reduce the hazardous fuel loadings in this area will be impossible
without a viable forest products industry. An assured stable input of
raw material would find markets for much of the wood that needs to be
removed from the forest, with the larger material going to lumber and
the smaller material to firewood and/or energy production.
Treatment of Large Landscapes
Some suggest that the answer to destructive wildfire is to let them
burn--just protect a little area around communities and residences and
let nature take care of the rest. This suggestion fails the common
sense test in many ways.
It ignores the damage that destructive fires do to
watershed, wildlife and fish, recreation, and other forest values. We
know that fire causes many soil types in the area to become impervious
to water. Precipitation on these hydrophobic soils generates overland
flows of water, soil and debris that can travel great distances.
Communities, fish and precious water supplies are equally at risk from
these after-fire floods and mud flows created in unprotected and
unstable watersheds, miles from the communities.
It ignores the fact that our National Forests are
intermingled with private lands, and fires burning on these Forests
represent a threat to the private land values. The homes and forested
land are intermixed. They do not form a separate interface where homes
can easily be separated from forest fuels.
It ignores the impact of smoke from forest fires on air
quality and human health. The towns in and around last year's fires can
provide ample testimony on the impact of fires on the health of the
inhabitants and their quality of life.
It ignores the practical problem, while individual houses
that have defensible space can often be protected, that when fires come
at a community on a wide front there are simply not enough resources to
take advantage of the defensible spaces around many homes at the same
time.
It ignores the complexity of hundred of miles of urban
interface on the San Bernardino to be managed and protected, with
little or no discrete stratification of fuel loading and types between
the general forest and human habitations.
Northern Arizona University professor, Dr. Wally Covington, argues
the ``frequent fire forests,'' such as the San Bernardino, ``are so
degraded and fragile that they are no longer sustainable, and a
liability rather than an asset to present and future generations.''
Treatments, he suggests, should consider landscapes of 100,000 to
1,000,000 acres. The entire fuel picture must be considered--the
massive brush fields as well as the forested areas. Starting with
highest risks, we should work back into the interior with fuel
modification to where the costs of fire and values at risk reach some
sort of equilibrium. The consequences of inaction will be to give
residents a false sense of security that may put property and even
their lives in danger.
Similar rationale applies to forest insect epidemics. Beetles fly
wherever they find suitable trees, and they respect no boundaries.
Allowing a beetle epidemic to build up in the interior of a public
forest jeopardizes private property as well. Thinning a stand increases
the availability of soil moisture. Bark beetle populations can be held
in check by modifying stand density because beetles do not become
established in vigorous trees. Thinning is the only reasonable means to
provide some insurance against the inevitable drought and lessen the
effects of bark beetle infestations.
Treatment of Large Trees
Bark beetles are not deterred by the thick bark of large trees.
Evidence of this, in the form of dead 400-year-old ponderosa pine,
pervades the San Bernardino. These dead trees, full of pitch and dried
out by summer heat, will make a spectacular display of fire behavior
when certain weather conditions and ignitions combine. The dead and
down material will then generate an inferno, and the standing dead will
act like Roman candles, scattering spot fires for miles ahead of the
fire, making direct attack impractical and endangering life and
property.
While some may argue that big trees should not be removed because
they are fire-resistant, history has demonstrated that big trees, while
relatively resistant to fire, also burn with high intensity under very
dry conditions and where ground fuels have built up. The Tillamook Burn
in Oregon, at 355,000 acres, and the Yacoult Burn in Washington, of
1,000,000 acres, were mostly old, large trees in much cooler moist
coastal environments. The fires killed the large trees as well as the
small ones.
Restrictions on harvesting a given size or age of trees interrupt
the succession necessary to maintain the basic health of the forest.
The only responsible treatment is to remove the dead material and
ladder fuels to an acceptable fuel loading, harvest the beetle-infested
trees to prevent further spread, and thin the remaining stand to a
density that reduces moisture stress and provides some resistance to
drought. Size of individual trees must not be a deterrent to doing the
correct silvicultural job.
The ``Don't Touch'' Fallacy
Many people reject the idea of human intervention in the forest.
The common view of the forest is one of stability and persistence, and
we find a reluctance to intervene with this perceived static condition.
But any knowledgeable observer of forest conditions recognizes that
forests are not static, are never ``in balance''. They are constantly
changing. The status quo view might be summarized as, ``Let's pretend
there are only a few Native Americans in the country and manage our
forests as they were prior to European settlement.'' In their view,
roads, timber harvesting, fire protection, recreation developments, and
other human activities are the cause of our current problems. Forget
about managing the forest, just leave it alone and everything will be
just fine.
But Mr. Chairman, common sense tells us that we cannot ignore the
presence of 280 million American in this country, nor ignore the
demands that they make on our forests. There can be no more vivid
example of the ``don't touch'' fallacy than right here on the San
Bernardino National Forest and in much of the surrounding private lands
where human impacts and moisture stress are at their highest.
Over 350,000 acres of both public and private land in the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains face drought-related mortality
ranging up to 80 percent of the trees. Insisting that we let nature
take its course in this highly populated and developed area, with
severe drought on top of massive bark beetle infestation, is a certain
disaster to life and property in the making. What will we be able to
say to the American people if we do nothing, letting nature take its
course, which results in substantial loss of human life?
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species
The southern rubber boa, Charima bottae umbratica, (State Status--
Threatened; Federal Status--Sensitive) resides in the San Bernardino,
San Jacinto and San Gabriel Mountains above 1,500 meters. This creature
will very likely become an issue when land management agencies propose
forest health prescriptions. The Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan lists a number of threats to the viability of
the species; firewood harvesting, off-highway vehicle use, fern
harvesting, commercial timber harvesting, fire management, skiing, and
federal--private land exchanges. The fact that wildfire misses the list
is a pathetic manifestation of a basic lack of understanding of the
effects of fire on wildlife habitat. Reliable estimates of habitat loss
of the northern-spotted owl due to the Biscuit Fire in Oregon last year
amounted to over 80,000 acres. Owls are mobile, and an individual can
escape a fire to take up residence elsewhere. But the lethargic, slow,
earth-bound boas have no escape from even a moderately hot ground fire,
let alone a massive conflagration that appears possible in the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Habitat-destroying fire could be
disastrous to the species.
We don't propose to ignore the rubber boa's habitat needs, but one
must consider the long-term effects of no action when assessing the
short term. The Conservation plan describes the habitat destruction of
the southern rubber boa as a consequence of moving logs around, logs
that the extremely secretive boa uses for hiding. A schedule for forest
management activities could be timed when the species are less active--
in the middle of the summer and in the winter, for example. In
addition, only a small portion of the forest will be affected by fuel
treatments at any one time. In any event the imperative is to carry out
the necessary treatments whenever habitat loss in the long-term will
exceed the immediate effects.
Another commonly held argument against active management of habitat
at risk harkens back to ``The No Touch Fallacy''. Wildfire (the claim
goes) being ``natural'' is more acceptable than human intervention,
even if ``unnatural'' human intervention is less damaging to the
habitat than the alternative of no action. This amounts to sacrificing
species health only for the sake of maintaining a misguided dogma.
Forest Health Funding
Assured annual appropriations must become an integral component of
forest health maintenance. On-again, off-again funding for forest
health means that the field loses the necessary professional skills and
that research into forest health problems dries up. It also precludes
the development and maintenance of markets for material that needs to
be removed. The Forest Service must devise a comprehensive programming
and budgeting system that addresses all the aspects of forest health,
including a prioritization scheme that sends the money where it's most
needed. Funding must also be available to all forest supervisors to
maintain minimum skills necessary to monitor and treat unhealthy forest
conditions. A forest health program plan, once developed, should be a
budget line item for Congressional appropriations.
Direct thinning projects have an important role. They are
expensive, but effective. Funding needs to be continued, but common
sense tells me there is little likelihood that the Congress can provide
appropriations at a level needed to make significant progress.
Fortunately, substantial portions of the stands that need treatment
have economic value. There are potential markets for much of the
material that needs to be removed, as lumber or other forest products,
or in the production of energy.
Regarding the production of energy, two relatively new developments
could be brought into play on the San Bernardino. One is the small
power generating plant using small diameter forest residues, a
demonstration of which is currently in the field testing stage by the
Forest Products Lab; the other is the slash buncher now in use in the
central Sierra, which binds small material in bunches for delivery to
power plants. The San Bernardino area, with its developed
infrastructure and copious supplies of raw material, provides a perfect
location for additional field-testing of these activities. Additional
funding for the Forest Products Lab for research and development would
help refine these technologies to make them more lucrative as important
adjuncts to forest health operations.
Much can be accomplished in terms of stand management, while also
contributing to the economy of local forest communities and to our
energy needs, if the Agency is provided the flexibility to market
commercially valuable material.
Now I know the charge will be made that this is just another excuse
for letting the timber industry back in the door, but using the
economic value of this material is the only way the job is going to get
done. It is also consistent with the statutory purposes for which the
National Forests are established.
Recognizing the immense cost of restoring forest health, we must
not shrink from having forest products help pay for the cost. Recent
studies by the Forest Service demonstrate that removing some
commercially valuable material along with small material of negative
value, results in better forest conditions and lower costs. Selling
commercially valuable material, where it makes silvicultural and
economic sense, will give us more bang for the appropriated buck.
The Case for Active Forest Management
Mr. Chairman, clearly the forests of the country were not
sustainable in the face of the level of forest fire activity that was
occurring at the start of the 20th Century. The story of fire
suppression and forestry in the last century is in fact a great success
story.
In the early 1900's we were burning as much as 50 million acres per
year. Today we consider 5-6 million acres as a bad fire year. And let
us look at the results. In the early 1900's, removals from our forests
exceeded growth. Today, in spite of significant population increases,
growth exceeds removals by substantial margins. Private firms and
individuals invest in long-term forest management because there is some
certainty that the investment will not be lost to fire. Water quality
from our forested lands remains high. Populations of deer, elk, and
other game species have increased dramatically. Recreation use of our
National Forests has increased. By any objective measures, the
condition of our forests has improved dramatically over the last
century.
But our forests today face a growing threat of loss to fire,
insects and disease as the result of overstocking over wide areas. It
is essential that efforts to deal with this problem be accelerated.
Foresters and fuels management specialists on the National Forests
know how to create stand conditions that reduce their vulnerability to
fire and insects. They cannot fire proof these forests, but they can
reduce the likelihood of devastating fires and reduce the damage
resulting when fires do occur.
Forests need to be thinned to reduce fuel loading and the
likelihood of crown fires. We know quite a bit about the stand
conditions that are required. The Agency needs to be provided with the
full range of tools necessary to achieve these conditions. Stands must
be treated not only adjacent to communities, but also throughout many
of the vulnerable stands. Artificial limits on the size of trees to be
cut must be avoided.
Fire can and should be used as one of the tools for reducing excess
fuel loading, but it is expensive. Pretreatment by mechanical removal
is required in many areas before fire can be used without excessive
damage and liability risks. Smoke management is a major issue. As a
practical matter, there will be relatively little increase in
prescribed burning under current clean air regulations. I will let the
members speculate on the likelihood of a significant relaxation in the
regulatory arena.
Mr. Chairman, many of the views of the National Association of
Forest Service Retirees on this issue are documented in the publication
Forest Health and Fire an Overview and Evaluation. The publication is
available in electronic form at www.fsx.org/NAFSRforesthealth.pdf. I
ask that it be included in the record.
Thank you again for the opportunity to take part in this critically
important hearing. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included in the
record. Thank you.
Mr. Jensen.
STATEMENT OF JAY JENSEN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
WESTERN FORESTRY LEADERSHIP COALITION
Mr. Jensen. Thank you, Chairman Pombo and Committee. I'll
be making frequent reference to my written testimony, so you
might want to pull it out as it contains a number of figures
and graphs that relate this Bark Beetle problem in a larger
context of the West.
My name is Jay Jensen. I'm the Legislative Director for the
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, a group of western
states foresters, western USDA foresters, regional foresters
and western USDA Forest Service research station directors. The
coalition is a state and Federal partnership between these 34
western leaders who have organized to come together to talk and
tackle these issues, these forest resource issues that affect
the West such as the Bark Beetle.
What I'd like to talk today is to come before you and
present some of our findings of our western Bark Beetle report
and in the larger context talk to you about what is happening
in the rest of the West in terms of the Bark Beetle.
I think we've heard pretty good--I'm going to recap a
little bit of my written remarks in the sense we've heard from
the Panel and from the questions already about what the beetle
means in terms of its impacts on forest health and in terms of
fire. I think it's important to note that the Bark Beetle is
actually an endemic species to the environment. It does play a
natural role in keeping forests healthy. When a forest is
healthy, they create low level disturbances that actually help
with wildlife habitat, actually help with increasing diversity
in trees. However, when our forests are unhealthy, what the
Bark Beetle does is it exacerbates the problem. We see it
impacting instead of tens of thousands of acres, hundreds of
thousands of acres and that's what we see here today. We're
dealing with the problem where we have unhealthy forests where
the trees are, as Dr. Bonnicksen has pointed out, the trees are
too close together. We have too many trees on the landscape.
Throw on top of that the drought that we have, the problem is
exacerbated even more.
What this results in is we are prime and ripe for
catastrophic wildfire to strike. Now the crux of the issue here
is apparently is what the public expects out of their forests.
Yes, these forests will grow back. Yes, the fires will happen
and people will rebuild their homes in these areas, but is it
acceptable for the people who live here now and what we value
as a society to have that happen? I would submit to you that it
is not. We must do something about that.
Now I'm going to return and go back to the report a little
bit and summarize to you perhaps the most striking finding
that's in there. We found that over the next 15 years it's
projected that 15 million acres will be impacted by Bark
Beetles in the West.
If you'll turn to page in my testimony, you'll note the
first figure there. It's entitled Forest Health. That shows a
graphic representation of where those 21 million acres are to
be intact and on the landscape.
On the following page, on page 4 of my testimony, you will
note another graph. It shows 2002 fires in the West. What this
map shows in red are all the forests in the West that are
currently unhealthy and where the fires in 2002 impacted on the
ground. You'll notice a pretty strong correlation between where
those fires occurred and where we have unhealthy forests. If
you juxtapose that first graphic and this next graphic you can
see and anticipate where we're going to see future problems in
the West.
To provide a little more detail in terms of that, I'll
again ask you to turn to page 5 of my testimony where there's a
table. I'm not sure if the Clerk handed it out earlier, but
there's actually a graph bar representation of what those
numbers show there. And Chairman Pombo and Congressmen from
California, you'll note what that table and this graph shows
are acres of tree mortality by Forest Service region.
California is Forest Service Region 5. You'll note from 2001 to
2002, we have a tremendous leap. In terms of absolute numbers,
we're going from 78,000 acres to 847,000 acres.
Congressman Gibbons, Congressman Walden will also notice
the same in your states and your regions. Now, this paints a
fairly foreboding and a bleak picture, but I will say that we
do have a course of action we can take to actively manage our
forests.
Our Bark Beetle report lays out the course of action that
would need to be taken. I'll summarize that and briefly say
that we need to undertake a national course that undertakes
prevention, suppression and restoration of those forests.
To wrap up my testimony, I'll bring it back to what's
happening here in Lake Arrowhead and the San Bernardino
National Forest. Lake Arrowhead is not alone and a community in
itself. Where Lake Arrowhead is actually ahead is that they
have, the communities come together and agree that action needs
to have and that needs to take place. The same location in the
rest of the country, but that debate is currently happening
right now and I think what's happening with the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act is a good example of what needs to happen so we
can get to the point where we can take quick and decisive
action to respond to these threats.
I encourage you in that sense that we must continue the
discourse on what our management reaction should be and the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a good start to that
discourse. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:]
Statement of Jay Jensen, Legislative Director,
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition
Members of the House Resources Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today to present critical and timely
information on the condition of our western forests. My name is Jay
Jensen. I am the Legislative Director for the Western Forestry
Leadership Coalition (Coalition), a group of western State Foresters
1, western USDA Forest Service Regional Foresters, and
western USDA Forest Service Research Station Directors 2.
The coalition is a federal-state partnership representing the expertise
and experience of these 34 western forestry leaders who have organized
to help tackle many of the current resource issues we face in the West.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the U.S. Territorial Foresters in the Pacific
\2\ Includes the Forests Products Lab Director in Madison, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are here today to discuss the forest health crisis in the San
Bernardino National Forest, but, as you will see, the problem of bark
beetles in the West is not unique to Southern California. The Coalition
and its members are seriously concerned about what western bark beetles
are doing to our forests and communities throughout the west. We
greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak with one voice on this
bark beetle issue and would like to present the findings of a report
entitled, Western Bark Beetle Report: A Plan to Protect and Restore
Western Forests (www.WFLCcenter.org). Requested by the House Resources
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, the USDA Forest Service in
cooperation with the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition released the
report in April of 2002.
Historical Role of Bark Beetles
Today I would like to discuss the important recommendations of the
report, but first allow me to present the larger context of western
bark beetle impacts in relation to Lake Arrowhead's situation. Bark
beetles in western forests have been present for millennia. They are an
endemic species, that is one that is native to the area, and have a
very important natural role to play in keeping forest ecosystems
healthy that should be recognized. They act as ``agents of change.''
Forests are dynamic and beetles contribute a healthy level of
disturbance in the forest. Within their historic natural range of
variation, they can act as a low-intensity disturbance in the forest,
maintaining a proper balance of numbers of trees and forest ecosystem
structure. Similar to fire, these low-intensity disturbances are an
integral dynamic in keeping forests healthy.
However, when our forests are unhealthy, the normal balance that
exists is disrupted by numerous factors. In an unhealthy forest,
normally low-level disturbances are exacerbated and result in high-
level catastrophes that tend to be harder and costlier to address in
terms of dollars and lives. Rather, these unhealthy forests can lead to
high-level catastrophes that threaten the myriad of resources the
public values in our forests; clean water, wildlife habitat, scenic
beauty, timber, and clean air. Many of our western forests are no
longer resilient to bark beetle outbreaks. No longer are forests able
to withstand their effects, thus preventing the beetles from playing
the role of a positive ``agent of change.''
The reasons why beetles are able to act outside their normal
disturbance role are complex, but can be simply summed up by saying
there are too many trees in the forest. Due to diminished active
management in forests as a whole and decades of efficient wildfire
suppression, forested lands have grown overcrowded. I am here to relay
that many of our forests throughout the west are overstocked, over-
mature, and lack diversity in species and age. Just as people are more
susceptible to disease when in crowded environments, trees are forced
to compete for more limited resources like water, sun and nutrients.
Forests in these conditions cannot withstand natural stresses such as
drought. With the ongoing droughts that are affecting much of the west
compounding the problem, it becomes clear that trees and whole forests
are extremely susceptible to health threats such as the bark beetle. In
these conditions, beetles act outside of their natural range of
variation, resulting in potentially devastating impacts to forest
communities and, perhaps more importantly, human communities.
Values At-Risk
Our forests do not stand in isolation from the communities within
and around them. On the contrary, people depend on them. The human
communities around Lake Arrowhead are a perfect example. Within their
branches, forests hold much of what we as a society value and, to some
degree, take for granted every day. Forests provide benefits to urban
and rural communities in the forms of recreation, wood products, clean
and adequate water, wildlife habitat, scenic quality and jobs. As a
whole, these items define our quality of life. When our forests are
devastated by a wildfire outbreak, the forests and the resources that
we hold so dear are at risk of deteriorating. This is what we risk when
bark beetles are allowed to operate outside their natural range of
variation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.008
Western Impacts
Our western bark beetle report found that over the next fifteen
years, twenty-one million acres of western forests 3 are at
high risk of experiencing significant tree mortality caused by bark
beetles [See Figure 1--``Forest Health''; page 3].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ There are 362 million acres of western forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined with continuing drought, we have a recipe for disaster,
like the one we see here in Lake Arrowhead. Dead, dry acres of trees
wait for a match or lightning strike to erupt into a wildfire affecting
people and the communities that live and depend on these forests.
Figure 2 [``2002 Fires in the West,'' page 4] is a powerful visual that
shows the direct relationship between the condition of the land and the
occurrence of wildfires from the 2002 wildfire season. You will note
that the major wildfires from 2002 coincide with areas that are in the
worst condition class. In straightforward terms, catastrophic fires are
occurring primarily where forests are unhealthy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.009
The truly unfortunate situation is that the problem is not getting
better on its own. Table 1 [``Acres of mortality,'' page 5] shows the
acreage adversely affected by bark beetles over the past six years. As
you can see, we are moving on an exponential scale where the number of
trees that have died over the past two years has more than doubled from
1.9 million acres to 4.1 million acres.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.010
This information presents an ominous case for the challenge ahead
of us in the west, yet we have an answer. By actively managing the
threatened acres of our forests, we can restore them to a healthy
condition and avoid creating more situations like Lake Arrowhead. We
have, within our knowledge and skills, the ability to avoid this.
Specific actions can restore our forest to good health and reduce the
threats to communities. The Western Bark Beetle Report--A Plan to
Protect and Restore Western Forests, focuses on three courses of
action; prevention, suppression and restoration, all of which must be
applied across all ownerships and boundaries to be effective.
Prevention
I would submit to you that prevention is the best option of the
three to pursue and makes the most sense. If one can prevent or
diminish unwanted bark beetle outbreaks before they occur, costs,
impacts and disruptions are all minimized. A good analogy is our own
health. It is smart to see a doctor regularly for preventative health
measures. The same applies to bark beetles and other forest health
threats. Preventative bark beetle efforts are aimed at returning the
land to a more natural condition where a mosaic of species and forest
age classes exist. Ultimately, prevention treatments, such as thinning
forests (removing excess trees) and prescribed fires (intentionally set
fires with management objectives), will result in lower overall fuel
accumulations and fewer ``ladder fuels'' which allow flames from
wildfire to spread from normal ground fires, high into the canopy. The
end-result is a forest functioning within the normal and historic range
of variation.
Suppression
If preventative measures fail or are not in place, the next option
is to suppress the bark beetle outbreak. Unfortunately, suppression
efforts tend to be the most costly option to undertake. Suppression
strategies call for expedited treatments in order to limit the negative
impacts of ongoing outbreaks. Emphasis should be placed in high-valued
areas such as the wildland-urban interface, threatened and endangered
species habitat, recreation sites, and critical watersheds that provide
drinking water. Suppression actions include removal of potential and
infested host material; the use of pheromones to capture beetles; and,
at times, the limited use of pesticides to protect high-value trees
during an outbreak.
Suppression efforts may give resource managers valuable time to
design and implement prevention and restoration treatments that will
reduce further bark beetle spread and return forests to a more
resilient condition in the future.
Restoration
In some sense, restoration is the final goal of all our actions. We
want to return forests to a healthier condition so they are more
resilient to bark beetle outbreaks. When trees are healthy, they can
fend off these natural predators with their own defense mechanism; the
tree's own sap and pitch. This should be a guiding goal in all our
efforts. The approach to restoration involves re-establishing proper
tree spacing and an appropriate diversity of tree species for the site
through targeted tree removals and plantings. Again, the challenge here
is the magnitude of the problem ahead. As much of the west's forests
are in poor health (estimates are as large as 190 million acres of
federal land in either condition class 2 or 3), much work needs to be
done to restore these lands to a point where bark beetles can return to
their natural range of variability and act within its historic role as
an agent of change.
Research
A word needs to be said about the continued need for research and
development on bark beetles. We already know much about the interaction
of unhealthy forests and outbreaks of bark beetles. Enough so that we
can take action and have the confidence in knowing what we are doing
will improve the situation. However, in order to become more effective
in our response capabilities, continued improvement in our prevention,
suppression and restoration abilities is prudent.
We can benefit from continually improving research efforts that
include the following:
Improved methods to predict where, when and how much bark
beetle activity will occur on forested landscapes;
Clarified results and interactions between bark beetle
populations, wildfires and prescribed fires;
Technologies for using natural attractants and
repellents; and
Continued education and outreach to improve understanding
of the ecological role of disturbances caused by insects, disease and
fire.
Conclusion
Lake Arrowhead is not an isolated situation. It is clear that much
of the west faces similar threats from bark beetle outbreaks. The
difference between current and historic outbreaks is the scale of
interaction between bark beetles and their hosts. Present day western
forests are much more susceptible to large-scale tree mortality caused
by bark beetles, whose impacts are even further exacerbated by drought.
The urgency is upon us. We risk damaging and losing forest
resources Americans value so deeply. The evidence is clear that we need
to actively manage our forests to have any chance in improving our
forests' health. Strategic direction is already laid within the
National Fire Plan and the guidance of the 10-year Comprehensive
Strategy Implementation Plan. We must now make a long-term commitment
to prevent, suppress and restore bark beetle impacted forests that
involves all interested stakeholders as partners and approaches the
issue of bark beetles across all ownerships.
We all can learn much from what plays out here in Lake Arrowhead,
but we must continue public discourse on what our management response
should be.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Supervisor Hansberger, what percentage of the tax revenue base
for San Bernardino County is affected by the Lake Arrowhead and
the San Bernardino Forest property and the fires here?
You talked about $8 billion valuation. That's a property
tax valuation. What percentage of that is that of San
Bernardino County's revenues?
Mr. Hansberger. Actually, it's probably a fairly small
percentage. I should have those numbers at my fingertips. I do
not. I would say it's probably somewhere in the range of less
than 8 or 9 percent. However, local--there are many local
service agencies within these mountain communities who rely on
property tax as their means of survival and this is the 100
percent of their property tax revenue. So if you are a local
community service district, if you are a local fire district,
if you're a local hospital district, a local school district,
you are heavily impacted by this and it may be the entirety of
your income. The county itself may not be losing as much of the
revenue, but it would have an adverse impact on us.
Mr. Gibbons. So theoretically, if a disaster struck in this
part of the county, it could bankrupt the others who would then
have to support the small local community infrastructure that
would not be supported by the tax base?
Mr. Hansberger. That's true.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Bonnicksen, does treatment preclude fire
or does it simply mitigate the type of fire?
Mr. Hansberger. Which treatment?
Mr. Gibbons. Treatment of a forest, whether it's thinning,
whatever the proposals are for this type. Not including, of
course, pre-fires.
Mr. Hansberger. Treating a forest properly, in other words,
making the forest function and look more or less as it should
naturally will substantially reduce the fire hazard, but it
doesn't eliminate the fire hazard.
However, in a forest like this, historically, these fires
were every 9 to 18 years, sometimes a little longer in between,
but most of the time the flame heights were a foot or two above
the ground and then it flared up in patches here and there that
were overgrown because there's always going to be a certain
proportion of the forest in small patches, usually less than 2/
10ths of an acre in size for this forest, where it would flare
up, but the other patches being relatively fire resistant,
would contain those flare ups and the fire would drop back down
to the ground. So that would be a normal fire regime here and
that's what you'd get if you restored the forest.
Mr. Gibbons. So theoretically, even if you treated the
urban forest interface for a fire, you wouldn't preclude a fire
from going through that area?
Dr. Bonnicksen. First of all, it's awfully tough for me to
figure out where this urban interface really is. If you look in
these communities, you'll find these houses are scattered
throughout the forest. We have Boy Scout Camps, Girl Scout
Camps, cabins everywhere. I'm not sure I know where the
interface is. It's all interlaced. The people live within the
forest and there's no wall that we can build to separate them
from the forest, so I'm convinced that there's only one way to
protect both the communities and the forest and that's to
manage it in a way that mimics its history.
Mr. Gibbons. I guess the question was premised on the idea
that if you treated a forest, you get less crown fires, which
are devastating to a forest versus a ground fire which usually
helps in terms of the health of a forest.
Dr. Bonnicksen. I would certainly hope that once the forest
is restored, recognizing in this case we're dealing with for
the most part a dead forest, we can, however, through
management and planning and other things, bring back the
forest.
I would hope that fire would play some of its historic role
in that future forest, continue to think it, continue to reduce
the fuels, but it would never be possible to do that on a scale
that matched its history because people live here, air
pollution restrictions and so on, so it would always play a
supplemental role. You're going to have to use mechanical
methods from now into the foreseeable future to supplement
that.
Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Tuttle, I've only got a few seconds here
left. I'd like to ask you how the State of California balances
out the resource utilization between California International
Guard map units and contracted out commercial fire fighting
units?
Ms. Tuttle. That would probably take more time than we have
here. You recall that the State of California has its own fire
resources that we draw upon. We have engines. We have fire
fighters. We have crews. We have an aviation tanker force and
helicopters and we work in close coordination with our Federal
partners. We are dispatched together. We have regional
operation centers. So the coordination with the Federal
resources is if we need them on the particular fire. We had
state responsibility fires. We have Federal fires and it just
depends on the extent of resources needed and we share our
resources. That's the strength of our system.
Mr. Gibbons. I failed to ask the question properly, but my
time has expired, so you----
Ms. Tuttle. I'll be happy to talk with you afterwards.
Mr. Gibbons. Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Cardoza.
Mr Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start by
just making an observation that it seems to me after hearing
this testimony that we're loving our forests to death and the
hands off policy just isn't working.
The Chairman. One of the things I'd like, Dr. Bonnicksen,
or the supervisor to mention or to answer this, is that it
seems to me that because there's a lack of logging resources in
the area, there's nobody left to utilize or to process the wood
that you need to take out of the forest at this time. Is that
right?
Mr. Hansberger. Essentially that's correct. Unfortunately,
one of the ways we're disposing of timber today either at the
county landfill or through the air curtain and destructors to
actively burn the wood which breaks my heart to see a resource
like that be destroyed without it ever having a use.
I mentioned earlier I appreciated the comment area, having
grown up in this region, I remember when Big Bear Timber
Company was an active company and we were actually logging here
and I defy anybody to find today the results of that in a
negative way in our forests. It simply isn't present and having
lost them, we lost a very valuable tool.
Mr Cardoza. That's the reason why I asked the question is
because I recently was in Klamath Forest up north and they're
afraid the same thing is going to happen to them that's
happened down here and they feel that they're fearful that a
lack of logging and lack of proper forest management will cause
the same devastation that you're experiencing here with poor
management practices.
Mr Cardoza. I just recently came back from a trip to
Israel, Dr. Bonnicksen, and in Biblical times they talk about
how Israel, which has a very similar climate to here is a
bountiful and forested land. And Mark Twain, in the 1860s goes
over there and it's--he calls it a denuded wasteland, void of
any vegetation for miles. Now you go back and there are healthy
forests.
Is that the kind of forest practices that you're hoping to
see in the rejuvenation after we can clear out here or does
that really take a much more intensive effort than what we've
put forward?
Dr. Bonnicksen. Not to be too facetious, but not the forest
practices that denuded the forest, but those that----
Mr Cardoza. Exactly.
Dr. Bonnicksen. I think here--I'm been dealing with
restoration forestry for a very long time, actually restoration
forestry began with Aldo Leopold in 1934, but we're used to
dealing with a living forest. We just have to scope out its
history. Here we're actually starting from scratch. I've never
seen anything like this where we have to start with virtually
no forest and build a whole new one. This is a monumental
challenge that I think we as a society are obligated to
undertake.
Mr Cardoza. Ms. Tuttle, currently, the State of California
is looking at a bill, S.B. 810. I believe it's on the
Governor's desk. It would further restrict timber--it would put
additional regulation on timber harvest plans. Does your
administration have a position on that yet? I could just put in
my two cents worth. I am thinking that this is not the proper
way to go, but really need to do better planning and I'd
encourage the Governor to veto that bill, but I'll let you
speak.
Ms. Tuttle. It is on the Governor's desk and the decision
at this point is his to make. We do have a very rigorous Forest
Practice Act in California. We do protect public trust
resources. I personally have been very committed to retaining a
strong sustainable forest products industry in California and
keeping our forest lands, our privately owned forest lands, in
forest use because we grow trees, we have wonderful forest
soils. This is a very sustainable and important industry to
retain in California.
The forest practice rules do have salvage provisions in
them for dead, dying and diseased material. The relationships
with the regional water boards which is what you're referring
to here with S.B. 810 is one that we try very hard through the
review team process to accommodate the comments of the regional
water boards. We accommodate or accept approximately 95 percent
of what they request in terms of site-specific mitigation.
It's those--that other portion, particularly on the north
coast where most of the concern has been raised.
Mr Cardoza. If I could just have one more moment, Mr.
Chairman, I'd just like to build upon what Mr. Walden said. I
was in San Francisco the day of the Oakland Hills fire and
there were embers and ash coming clear across the Bay so the
amount of distance that these fires can travel and the embers
that float from these devastating fires can go quite a
distance.
The Chairman. Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hansberger and
Ms. Tuttle, I must say that I'm very pleased that you are part
of the Panel for it's a reflection of the reality that many
agencies are involved here. The challenge is a long one. Real
dollars are going to be required. The county is under great
pressure for their budget difficulties, the state is as well,
so is the Federal government, but in the meantime, this is a
crisis and we do not tend to be other than a crises-oriented
society. I would hope that long-term commitment of all of our
dollars would be a part of this.
Mr. Chairman, with your leave, I'm going to do everything I
possibly can within that other piece of the body, the
appropriations process, to try to help.
But I've never had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, to sit with
a Panel quite as varied, but also talented, as this one. And so
if you'll forgive me, Dr. Bonnicksen, let me specifically as
you to help me understand what kind of model and what kind of
time is required to do what you suggested? We've got a dead
forest that is unprecedented. We must do what we need to do to
protect those trees that have survived and in turn, go about
what I was talking about earlier, perhaps modeling a way that
we collect the seeds, build the foundation for replacing those
trees that are going to be removed, hopefully not all by fire,
but removed. What kind of time is involved, what kinds of
dollars in your best guesstimate are involved in a
comprehensive modeling of this forest?
Dr. Bonnicksen. First of all, there's absolutely no
question that we start close to the homes and businesses and
schools where people are. We have to start there to do
everything we can to protect them. We have to remove the dead
trees, protect those trees that are alive, thin those trees
that are in patches that are still too thick, release some of
the big old Black Oaks that still have some full-size trees
surrounding them and strangling them.
We have to be gentle on the site with the machinery we use
so that it does not disturb the soil any more than necessary.
We have to plant in the openings those species that are
appropriate to the size of the opening. If it's a small
opening, you'd put in fir or cedar, although I think that will
be naturally seeded in some areas.
In a somewhat larger opening, you'd put in sugar pine and
in a larger opening still, you'd put in Ponderosa Pine. So we
know basically how to do those things. And then work our way
out from the communities into the forest at large. The cost is
something like an average of between $1,000 and $4,000 an acre.
I think we can recoup some of that cost if we can build
infrastructure for the processing of biomass for energy
production, for the production of ethanol, for example, as
another source we can use.
In addition to that, I think if we move quickly in those
areas closer to the communities where there are--there may be
billions that you'd need ultimately on this forest that we'd
harvest. We have to, I think, demonstrate or make people aware
of the fact that this material, this wooden material, if we get
to it quickly enough, even though it has blue stain in it from
the--that was brought by the beetle, is still perfectly good
wood for building homes. It's structurally sound and there
should be no stigma attached to it. That's one of the reasons
that value drops on this 52 percent within about 2 months after
the beetle hits a tree is because people think that blue stain
is not good wood. It's actually quite decorative and
structurally sound. So I think we also have to educate the
public to the value of this product so that we can market it at
a price that makes it possible for the taxpayers to recoup some
of the costs. But you just have to multiply out those numbers.
There's no way in the world that we're ever going to manage
474,000 acres because if you look at the terrain you can see it
would be physically impossible to harvest that material and
replace the forest. It's too steep, the soils are too shallow
in some areas, so we're really talking about strategically
restoring parts of this forest and then I'm afraid some of it's
going to be a write off. We can't do anything about other than
to hope it recovers as best it can, but I think at least half
of this forest could be easily restored, but it would take
ultimately that cost, minus whatever money we can recoup from
the products we produce. Fifty to 100 years, they have a forest
that looks like a real forest, depending upon the site, and I'd
say a 10-year process to achieve what's achievable.
Mr. Lewis. And 10-year process and probably literally
hundreds of millions of dollars perhaps?
Dr. Bonnicksen. It could easily be hundreds of millions of
dollars. In fact, I offered kind of humorously to one of the
guys in the Forest Service, I said, OK, I'll take this forest
at $400 million. He said sold. I said uh-oh. So I don't know if
that wold do it, but I do think that if we restored half of
that and multiplied it by $1,000 to $4,000 per acre, minus
whatever value we get, that's the cost.
Mr. Lewis. It's my understanding that in areas like Mr.
Walden's northwest that blue stain pine has become a popular
product and literally being used in the marketplace. That kind
of sale needs to take place in Southern California as well, but
indeed, there are portions of the forest that are highly usable
in the marketplace, if we will. In the meantime, I appreciate
all of your testimony. It's a very valuable panel. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to go
back to this issue of the wildland urban interface because as I
was reading the testimony we're going to hear soon from a
representative of the Wilderness Society, he makes a very
interesting point and that is that in California, 85 percent of
all the land within a half a mile of 814 communities identified
as being at risk from fire is nonFederal in ownership, a
crucial fact completely overlooked by HFI. Is that--if that's
the case then, I now better understand why some of these groups
are pushing to focus virtually the entire portion of this bill
on that half mile interface because then the bill would do
virtually nothing. Is that not accurate? Anybody want to
comment on that?
Go ahead, Ms. Tuttle.
Ms. Tuttle. Let me venture into this, not as an endorsement
or nonendorsement.
Mr. Walden. We'll accept an endorsement, but go ahead.
Ms. Tuttle. Of any position, but let me just say that
California has more wildlife urban interface than any other
state in the nation. The entire front face of the Sierra, the
entire Marin County up to Sonoma and Mendocino, the entire San
Francisco south down through Monterey, all across this area,
this region here, we have more interface than any other simply
because we have a larger population and a larger mixing of
these two land types.
We also have three types of interface. One is the interface
with the Federal nexus. One is the intermix which is privately
owned lands that have homes built in the forest and the third
type is the interface that does not have a Federal nexus which
is the Oakland Hills fire where that was regional parks next to
dense urban areas. Down here, you have a lot of nonFederal
nexus.
So just to clarify that, we have so much interface,
frankly, I will take any projects any place. We do need to
focus on the interface in California because of the loss of
property aspect. It's different from Montana and Wyoming which
has a different development.
Mr. Walden. I fully agree with you and in fact, commend
your agency for the partnerships you have, frankly. In my state
and in the Forest Service, you've done tremendous work. My
point though is we looked in the Federal process to be better
able to manage Federal lands. If we restrict the bulk of this
process to a half a mile within a community, it's not that that
work doesn't need to be done, it's that you've basically taken
what we're trying to do to improve a system, focus virtually
all of it over here where it will have little, if any, effect
because according to this testimony, 85 percent of that land
isn't Federal anyway.
So that's my issue.
Ms. Tuttle. I'll let you have the conversation about that--
--
Mr. Walden. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but I
guess the question I'd have of you, I noticed that Governor
Davis, you mentioned in your testimony, issued an emergency
order to deal with some of these issues. Did that emergency
order also deal with the planning process to get in and treat
state lands or to work with private landowners that might fall
under California state law? Did you streamline that and
expedite it? And I'd be curious too, to know, what limits you
may or may not have on types of materials that can be taken
out, sized, diameter, all of that.
How does California deal with that?
Ms. Tuttle. Because California has so much interface, we've
been in this business a lot longer than the National Fire Plan.
For at least 10 years, we have developed an infrastructure of
three primary elements one of which is our Fire Safe Councils.
This is the work that you have very active Fire Safe Councils
here. They've been instrumental in bringing us together.
The second leg is the California Fire Alliance which are
the combination of state and Federal agencies. We meet
regularly to--and certainly now with the National Fire Plan and
the grants, we've been using the alliance as our focus for the
grants.
Because of the--because the philosophy of the Fire Safe
Councils is to build constituencies from the bottom up rather
than the top down, we have had very good environmental and
public support for the fuel breaks projects that we do in our
interface communities. We have not had the same kind of
dissension in our fuel break projects.
Mr. Walden. Do you have the same kind of appeals process as
the Forest Service has?
Ms. Tuttle. Fuel break projects on private land, on our
side of the Federal/private boundary, projects don't go forward
if there is tremendous dissension on them. So we have had very
high success with the projects that have been derived by the
Fire Safe Councils, yes. And these are spread throughout the
state.
Mr. Walden. And do you work on coming up with multiple
alternatives for each project, or do you try and get a
consensus to one?
Ms. Tuttle. I failed to mention the California Fire Plan.
We have a very rich data base of what are fuels are, what our
fire behavior is and we have the knowledge in our unit chiefs
and our fire managers. We come into this community of many
stakeholders, the insurance companies, and so on, and we show
them where, for example, if you have community that's totally
surrounded by fuel, but the wind usually goes this way, then
you would put a fuel break project here, not there.
We help them identify where the projects would make the
most sense and then we build the consensus, we see what kinds
of resources are available to us. We use every mix of fueling
from below, sheltered fuel breaks, whatever it may be, whatever
is appropriate for that site.
Mr. Walden. My time has expired, thank you.
The Chairman. If could just follow up on Mr. Walden's
question, if you could explain to me what--maybe I
misunderstood it, what did Governor Davis do in that emergency
declaration of whatever it was? What--because I understood that
it was a change of policy and from what your answer was, you do
all these great things now.
Ms. Tuttle. The executive order was very specific. There's
an issue of gifts of public funds to private lands. We are not
allowed to use our crews, our innate crews unless the tree is
actively hot, where it is now bug infested. After the bugs have
left and the trees are dead, the responsibility is on the local
home owner, the private property owner to remove those trees.
What the executive order did in March was to give us the
authority to go on the private lands, on to trees that the bugs
have left as long as we were within evacuation corridors. We
were worried about trees falling and blocking the road during a
fire and so we have a wider corridor where we now have
executive authority to go onto private lands and that is where
we have focused our efforts.
The second part of the--there were two orders. One was in
March that gave us that authority to go on to private land and
it also streamlined some of our permit conditions for taking
trees, the Timber Harvest Plan permit and contracting law, we
simplified.
The second portion of the executive order was to frankly
provide this additional funding for fire fighter response. We
have a fourth fire fighter on each engine. We have additional
engines. We have additional crews and we have a leased
helicopter.
The Chairman. OK, I think I get it. Because the way it was
reported, I thought there was something else that went along
with that because at the Federal level we have to deal with all
of the appeals process and everything else and that seems to be
a big part of our problem in trying to deal with some of these
clean up projects and thinning projects. I had understood that
the state had done something to deal with that project.
Ms. Tuttle. It's mostly through our--the system of bottom
up, grass roots stakeholder built projects where we have
agreement, we have so much interface and we have been able as
much--every dime that you have provided through the Fire Plan
grants, we have put to very good use and we appreciate it very
much. There's lots of capacity here to receive and work with
the funds.
We work well with our Federal partners. We've had to. We've
been at it somewhat longer.
The Chairman. Obviously, we have a lot more to do.
Supervisor Hansberger, obviously, you're a lot more
familiar with how this area is laid out in terms of private and
public ownership and what the impacts are. One of the
difficulties that we have had is that when we get the Forest
Service comes in and they say we've looked at this forest and
this is the area that we feel we should treat first, because of
the wind patterns, because of the topography of an area and all
of the different impacts, if we get into he issue of severely
limiting where the Forest Service can go to protect those
hands, in fact, one of the graphs that we have up here, in
showing where the dead and dying trees are versus where the
urban interface is, if we went a half mile outside of the urban
interface, I don't see how it would do anything to solve some
of the safety problems that we have.
Obviously, you guys have spent a huge amount of money in
trying to deal with this issue. How do you deal with that urban
interface, wildland interface?
Mr. Hansberger. Supervisor Bellen has joined me today and I
represent a significant portion of--well, we represent
virtually all the mountain top except in the Brightwood area
and I have been very concerned because I've had sort of the
unique experience, having been around a long time, and I've
actually participated with the fire fighters in 1970 in what's
called the Bear Fire and I was right in the midst of the
Panarma Fire in 1980. The Panarma Fire in 1980 which took, I
think, 347 homes in the town of San Bernardino. It started up
here on the mountain and moved its way all the way down the
mountain.
I was well over a half a mile from the fire with a couple
of fire chiefs when we were trapped inside of our car by embers
that were coming so hot and so fast that we could only stay in
our car and keep driving, but we would have been severely
injured if we left the car and it was igniting grasslands, a
mile, mile and a half, two miles away from the forest because
of the severe winds that we suffer here on this mountain and
people who have not experienced what we refer to as our Santa
Ana winds which is an incredible wind force, just don't
understand what it can be with burning embers and how far they
can carry them.
At that time, I lived in the town of Redlands and burning
embers fortunately did not start a new fire, but actually were
carried that far. So they carry for miles, Congressman, and I
personally experienced--I call myself an expert only because I
actually was there and it happened to me.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I thank the entire panel for
your testimony. This has been one of the most informative
panels that we have had on this subject in all of the hearings
that we've had and I appreciate a great deal the time and
effort that all of you put into your testimony. Thank you very
much.
I'd like to call up our third panel. On Panel 3 we have Mr.
Joe Grindstaff, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority; Dr. Hugh Bialecki, President of Save our Forest
Association; Mr. Jay Watson, Director of Wildland Fire Program,
the Wilderness Society; Mr. Richard M. Rosenblum, Senior Vice
President, Transmission and Distribution, Southern California
Edison Company; and Mr. Eddie Phillips, Americans For Forest
Access.
Thank you and welcome today. I will remind our witnesses
that under Committee rules you must limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes, but your entire written testimony will appear in
the record.
I now would like to recognize Mr. Grindstaff for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF JOE GRINDSTAFF, GENERAL MANAGER, SANTA ANA
WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY
Mr. Grindstaff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Lewis. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and recognizing
the time, I will try and be brief.
The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, the Santa Ana
Watershed, covers from Big Bear in Idyllwild all the way on
down to, through Orange County to the beach and about 5.3
million people live in our watershed. And contrary to popular
belief about two-thirds of our water supply comes from our
local water shed. So over a million acre feet of water per year
is generated in a water shed here for local use and we spend
lots of time fighting about the Colorado River and dealing with
the Bay Delta, but our local resources are incredibly
important.
I'm not an expert in forests and how to manage them, but I
can tell you that the potential impacts of the fire here are
really very, very significant. We put together just a kind of a
brief estimate of what the impacts of the kind of potential
fire we frankly expect will happen here will be and we expect
it to be, costs to all of the people of the watershed to be on
the order of $200 million and the impacts come first from
flooding, although frankly because Mr. Lewis has done such a
good job and we've gotten Seven Oaks in, I'm not as worried
about the immense flood potential. Although if we had a 100-
year storm, after this kind of fire event happened, Seven Oaks
wouldn't be enough, frankly. What we have in place would not be
enough. But when you look at the debris, the mud, the rocks,
the other kinds of things that come down, and we have one
estimate that's in here of 1.7 billion cubic yards. Now it's an
incredible amount of debris. Debris flows are not really well
understood, but this area is relatively young geologically and
would, in fact, have tremendous debris flows that would cost
huge amounts of damage, really depending on what the nature of
the fire would be.
Other kinds of impacts from fire, for example, you wouldn't
think about it, but the salt level, the TDS level in the water
coming down the mountain would be increased and that--it still
would be drinking water quality, but the impact on the ground
water would be that it would raise the TDS level and we'd
actually have to put in treatment systems because we're
regulated about water quality on our ground water here and it
would reduce the number of times we'd be able to recycle the
water and right now we recycle our water about three times
before it actually makes its way to the ocean. So that would be
a significant impact.
Ash contains in it enormous amounts of organic compounds.
Those organic compounds, when combined in the water and used
for drinking can create carcinogens, so again that would cause
a problem for drinking water supplies, as we move forward. In
these mountains, in particular, we have a lot of uranium, so a
large fire would free up uranium and we would end up with
radionuclides and that would also--and radon is also a problem
in the region, that this would dramatically increase the
impact. It's not something that, as a professional, I've spent
a lot of time, but as we looked at this and we started to look
at what the potential problems are, a fire up here could cause
major, major impacts for everyone downstream in the watershed
and it's really important that not only we take care of this
here, but that we prevent this kind of thing happening in all
of the watersheds throughout the nation, whether it's--before I
worked here, I worked in Salt Lake City. The watersheds are
incredibly important there. The watersheds are important
throughout the nation. So with that, I commend the Committee
for dealing with this issue and ask you to address it as you
move along to try to prevent this in the future.
Frankly, I think we're going to have to deal with it and I
think the forest here, as I understand it is dead and we're
going to have more or less some of those impacts are going to
be inevitable.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grindstaff follows:]
Statement of P. Joseph Grindstaff, General Manager,
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
Chairman Pombo, and members of the Committee on Resources, thank
you for providing me this opportunity to address the potential
watershed impacts to the Santa Ana Watershed from a significant forest
burn in the San Bernardino National Forest. Over the long-term, it is
crucial that we take steps to protect our forests from the kind of
situation we face here. I also thank you for addressing the suitability
of a federal grants program, which would minimize damage impacts of
fire to the area and to increase the potential for fire control, life
and property protection and a reduction in habitat loss.
Background
The Santa Ana Watershed derives a majority of the water for over 5
million people from the rainfall in and around the San Bernardino, San
Gorgonio and San Jacinto Mountains' forest areas. Rainfall in these
mountainous areas provides surface water flows and groundwater recharge
throughout the region. Impacts to these areas will have significant
impacts on the Santa Ana River and its watershed water quality. The
last several years have seen significantly decreased rainfall and
resultant drought conditions in these forests. This drought stress has
made the forest susceptible to infestation by the Pine Bark Beetle, a
serious pest of conifers. This combination of factors has resulted in
large-scale mortality of trees in the area and the presence of an
enormous source of combustible material. Fires in these areas are
likely to be large and difficult to contain; the aftermath of any fire
events will have extraordinary impact on the forest and the watershed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.001
The purpose of this summary is to document the significance of the
likely damage to the forests, water quality, flood management, and
related issues that require planning, monitoring and funding in the
watershed. Impacts from large fires in isolated forest areas will be
felt in areas far from the location of the fire and many of these costs
will be borne by local government.
Fuel loads in the area of Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake are
extraordinarily high due to forest and private property management
practices in these urban forest areas. Air and ground surveillance in
January 2003, found over 171,000 total acres of forest area have
significant tree mortality of which 70,000 acres are privately owned.
Estimates by California Department of Forestry officials indicate over
180,000 acres are estimated to be at these levels. Mortality at these
levels over such a large area and the resulting dry, standing timber
will lead to high likelihood of uncontrollable fire situations in the
forest above the watershed. It is now estimated that over 350,000 acres
have been attacked by the beetle.
Threat
A likely burn risk scenario for this summer could include as much
as 180,000 acres. This large impact to the forest would cause
significant impacts to the watershed's water quality and flood
management capability. These impacts will be apparent at the site of
the fire and in the communities occupying the lower parts of the
watershed. The impacts of this unusually high magnitude fire are
estimated below.
Estimating the water quality impacts of a large burn are difficult
but some research indicates this is a dire situation if winter rains
are normal or heavy. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service EIR's
filed for controlled burn management, Forest Service research
publications, Los Angeles County Flood control plans, impact history
from the Heyman fire in Colorado and personal communications with
Riverside Fire Lab personnel document the following impacts from ash
runoff water from areas of burns:
1. A significant increase in total runoff and peak storm flows,
more rapid snow melt and decreased snow pack;
2. Catastrophic increases in sediment and water turbidity from 30-
to-50 times the normal expected debris flows with fine sediment carried
far down stream;
3. Doubling or greater increases in total dissolved and suspended
solids from even small burn areas;
4. Significant increases in nutrients loading, primarily nitrates
and phosphorus formerly bound in soil and from prior airborne
deposition in some areas where ground and surface waters already exceed
Federal standards for these pollutants;
5. In cases where foundation rocks contain radionuclides,
increases in Gross Alpha and Beta were observed; the headwaters of the
Santa Ana River were home to a small Uranium mine and transport of
uranium and its radiological progeny downstream in to near surface
water is well documented;
6. Increases in organics, including toxic organics and
carcinogenic compounds from partial combustion of forest materials and
the transport of these compounds downstream to urban areas; and
7. Significant stress to forest species and to endangered and
threatened species in the Santa Ana River and its tributaries; this
would include the Federally protected San Bernardino kangaroo rat, the
threatened Santa Ana sucker fish and the Santa Ana wooly star.
Impacts
These documented impacts will be expressed following any large fire
in the Santa Ana Watershed. These impacts, when estimated from a likely
burn scenario for the fire season of 2003 or 2004, could result in the
following:
1. Total runoff is likely to increase by more than 10 percent and
peak storm flows increases about 5 times the average to between 200,000
and 300,000 cubic feet per second. This is also likely to be
exacerbated by more rapid snow melt;
2. Sediment loads carried downstream could 30 to 50 times normal
taking an estimated 1.7 billion cubic yards of rock, sand, and debris
into control structures and dams. The quantity of this material could
take months or years to remove;
3. Long duration increases in water turbidity with fine sediment
may be carried far down stream complicating groundwater recharge
efforts;
4. A 2-10 fold increase in dissolved solids (TDS) or salts with
increased flows could result in as much as 500,000 tons of added salt
in the river and groundwater basins. Runoff water is needed for
recharge or consumptive use, significant treatment requirements to
remove or mitigate this TDS;
5. As much as 20,000 tons of nutrients nitrates and phosphorus
formerly bound in soil and from prior airborne deposition released into
the peak storm flows and eventually making its way into the groundwater
in the first few years;
6. Significant transport of uranium and its radiological progeny
downstream in surface waters and into near surface groundwater
increasing the cost of radon treatment and future monitoring;
7. Increases in organics, including toxic organics and
carcinogenic compounds from partial combustion of forest materials that
will decrease the usability of one of this region's primary water
sources; and
8. Sedimentation of the lands used by the San Bernardino kangaroo
rat and the Santa Ana woolystar and choking turbidity reducing the
useable habitat for the Santa Ana sucker fish.
These impacts are likely to be severe over five or more years
depending on rainfall and storm intensity. The estimated cumulative
costs to the watershed are estimated to be greater that $800 million,
not including fire damage to homes and habitat.
Funding Recommendations
In addition to these expected impacts, several funding
recommendations are listed to minimize the impacts of the fire to the
area and to increase the potential for fire control, life and property
protection and a reduction in habitat loss:
1. A dead tree removal matching grant to help fund tree removal on
private lands in communities that agree to adopt ordinances, zoning and
building codes and planning policies that ensure fire-wise building and
rebuilding. $200 million.
2. Local Forest Service and California Department of Forestry crew
augmentations to increase the rate of dead tree removal. $5 million for
FY 2003 and $6 million for FY 2004.
3. Management planning and outreach for impact reductions and
maximal compliance with existing damage minimization measures within
the forest and watershed. $1 million FY 2003 and $2 million FY 2004.
4. Pre-fire and post-fire long-term monitoring of forest health,
including strategic planning for long-range sustainable forestry
practices after fires. $5 million FY 2003 and $7 million FY 2004.
5. Funding for desalting and salt management efforts in the San
Jacinto and Santa Ana Watersheds to reduce the impact of salt and
contaminants to the watershed. $40 million, grant on $80 million
project.
6. Emergency Disaster funding through FEMA to declare a drought
emergency to allow the use of FEMA assistance in advance of the fire.
Policy Direction Fiscal Impact Unknown.
The following table lists significant cost items:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9420.002
Requested Action
Fund the Programs and Impacts above to minimize damage and future
costs and prepare to fund actual fire costs as they occur.
______
The Chairman. Dr. Bialecki.
STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH BIALECKI, PRESIDENT,
SAVE OUR FOREST ASSOCIATION
Dr. Bialecki. Thank you and good afternoon. Chairman Pombo,
Congressman Lewis and Members of the Committee, good afternoon,
and welcome to Lake Arrowhead. I'm Dr. Hugh Bialecki, President
of Save Our Forests Association; Board Member, past President
of the Lake Arrowhead Communities Chamber of Commerce; and
local business owner.
I'm speaking today on behalf of Save Our Forests
Association, a leading local conservation organization in the
San Bernardino Mountains and I welcome this opportunity to
address the Panel.
As a long-time resident of the San Bernardino Mountains
community, I and the constituents I represent are very
concerned about the forest health crisis in the San Bernardino
National Forest and throughout the West. We're also concerned
that the leading prescription to address the crisis, the
Healthy Forest Initiative, was passed by the House of
Representatives earlier this year. We applaud the Committee's
request to the Congress to pass a wildfire fighting
supplemental, addressing this year's fire fighting needs.
Our primary concerns with the Healthy Forest Initiative has
to do with the lack of direct funding through block grants to
assistant communities in creating and maintaining community
protection zones, the lack of opportunities for communities to
be directly involved in the creation, and the review of many
fuel reduction options the Forest Service should consider in
creating and maintaining CPZs and the severe limitation of our
right to challenge a Federal agency's input when we believe the
agency is moving in a direction that will not or is not
creating conditions that improve or protect our quality of life
and quality of the forest experience for our visitors.
In light of the legislation's first purpose, to reduce the
risk of damage to communities, we see little or nothing
contained in the legislation that will immediately increase the
efforts of the agencies to create and maintain community
protection zones, the areas 500 yards of the community. The
Forest Service, the Western Governors Association and a host of
fire scientists around the country have repeatedly said that
the most effective protection for communities will occur within
the community protection zones and immediately around
structures.
Today, adequate community protection zones are in their
earliest stages of design and implementation. Public land
advocates have been asking the Forest Service to create CPZs
around our forest communities since the mid-1990s. I point to
the Sierra Nevada framework as an early example.
I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank
the efforts of Congresspersons Lewis, Bono, Senator Feinstein
and County Supervisors Dennis Hansberger, Paul Bellen and
Forest Supervisor Gene Zimmerman, for recognizing the threat to
our community and working with us through the fire agencies and
local fire safe councils to obtain emergency funding. We also
thank Congressman Lewis for his foresight and leadership in
providing consistent land and water conservation revenue to
this forest.
What does a healthy forest mean here in the San
Bernardinos? An urban forest with an easy access of 20 million
Californians, an urban forest that is the most recreated
national forest in the country, maintaining a healthy forest in
the SBNF means maintaining our mountain quality of life. It
means maintaining the resources that provides that special
quality of life which includes open space, clean air,
watersheds, serenity, aesthetics, recreation, wildlife,
solitude and providing an outlet and an escape from the
pressures of city life.
Because of forest density, multi-year drought, Bark Beetle
infestation, we do not have a healthy forest. This national
forest is at extreme risk of catastrophic fire. Some say our
forest is dying. Some say it is already dead.
The Save Our Forest Association and many others are not
giving up on this forest. The Bark Beetle infestations spreads
like wildfires and it must be fought like wildfires.
We believe that the health of the forest can be recovered.
There's obviously a critical need for fire protection.
We're fully aware of that fire danger and have recently
evacuated residents from the Bridge fire. Prior to that the
Willow Fire which consumed over 60,000 acres of our resources
while costing millions of dollars.
Four important steps should be taken. One, declare a
Federal state of emergency.
Two, establish community protection zones to avoid
devastation within the communities such as we've already seen
in some of our local war zone neighborhoods, denuded trees,
loss of ecosystems, wildlife with incredible economic loss to
private homeowners.
Three, maintain public participation in the process. Who
has a more invested interest to ensure protection of the SBNF
from fire than residents, visitors and resource users in
surrounding communities?
Four, immediate intensive reduction of fuel load, removing
hundreds of thousands of dead and Bark Beetle infested dying
trees to involve substantial increase in Forest Service
personnel, increases in Federal funding, creating products from
the biomass and developing incentives for non-local loggers to
remain working in the SBNF.
We need to protect and enhance the health of our present
forest resources, taking action to ensure that the healthy
trees and ecosystems stay healthy, to increase the number of
Forest Service research scientists and properly fund those
scientists to manage the forests with designated funding.
Following scientists' recommendations on how to maintain a
healthy forest, increasing funding and personnel on a long-term
basis, we know preventive measures are cost effective and that
crisis management in fighting forest fires are not.
And again, we need to maintain public participation.
Henry David Thoreau perhaps said it best ``in wildness is
the preservation of the world.''
California needs your help in preserving this island of
wildness in these mountains. The time for action is now. Our
public is already working toward achieving this common goal.
We're counting on your help. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bialecki follows:]
Statement of Dr. Hugh Bialecki, President, Save Our Forest Association,
and Board Member, Lake Arrowhead Communities Chamber of Commerce
Chairman Pombo, Congressman Lewis, and members of the committee.
Good afternoon and welcome to Lake Arrowhead. I am Dr. Hugh Bialecki,
President of the Save Our Forest Association, Board member and past
president of the Lake Arrowhead Communities Chamber of Commerce, and am
speaking today on behalf of the Save Our Forest Association, the
leading local conservation organization in the San Bernardino
Mountains. I welcome the opportunity to address the panel today.
As a long-time resident of the San Bernardino Mountain's community,
I and the constituents I represent are very interested in and concerned
about the on-the-ground effects of the Healthy Forest Bill, as passed
by the House of Representatives earlier this year. Before I get to
that, I'd like to applaud the committee's request to the congress to
pass a wildfire fighting supplemental addressing this year's fire
fighting needs.
First, we agree that work must be done to address the health of our
forest environment and that action is needed to address the many short
and long term issues our forests face. We agree that harmful logging
practices and effective fire suppression have created forest conditions
that threaten communities and in some cases may threaten the wild
characteristics American's seek when they live in or visit a forest. I
believe that Martha Marks, President of Republicans for Environmental
Protection, expresses the feelings of most Americans when she describes
our national wildlands as, ``...an intrinsic part of this nation's
patriotic heritage, the symbol of our national vigor and freedom, and
an irreplaceable trust for our future.'' I thank the committee for
bringing focus to this very important national issue.
Our primary concerns with the Healthy Forest Initiative have to do
with the lack of direct funding through block grants to assist
communities in creating and maintaining community protection zones, the
lack of opportunities for communities to be directly involved in the
creation and review of the many fuel reduction options the forest
service should consider when creating and maintaining community
protection zones, and the severe limitations of our right to challenge
the federal agencies in court when we believe the agency is moving in a
direction that will not or is not creating conditions that improve or
protect our quality of life and the quality of the forest experience
for visitors.
Lack of Focus and Direct Funding to communities though block grants
In light of the legislation's first purpose, ``to reduce the risks
of damage to communities,'' we see little or nothing contained within
the legislation that will immediately increase the efforts of the
agencies to create and maintain community protection zones, the areas
within 500 yards of a community. The Forest Service, the Western
Governors Association and a host of fire scientists around the country
have repeatedly said that the most effective protections for
communities will occur within the community protection zone and
immediately around structures. Today, adequate community protection
zones are in their earliest stages of design and implementation. Public
land advocates have been asking the Forest Service to create CPZ's
around our forest communities since the mid-1990's. I point to the
Sierra Nevada Framework as an early example.
One could imagine the greater security in communities like
Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, Running Springs, Big Bear and Idyllwild
would have if maintained CPZ's existed, and all of our homes and common
buildings had defensible fuel zones. The threat of fire would be
greatly reduced. However, much of this does not exist, and there is
much to be done by the community, the county, the state and federal
government. For instance, updating county zoning regulations
specifically defining and mandating defensible space while also
providing for adequate monitoring and enforcement will make our
communities safer tomorrow. We'd still be removing those dead trees
killed by the bark beetle, but there would be a lot less work to do.
Since the early 1990's the Save Our Forest Association and the Sierra
Club's San Gorgonio Chapter have been prescient in the education of our
community by hosting forums calling attention to the need for fuels
reduction and responsible logging practices. For instance, the removal
of small diameter trees and brush reduction.
Unfortunately, it takes the overt threat of disaster to get people
to recognize what needs to be done. Today, as we are addressing the
issue, other obstacles are in our way. The local, county and state
governments are all operating in deficit and money and manpower are
scarce; however, an emergency situation requires the federal government
to step in. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and
thank the efforts of Congresspersons Lewis and Bono and County
Supervisor Hansberger and Forest Supervisor Zimmerman for recognizing
the threat to the community and working with us to obtain emergency
funding. We understand that the latest five million dollars to come to
the San Bernardino National Forest was money that had been appropriated
for fuel reduction projects in the eleven national forests of the
Sierra Nevada. While we obviously appreciate the prioritization and
movement of the money, we ask that those affected forests are
reimbursed in full, as soon as possible. It would be a tragedy if other
needed fuel reduction projects could not be completed because the money
was directed elsewhere, leaving other communities at risk.
Priorities
In the light that the administration has identified the increased
threat to communities from forest fire due to successive years of
drought, dead trees and insect infestations, I'll speak now to funding
priorities. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget put forward by the
administration proposes to spend $265 million on commercial timber
sales, while only $228 million are going for hazardous fuel reduction
projects. What is more important, getting the cut out, or protecting
communities by thinning small diameter trees and clearing brush?
Furthermore, while the Healthy Forest Initiative would appropriate $25
million a year through 2008 to biomass companies, it appropriates zero
dollars to communities through block grant programs. We agree that if
the slash and small trees removed in the creation and maintenance of
community protection zones can be utilized commercially, they should
be; however, we are very concerned that the focus of forest health not
be dominated by the economics of extraction and the pursuit of
profitable balance sheets. Commercial logging or resource extraction
under the guise of forest thinning /fuel reduction will result in the
further degradation of our forest resources. Our community will not
accept a trade-off that endangers its wildlife, aesthetic values,
recreational opportunities and watersheds. The bill has an excessively
broad definition of areas that will be eligible for thinning
operations, and locally would include the entire forest, even remote
roadless areas far from our community. Scientists, including former
Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas, have identified that the
critical areas to be treated occur within 500 yards from a community.
We can contemplate a situation where the local forester is tasked to
create revenue by logging large trees away from the community, moving
scarce resources from the creation and maintenance of community
protection zones.
Public Comment
There is a well-established right for the people to fully
participate in the formulation of federal administrative actions. The
Healthy Forest Initiative attempts to scale back public participation
in crucial community decision-making. The position that allowing the
public to participate in the formulation of local policy and that
lawsuits have prevented fuel reduction projects from occurring is
misleading and unfounded. Two successive reports from the General
Accounting Office in 2002 and 2003 state that 95 percent of fuel
reduction projects proceed without objection and 97 percent proceed
within the 90-day appeal process. Furthermore, I have a local example
of a fuel reduction project in 1991 that was found to be cutting trees
in excess of 22'' in diameter leaving behind smaller trees, brush and
slash. This was a commercial timber sale under the guise of a fuel
reduction project. Only through community involvement was the
inappropriate cutting of large trees stopped, with a legal settlement
that specifically allowed the Forest Service to cut trees 22'' in
diameter or less and those ``...infested with mistletoe, insects,
parasites or disease creating a danger to the health or vigor of a
surrounding tree or tree stand. The Forest Service may thin small trees
in any of the units as a silviculturist deems necessary.''
Additionally, over the last couple of months, the forest community
has participated in the San Bernardino National Forest Mountain Summit
which brought together over 200 people, from various backgrounds and
points of view, to discuss the future of this forest fifty years from
now. Protecting the quality of life and visitor's experience in the San
Bernardino's was the dominant theme. There was consensus that
fundamental to the mountain quality of life is the protection of
wildlife, the watersheds, recreational opportunities and fire safe
communities. Ultimately we agreed that only by increasing the
communication between our community and the agencies can the public
gain the confidence that the Forest Service is managing this national
forest effectively.
Finally, the work that must be done in our forests and communities
is not only long term, but perennial. Only through the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act can we know that forest projects
are being planned and executed appropriately. Open and transparent
deliberations are the cornerstone of sound public policy and the most
direct route to creating a healthy future for the San Bernardino's and
all our national forests.
______
The Chairman. Mr. Watson.
STATEMENT OF JAY WATSON, DIRECTOR OF WILDLAND FIRE PROGRAM, THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee and
Congressman Lewis, my name is Jay Watson and I'm Director of
the Wilderness Society's Wildland Fire Program. I work out of
the State of California. It is all too clear that the San
Bernardino region deserves your attention and therefore, I
really would like to congratulate Senator Feinstein and
Representative Lewis for securing an additional $30 million for
the region.
This Administration, the Congress, future Administrations
have to make a sustained investment in hazardous fuel reduction
for years to come if we are going to reduce the risk of fire
and bring forest ecosystems back into some kind of ecological
balance.
I would also say that securing new monies for the area is a
much better approach then one recently followed by the
Administration and that approach $5 million was taken from the
Hazardous Fuel Reduction budgets of 11 other national forests
in California and rerouted to San Bernardino. I don't dispute
the fact that the San Bernardino needs that money, but so do
those 11 other forests. They face hazardous fuel, fire risk
problems as well.
I also note that two-thirds of the $30 million will float
to nonFederal jurisdictions and that also stands in sharp
contrast to the Healthy Forest Initiative which applies solely
to Federal lands. While land fire doesn't recognize land
ownership boundaries so any solution to reducing fire risk must
make resources available to and work across all land
ownerships.
The situation here in San Bernardino cries out for
cooperation and a commitment to finding ways to alleviate the
danger that now exists. That is what we have seen in many, many
ways. MAST has been established and no one will disagree with
their short term and midterm priorities.
I do see the possibility for future controversy as perhaps
as the Forest Service moves out into more remote forest health
projects, but to reduce and perhaps even avoid that
controversy, the Agency should involve the local community, all
stakeholders and balance the equally legitimate, but sometimes
competing goals of habitat protection and fire risk reduction.
After all, in many places in the West and throughout
California, the land itself, the forests and the lakes are what
are attracting new businesses and new evidence of and new
economic opportunity to many regions.
Just as there is no single cause for this situation, facing
the San Bernardino, there is no single solution. I'll get to
the question from Mr. Walden about the half mile zone later,
but one of our other fundamental criticisms of the Healthy
Forest Initiative is that it brings with it little or not new
money. Rather, it seeks to pay for the removal of surface and
ladder fuels through timber sales and through increased
deficiency and decisionmaking.
Make no mistake about it, the Wilderness Society does not
oppose commercial logging. That is not the issue. The issue is
that a significant investment is going to have to be made in
forest restoration and community protection and one of the
greatest obstacles I believe throughout the West to a
successful hazardous fuel reduction program is that by and
large, the predominant materials that have to come out of the
forest, are surface fuels and small and mid-diameter trees
would serve as ladder fuels. And in many cases, those materials
have little or no commercial value. So we simply have to find
new markets, new uses for materials that today are considered
noncommercial.
Biomass, perhaps, is part of the answer here. It seems
unfortunate, if not crazy, to be burning hundreds of tons of
wood every day and not generating a single watt of electricity,
yet again we're competing regulatory mechanisms or capital
needs to make that possible.
In an industrial infrastructure of skilled and well-paid
forest workers are needed to do the actual job of reducing
hazardous fuels and I would argue that an appropriately scaled
community-based forest industry can play an important role in
seeing that the right works gets done in the right places. It
can do so because a community-based forest industry works on an
economy of scale that can turn a profit, can employ people by
using the right materials, small diameter trees and mid-
diameter trees and perhaps even dead and down wood material for
biomass. One thing the Forest Service can do to benefit and
promote a community-based forest industry in an economy of
scale is to recommit to small business set asides, simply
writing contracts for the big boys in the timber industry who
need large volumes and large trees. Small mill owners, local
contractors can be part of the solution, but they need to have
access to material. With that said, the Wilderness Society will
gladly work with and support the Forest Service and the State
of California in finding legitimate solutions to the situation
facing the San Bernardino region and elsewhere.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Watson follows:]
Statement of Jay Thomas Watson, Director, Wildland Fire Program,
The Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Jay Watson. I am
the Director of The Wilderness Society's Wildland Fire Program. This is
my second trip to the San Bernardino National Forest this year, and I
am pleased to see the Committee focus its attention on the ``San
Berdoo'' as it is commonly called. It is all too clear that the San
Bernardino region needs and deserves this attention, as well as a
series of other state and federal investments. Perhaps your visit today
will help lead to those investments of resources, time will tell. Along
those lines, I would like to recognize and congratulate Senator Dianne
Feinstein and Representative Jerry Lewis for securing an additional $30
million for the region as part of the Fiscal Year 2004 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Bill.
Securing new monies earmarked for the area is a far preferable
approach than the Robbing Peter to Pay Paul approach recently followed
by the Bush Administration. That approach resulted in $5 million being
taken from the fire risk reduction budgets of 11 other national forests
in California--forests that needed that money for their own hazardous
fuel reduction and community protection efforts. Moreover, I note that
two-thirds of the $30 million will flow to non-federal jurisdictions.
That stands in sharp contrast to the Administration's Healthy Forests
Initiative, which provides no assistance to non-federal jurisdictions
for fire risk reduction. Since wildland fire doesn't recognize land
ownership boundaries, any legitimate and effective solution to reducing
the risk of wildfire must work across all land ownerships in a
coordinated fashion. That is one of the fatal flaws of the Healthy
Forests Initiative, it focuses exclusively on federal land and does
nothing to reduce fire risk across a landscape characterized by mixed
ownerships.
The situation here in the San Bernardino region was decades in the
making. It was the result of a number of factors including fire
suppression, sustained drought, insects, and an overly dense forest in
many places, primarily because of the exclusion of periodic fires that
would have reduced the number of small trees. The acute danger produced
by this combination of factors has been further complicated by
geography, population growth, and development patterns.
It is a complex and quite frankly frightening situation for which
there is no easy answer. The crisis on the San Bernardino cries out for
cooperation--people pulling together to find solutions and taking
actions to alleviate the danger that now exists. Certainly, here in
Lake Arrowhead, that is what we have seen in many, many ways.
For example, federal, state, and local jurisdictions and agencies
have joined together to form the interagency Mountain Area Safety Task
Forces (MAST) in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to facilitate a
comprehensive approach to addressing the public safety threat facing
the region. To date, no one could argue with the short and mid-term
priorities established by MAST. So congratulations are in order. I do
see the possibility for controversy in the out-years as the Forest
Service undertakes more general and possibly less defined forest health
treatments. To reduce that controversy, the Forest Service must balance
the sometimes competing, yet mutually important and legitimate, goals
of habitat protection and fire risk reduction.
Just as there is no single cause for the situation facing the San
Bernardino, there is no single answer either. Make no mistake about it,
the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) is no panacea to the situation
facing the region. First, as I mentioned earlier, the HFI applies only
to federal land. Here in the San Bernardino region, as in every other
western state, land ownership patterns are a mixture of federal, state,
local, private, and tribal lands. In fact, here in California, 85
percent of all the land within one-half mile of 814 communities
identified as being at risk from fire is non-federal in ownership--a
crucial fact completely overlooked by the HFI.
Secondly, the Healthy Forests Initiative will bring with it little
or no new funding. Rather, it seeks to pay for the removal of hazardous
fuels through traditional timber sales. Another way of saying that is
that under HFI, we will be cutting down the very trees we are
supposedly trying to save from burning up to pay for the removal of
surface and ladder fuels. The Wilderness Society does not oppose
commercial logging, that is not the issue. The issue is that a
significant investment is going to have to be made in forest
restoration and community protection. Tens of billions of dollars in
taxpayer monies have been spent removing fire from the landscape,
building logging roads, and subsidizing timber production on the
national forests--to think we can restore the forests and protect
communities on the cheap is a fallacy. It is going to take real money
and time. If we are truly facing a forest health crisis--then show me
the money and don't pretend that we can treat millions of acres of land
without having to pay for it. Unfortunately, if you read H.R. 1904,
which embodies the President's Initiative, no where is there an
authorization of appropriations for hazardous fuel reduction.
Therefore, the solution to the crisis on the San Bernardino will
more likely be found in a combination of individual actions, such as
Governor Davis's emergency proclamation which enhanced fire
preparedness and eased restrictions on removing trees from private
lands, last week's $30 million infusion in federal money, MAST, a lot
of notable work on private lands by individual landowners, and
additional funding being made available across ownerships.
Some suggest that the answer is simply a question of returning
timber management to the San Bernardino National Forest. That is a
grossly simplistic suggestion. A timber program would not have
prevented what we see happening here today. A timber program would not
have prevented a sustained four years of drought. Moreover, the absence
of a wood products industry in southern California, combined with the
reality that many of the dead or dying trees are of declining timber
value, or no value at all in the case of Coulter pine, which account
for a significant portion of the trees in the surrounding forest, tells
me that a sawtimber solution is a fantasy.
With that said, tree removal obviously plays an important role in
the response to this situation in the San Bernardino region. However, a
primary obstacle to seeing that tree removal is undertaken as
legitimate hazardous fuel reduction, i.e. ``the right work in the right
places,'' throughout the west, is the challenge of finding appropriate,
commercial uses for forest materials that are generally thought of as
having little value. I am talking about surface and small-diameter
ladder fuels, which every reputable fire scientist clearly recognizes
as the most important fuels in need of treatment to reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildland fire.
In other words, new uses, new markets, and value-added wood
products must be identified and developed. The reality is that a
certain amount of industrial infrastructure and trained workers are
needed to do the actual work of reducing fire hazards and restoring
fire-adapted ecosystems. But it must be the right infrastructure and
the right wood products industry--a wood products scaled to make use of
those smaller diameter materials and markets.
Towards that end, appropriate hazardous fuel reduction efforts
would be facilitated and enhanced by the work of small mill owners and
contractors. Appropriately scaled, community-based forestry and local
contractors can play a vital role in seeing that the ``right work gets
done in the right places.'' They can do so because their economies of
scale allow them to turn a profit utilizing the same raw materials that
should be removed through hazardous fuel reduction--materials such as
surface and ladder fuels. Jobs would be created in the wood products
industry, people would benefit, rural communities would benefit, as
would the forest. Another part of that equation is a Forest Service
willing to enter into smaller contracts, rather than focusing solely on
large contracts with just the big boys in the timber industry--
contracts that small mill owners have no hope of bidding on.
Here, in the San Bernardino region, that could take the form of
small or portable biomass plants and portable sawmills to supplement
the production of mulch and other uses that are being found for the
woody material being removed. As far as I can tell, some of these
opportunities are being investigated, while others are actually being
pursued through the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry
Program. I would be interested in learning more about these efforts as
they would appear to be a good match with our vision of an
appropriately-scaled wood products industry being part of the solution
to reducing fire risk. After all, it is truly unfortunate to be
incinerating several hundred tons of wood every day and not generating
a single watt of electricity.
In conclusion, The Wilderness Society will gladly work with and
support the Forest Service, the State of California, and local
interests in finding legitimate solutions to the situation facing the
San Bernardino region.
Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenblum.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. ROSENBLUM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY
Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Chairman, Members, Congressman Lewis,
I'm Dick Rosenblum with Southern California Edison. I head up
the transmission and distribution department of our utility and
we're the group mostly responsible for Southern California
Edison's work up here in this crisis. In my time, I'd like to
make probably three quick points.
First, Southern California Edison comes at best after more
than a century operating in these communities. We've always
felt ourselves as responsible for our communities and stewards
of both the infrastructure and the land.
In this area, we have about 700 miles of electric
conductor, that's exposed to this forest. About 20,000
structures, most of those are wooden poles, but others are
substations and transformers and the like. We've been working
cooperatively and in what I think is the best partnership I've
seen in 28 years in this business with California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, the U.S. Forest Service, the
local fire agencies up here, the California Public Utilities
Commission and the other members of the MAST. It's really been
by my observation the best partnership I've seen ever. I think
that's largely due to the efforts of everybody involved.
Two, I'd like to point out one of the effects of the
Governor's emergency declaration and that was to order the
utilities in California, which in this case is primarily
ourselves, to completely remove trees as opposed to just
trimming trees that might come in contact with our lines when
they fall. Now the difference would be, for instance, if a tree
were 90 feet away from the lines and it was a 100-foot tree. In
the past, our responsibility was to cut the top 10 feet so when
it fell over, it wouldn't hit the lines. Now we're to remove it
completely to the ground. That is an immense task. Just our
portion of this effort will be by our current preliminary
estimate 350,000 trees will have to be removed.
We have today, 55 management employees, largely foresters,
working on identifying the areas and 15 crews when we're fully
staffed will be working here at cutting down trees. That will
be about 275 trees a day. And even at that rate, we estimate
that will take us 6 years. It is an immense project.
The third point I'd like to make in my brief comments is
that the biggest single restricting factor in this effort is
the debris removal. Others have already talked about that. We
think it would be about 750 tons of debris a day, when we're at
capacity just for our effort. Fixing that restricting is
probably the single biggest and most important task that faces
all of us. At Edison, we're already looking at the biomass
plans that several people have referred to. We've taken it upon
ourselves without yet CPUC approval, Public Utility Commission
approval, to develop a request for proposal for a plant that we
think could dispose of a great portion of that debris. We will
move forward, together with the Public Utilities Commission to
try to select a plant and get one installed in a timeframe that
will help solve the problem, but it need be soon. It would
almost certainly have to be new plant and it will take some
time.
One way to sort of summarize the cost of this, of the whole
project is by cost. Our estimate is today that our cost alone
would be about $350 million over the next 6 years and that will
be borne by all 4.4 million of our customers.
As I've said, and I really want to reinforce, a very
effective partnership moving forward today. We've grown to be a
part of that partnership. We think this effort can be done
safely expeditiously and with full regard to the environment.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenblum follows:]
Statement of Richard M. Rosenblum, Senior Vice President,
Transmission and Distribution, Southern California Edison Company
Chairman Pombo and Members of the Committee,
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) appreciates the
opportunity to appear before you today. Even more, we appreciate the
interest that the Committee has taken in the critical problem faced by
the beautiful mountain communities that are such an integral part of
our service territory. We have served the residents and businesses in
the San Bernardino National Forest for over a century. These are our
neighborhoods too. Many of our employees live, work and raise their
families in these mountain communities. In cooperation with the U.S.
Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry, County and local
fire agencies, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Mountain
Area Safety Task Force (MAST), local fire safety councils and the other
dedicated agencies and community alliances working on the Bark Beetle
problem, we're gratified to be a part of the solution.
Just a few years ago, none of us could have imagined that we would
now be facing the loss of the vast majority of the pine trees that are
such a hallmark of these picturesque communities. While such a
concentration of trees has long presented a challenge for us in keeping
our transmission and distribution lines clear of vegetation, our
extensive inspection and maintenance programs have enabled us to do a
good job of it. And yet all these efforts pale in comparison with what
we must now do to help solve the current problem.
A few statistics help to convey the scale of SCE's commitment to
this problem:
Within the infested area, SCE has approximately 700 miles
of electric line, 20,000 structures (primarily poles) and 5
substations;.
We currently estimate that, in keeping with Governor
Davis' Emergency Proclamation and the direction of the Public Utilities
Commission, we will be removing in excess of 350,000 dead or dying
trees that could potentially fall into our electric lines. These are
typically large, mature trees--so we must often clear a path 100 feet
or more on either side of each of the lines that run to every home and
business in these communities. The immediate and startling implication
is that there will be very few pine trees left standing around any
inhabited structure in many of the impacted communities;
SCE has 55 management employees involved in addressing
the Bark Beetle situation, with more to be added as necessary;
We currently have contracts with 3 tree removal firms,
and recently issued a Request for Proposals to bring on additional
crews; when we are fully manned, we will have about 15 full-time
contract tree removal crews with in excess of 100 people working every
day in the infested area.;
We are ramping up our removal efforts as quickly as
possible; soon we will be removing 275 or more trees per day. As noted
below, this number, especially when combined with the removal efforts
of other agencies, may well exhaust the capacity of the various
existing disposal means;
We are currently lowering and reinstalling about 10
electric distribution lines every day to permit the safe removal of
trees near the wires. This total will increase dramatically as we and
others continue to ramp up tree removal efforts- and our customers will
continue to be substantially inconvenienced by the necessary
interruptions in their electricity;
To reduce the threat of fire in the affected areas, we
have initiated special operating procedures that require any circuit
that experiences an unplanned outage to be fully physically inspected
before it can be re-energized. While this is a necessary safety
precaution, it will significantly increase the length of outages
experienced by our customers;
The current estimate is that it will take approximately 6
years to remove the over 350,000 dead or dying trees that could fall on
our electric lines; and
Our current estimated cost for the project, which we
expect the Public Utilities Commission will order be borne by all of
our 4.4 million customers, is over $300 million--and potentially
substantially more. It's important to note that our tree removal
expenses are a pass-through for SCE. That is, there is no profit
component, and cost recovery in rates is subject to retrospective
review and approval by the PUC.
Frankly, the magnitude of this problem is unlike anything we've
dealt with before. The trees in question are generally very large and
often close to homes and businesses as well as power lines. Many must
be removed using cranes and other heavy equipment. Furthermore, one of
the greatest challenges, and the limiting factor in our progress, is
the disposal of the countless tons of organic matter generated by the
accelerating tree removal effort. We are working earnestly to support
the responsible agencies as they look for innovative solutions to the
disposal problem. Possibilities such as wood-fueled biomass plants are
being thoroughly examined. SCE has also volunteered to coordinate the
process of seeking out qualified firms that could build such
facilities, and then contracting with them for the electricity
generated from their operations. As you might imagine, pursuing such
solutions on an accelerated basis is not easy, and we may need your
help to expedite the permitting of such projects. That brings us to the
topic of what you can do to help us deal with this problem.
The communities and agencies impacted by this problem are energized
and working together earnestly. What they need most are time and money.
The costs and logistics to remove and dispose of over 1 million dead or
dying trees in the affected areas are simply immense. Many property
owners are personally facing removal costs in the tens of thousands of
dollars, and agency staffing and financial resources are being
stretched to their limits. Any federal funds that can be allocated to
our State to ultimately defray homeowner and agency costs can and will
be used quickly and efficiently on the front lines of this battle. The
second way that you can help is to provide the means to shorten or
eliminate the processing of required permits or expedite the issuance
of waivers of regulations that will almost certainly be needed to allow
innovative disposal methods to be quickly implemented. We hope that
your Committee will want to serve as a focal point and ``barrier
breaker'' when the need for quick governmental action arises as this
situation continues to unfold.
Our corporate goal is to do everything we can to cooperate with the
responsible agencies to mitigate the Bark Beetle problem safely,
expeditiously and with full regard for our environment. We can do
nothing less for our customers, neighbors, colleagues and families.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Committee today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Phillips.
STATEMENT OF EDDIE PHILLIPS,
AMERICANS FOR FOREST ACCESS
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Congressman Pombo, staff, invited
guests. I thank you for the opportunity to address you with my
concerns and the concerns of the Americans For Forest Access
and affiliated organizations.
My name is Eddie Phillips. I was born in Big Bear 67 years
ago and have lived in the mountains most of my life. Recently,
we were spared from a disaster. Everything was perfect for a
total aerosol on the Bridge Fire, available aircraft, close
proximity to loading facilities with almost perfect weather,
low winds and a massive amount of ground support. As everyone
is aware, the forests in Southern California are a disaster
waiting to happen. We have many sick forests like the San
Bernardino National Forest. Visual damage, millions of dead and
dying trees caused by drought and Bark Beetle. This mess will
take many years to clean up and correct. We need to look at the
past to make corrections for the future health of the forest.
Before man, fire cleansed the forest. Now that man is part
of the equation we must find another way of cleansing the
forest without catastrophic fires. Our forefathers raised
cattle which lowered the amount of flash fuels in the forest
floor. They allowed the forests in Southern California using
select logging methods which always left a healthy stand of
trees. We have mining which was and still is an important part
of the industry. For this our forefathers had been criticized
partially by the environmentalists. If you look at what
actually took place, cattle grazing kept down the growth of the
brush and grasses. Logging kept the forests from being
overgrown with trees. Miners and loggers built the roads for
access, for their use, but also for fire suppression. During
drought years, trees were able to fight off disease and the
Bark Beetle because of competition for water wasn't as great as
the overgrown forests of today.
In recent years, everything is directed at saving the
endangered species, while the overall health of the forest has
been ignored. The public lands have been assaulted by armies of
botanists and biologists, all looking for a species to save and
to protect using taxpayer and foundation grants to help them in
their search. The policy is now and has been for many years to
let the brush grow, leave the dead and dying vegetation on the
forest floor to create and maintain what these experts claim is
a more natural setting and homes for all these tiny critters.
All but a few cattle are gone because the allotments were
canceled and logging has been stopped except for salvage sales.
Mining has been almost regulated out of business and the forest
is overgrown with brush and trees. What else was done? We have
limited the access to public lands to protect species and what
has that got us? A disaster waiting to happen that will not
only take our homes, but will kill all the species we have been
trying to save.
What can we do for the future? Look at the past. Use what
we have learned. Inject proven science with a good dose of
common sense.
What can we do now to protect our homes and forests? Keep
hoping all existing access to our public lands that exist
today, all system and nonsystem roads and trails are needed
today more than ever to access for fire crews, their equipment
and to remove the dead and dying trees. Without the access,
these trees will remain in the forest and the fire danger will
increase.
The Forest Service will tell you they can't afford to
maintain these roads. The Forest Service has never maintained
the majority of these roads. They continue in existence because
they are driven on regularly by forest visitors. Use is what
keeps them open.
The San Bernardino National Forest, Mountain Top District
is presently going through the NEPA process to close an
additional 80 plus miles of nonsystem roads. The claim is they
are illegal, short, too close together and serve no useful
purpose. On a flat map, this is the way they appear. Go drive
them. If you can find one that's not already blocked off or
fenced, the majority are not what they appear to be on the map
and are extremely useful to access many areas in the forest.
Next, we have the new Forest Management Plan for the four
Southern California forests. The proposals on the table are new
wilderness designations, roadless areas, potential roadless,
areas nonmotorized, special interest areas, wild scenic rivers,
nonmotorized back country and back country motorized. These all
represent motorized access closures. Any and all of these can
be modified, deleted during the planning process. If you stop
the forest visitors from using these roads, the roads will
disappear into the underbrush. How will the fire crews protect
our homes in the forest and its creatures and how will the
Forest Service manage the forest without good access?
I'd like to point out and you have in these books a couple
of maps. That one there covers the system and nonsystem roads.
This is the way many of the roads in the forest have been
blocked, with boulders to keep out illegal recreation vehicles.
All we've done with this, they can go right by it or over it,
but the fire trucks and emergency vehicles cannot access these
areas.
That one marked 1, 2 and 3, blocks off approximately
between 2,000 and 3,000 acres for emergency services other than
by air. I've tried to find roads into that area and I haven't
been able to locate any yet that are good enough to take fire
equipment on. There's private property on the edge of that
that's fenced on the backside.
Down here, we have the 24,000 to 45,000 acre mineral
withdrawal. They've gone to extensive degrees in their books
saying how they will not affect any other type of use other
than mining, but everywhere I go I find fences. This slide that
says--I'm sorry, I put that one upside down. It says ``please
help protect our forest habitat. Foot travel only. No
vehicles.'' And this--where you find it is in this mineral
withdrawal area to protect the limestone and endemic weed.
Thank you for your time and allowing me here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
Statement of Ed Phillips, Americans for Forest Access
Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to address you with my
concerns and those of Americans for Forest Access and its affiliate
organizations.
My name is Eddie Phillips. I was born in Big Bear city 67 years ago
and have lived in these mountains most of my life.
Recently we were spared from a disaster. Everything was perfect for
a total air assault on the Bridge Fire. Availability of aircraft, close
proximity to loading facilities with almost perfect weather and low
winds and a massive amount of ground support.
As everyone is aware, the forests in southern California are a
disaster waiting to happen. We have many sick forests like the San
Bernardino National Forest (SBNF.) The visual damage is millions of
dead or dying trees caused by drought and Bark Beetles. This mess will
take many years to clean up and correct.
We need to look at the past to make corrections for the future
health of the forest. Before man, fire cleansed the forests. Now that
man is part of the equation, we must find another way of cleansing the
forest without catastrophic fires. Our forefathers grazed Cattle, which
lowered the amount of flash fuels on the forest floor. They logged the
forests in southern California using select logging methods, which
always left a healthy stand of trees. We have mining, which was and
still is an important industry. For this our forefathers have been
criticized harshly by environmentalists. If you look at what actually
took place, cattle grazing kept down the overgrowth of brush and
grasses. Logging kept the forests from being overgrown with trees.
Miners and Loggers built the roads for access for their uses but also
for fire suppression activities.
During drought years, the trees were able to fight off disease and
the Bark Beetle because the competition for water wasn't as great as in
the overgrown forests of today.
In recent years, everything is directed at saving endangered
species while the overall health of the forest has been ignored. The
public lands have been assaulted by armies of botanists and biologists
all looking for a species to save and protect using taxpayer and
foundation grants to help them in their search. The policy is now, and
has been for many years, to let the brush grow and leave the dead and
dying vegetation on the forest floor to create and maintain what these
``experts'' claim is a more ``natural'' setting and homes for all those
tiny critters.
All but a few cattle are gone because the allotments were
cancelled. Logging has been stopped except for salvage sales, mining
has almost been regulated out of business, and the forest is overgrown
with brush and trees. What else was done? We have limited the access to
Public Lands to protect the species and what have we got? A disaster
waiting to happen that will not only take our homes but will kill all
those species we have been trying to save!
What can we do for the future? Look at the past. Use what we have
learned. Inject only proven science with a good dose of common sense.
What can we do now to protect our homes and forest? Keep open all
of the existing access to our Public Lands that exist today. All system
and non-system roads and trails are needed today more than ever for
access for fire crews and their equipment and to remove the dead and
dying trees. Without this access these trees will remain in the forest
and the fire danger will increase.
The Forest Service (FS) will tell you they can't afford to maintain
these roads. The FS has never maintained the majority of these roads.
Their continued existence is because they are driven on regularly by
the Forest visitors. Use is what keeps them open. The SBNF Mountain Top
District is presently going thru the NEPA process to close an
additional 80+ of non-system roads. The claim is they are illegal,
short, too close together and serve no useful purpose. On a flat map
this is the way they appear. Go drive them, if you can find ones that
are not blocked off or fenced. The majority aren't what they appear to
be on the map and are extremely useful to access many areas in the
forest.
Next we have the new Forest Management Plan for the four southern
California forests. The proposals on the table are: new wilderness
designations, roadless areas, potential roadless areas, non-motorized,
special interests areas, wild and scenic rivers, non-motorized back
country, and back country motorized. These all represent motorized
access closures. Any or all of these can be modified or deleted during
the planning process. If you stop the forest visitors from using these
roads, the roads will disappear into the underbrush. How will the fire
crews protect our homes or the forest and its creatures and how will
the Forest Service manage the forest without good access?
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my
testimony or the documents or maps that I have included.
Once again, thank you for your time and for allowing me to be here
today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I recognize Congressman
Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
follow up on a couple of things that have been said because I
think it's important to make sure the bill is fully understood
and I believe it was Dr. Bialecki that said at least in your
prepared testimony that the healthy forest legislation
jeopardizes ``public participation'' in the planning process.
And I struggle with that because the legislation locks in
the current public notice and comment requirements. It locks in
the existing public scoping requirements that are there already
in the law and rule. It requires an additional public meeting
over and beyond what is currently required. The Bipartisan
Western Governors Association recently sent a letter to the
legislation for actually codifying or attempting to put into
law the Western Governors Association collaborative public
participation framework and so as I hear this over and over
about how we're going to cut the public out, a reading of the
bill would indicate we're actually expanding and trying to do
exactly what I think you and Mr. Watson said, in fact, to
involve the public more in the beginning. Because I think that
ultimately is how we get that solved is you get the
stakeholders in a community like this together with the
agencies and you work out--in fact, that is why we're trying to
change the appeals process so that when the local stakeholders
have come together, you don't have somebody that never
participated, having the right to appeal. And what we're
proposing in this legislation is that in order to have standing
to appeal, you would have had to have participated in a
substantive manner in the process, which I think is a good
idea. Do you have a comment on that?
Dr. Bialecki. Well, I do. I believe the fuels process is
actually shortened down to 15 days and it's my experience that
realistically, formulating an appeal takes more than 15 days,
even when you've been involved in the process previously, so
that's a key point.
Mr. Walden. You're talking about to go to court is 15 day
period. The status quo is the same--the appeals process is
status quo. We haven't changed that. We're saying if you're
going to court, it's 15 days.
Dr. Bialecki. When we can avoid those processes in the
beginning, everyone benefits.
Mr. Walden. I couldn't agree more and that's the crux of
the problem. The GAO found that of those thinning projects that
were subject to appeal and 457 of them they looked at weren't
even subject to appeal, they were the prescribed burns that
aren't subject to appeal. If you take those out, you find 59
percent of the thinning projects were appealed. And moreover,
52 percent of the projects proposed for the wildland urban
interface on Federal lands were appealed, more than half. So
what we're trying to do is drive a system that streamlines this
before everything burns. And so that's important.
The other point I'd like to make is on funding. I helped
write the bill last year that we came very close to and we
worked closely with George Miller from California and my
colleague Peter DeFazio and myself and Scott McInnis from
Colorado. We had an authorization in that bill of $3.8 billion,
I think over 10 years. Now remember, an authorization doesn't
get you a dime, it just says you can go to the appropriators
and try to get money. So that's all we can do even in this
legislation. And we got the bejeezus beat out of us by various
environmental group.
Senator Feinstein sort of widened, got attacked, and we had
an authorization in there. So all of a sudden this year we
don't have an authorization. That seems to be the issue, but
that aside, in the Fiscal Year 2004 Interior bill we got $36
million in state and private forestry line items to fund, cost
show projects on private lands; $51 million in national fire
plan for state and private forest restoration has fuels
reduction; $22 million to attack insect and disease outbreaks
on private lands. It's a new program to deal with this threat
in the West. So that partnership is to work with private lands.
federally, for Federal lands, we have over $400 million set
aside to deal with hazardous fuels reduction and the estimates
we're beginning to get if we implemented this legislation is a
savings to the agencies to do the work to fund the people we
all know need to be in place would be upwards of $100 million
that instead of concocting plans that will never go anywhere,
and over half of them being appealed anyway, can actually be
put in thinning and saving our forests in our communities.
And so I guess I come to this with a huge amount of
frustration because I've heard the talk about small mill towns.
You come to my District. I'll show you small mill towns where
single operators did exactly what you said 10 years ago. They
can go down to a 5-inch diameter tree and when the forests
burn, it takes 3 to 5 years to get the wood out because of
appeals and it is worthless at that point. They have shut down,
they are dismantling, they're importing lots from fires in New
Mexico, Arizona and now moving their whole operations to
Lithuania and you don't have the infrastructure in my District.
You don't have it here. And we're not going to have it anywhere
in our forests and we, as taxpayers, are going to pay the bill
for it.
I apologize, I've gotten on my soapbox and my time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
wanted to go back to a statement that Mr. Grindstaff spoke
earlier about, a large amount of debris that will flow off of
the watershed into the water systems in these communities,
carrying an inordinate amount, probably, of uranium which is a
naturally occurring mineral in these hills. Now I'm very
sensitive to that, simply because I worry that when you have
this uranium-enriched sludge, you'll want to send it to Nevada.
[Laughter.]
I hope that's not the case. We must do something to stop
this run off.
In any event, what is the likelihood that fire in this
area, the San Bernardino Forest, could have a dramatic effect
on the water supply to Southern California areas?
Mr. Grindstaff. A major fire, there's 100 percent
likelihood that it will have an impact. Absolutely, there is no
doubt that if we have the kind of fire that I think we're
likely to have from everything I've heard from professionals,
if we have 100,000 acre fire here, that flows into our
watershed, that will have an impact on our water supply.
Depending upon the area, we may have uranium released, we may
not.
We certainly will have lots of organic chemicals that come
down as part of the ash. We certainly will have lots of
sediments that cause us not to be able to recharge as much
water into the ground. We certainly will have lots of debris
that in the kinds of geologic conditions we have may be more
dangerous than the water from flooding. So I think that's
absolutely 100 percent certain and a major fire, that will have
major impacts on our water supply.
Mr. Gibbons. Could you actually, in some instances, lose
access to drinking water?
Mr. Grindstaff. Absolutely. In some instances, we would
lose that, at least temporarily. I think in most cases with
money you can do lots of things with water. You can clean it
up. But it will take time and money and we could certainly lose
facilities that currently deliver water to customers throughout
the upper watershed. We certainly would lose, have major water
quality problems throughout the watershed and it would
certainly cost us, I think our $200 million estimate is low and
that's just capital costs. That's not on-going, that's just up-
front capital costs for some of those issues.
Mr. Gibbons. That is an incredible statement you've made. I
know there's concern because you can go 2 weeks without food
and still survive, but you can't go very long without water.
Mr. Grindstaff. Probably one of the impacts would be we'd
want to import more water from Northern California, as popular
as that would be, or we'd want to get more water from the
Colorado River and I mean those are the kinds of balancing acts
and you're trying to figure out.
Right now, we do a very good job of optimizing our local
water supply. In Southern California, our watershed, Riverside,
San Bernardino and Orange Counties are the least dependent on
imported water.
Mr. Gibbons. I would presume that you've actually got a
plan in place to be able to provide water, drinking water to
the people of this region, should a disastrous fire occur.
Mr. Grindstaff. We do. We have a plan in place to do that,
but it does involve right now using stored water, using water
that we would import from other areas, but principally stored
water.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask Mr. Watson, does the Wilderness
Society advocate a minimum size tree or a maximum size tree to
be left in a forest for cutting.
Mr. Watson. No. I do not believe there's any single
diameter limit you can pick throughout the West and have it
apply to all forest types. I think we're really much more of a
case by case forest type by forest type basis. The Forest
Service has tried to do that in the Sierra Nevada, but what you
come up with there doesn't apply in another forest type. So I
don't think it's feasible to do that in legislation.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Watson, let me say that you're the voice
of reason for the Wilderness Society.
Mr. Watson. I've been told that before.
Mr. Gibbons. We have heard vastly different way from a
number of other witnesses who have purported to represent the
Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, etcetera, all of the
groups that are intrastakeholders in forests that have a
standard by which they want to advocate no larger than say 18
inches would ever be cut, regardless of the quality, the
thickness, the distribution and cover of a forest or tree area
within a specific area.
Mr. Watson. We have a Sierra Nevada framework which ranges
anywhere from 12 inches and sort of out in the middle of
nowhere, low intensive treatments up to 30 inches in diameter,
close to homes and towns. And we supported that plan strongly.
We opposed where the Forest Service is going now because
it's changing that to 30 inches everywhere, even in the best of
the best old growth, but no, you cannot pick any single
diameter tree and I would say that generally speaking it's the
smaller diameter and mid-diameter trees, the so-called ladder
fields that are the primary cause of catastrophic wildfires,
combined with surface fuels, but I'm glad to answer the
question the way I did.
Mr. Gibbons. I think, since my time has expired, all I can
say is that you did hear Dr. Bonnicksen say that you do need
the small, medium and large diameter trees to have a healthy
forest, so you can't just leave old growth there.
Mr. Watson. Of course not, I'm not saying scoop everything
out from underneath the big trees and walk away. That's--it's a
balancing act.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
The Chairman. I'm going to go to my questions and I'll
recognize Congressman Lewis last.
Mr. Watson, I want to get your perspective on--because this
is something I struggle with, on the urban wildland interface.
In some areas, it would make sense to concentrate on the half
mile or a mile from an urban area. In other areas, when we had
a hearing in Arizona, they talked about how because of the
valley that led up to the particular town that we were in and
it made a lot more sense for them to go on the other end of
that valley and thin that and try to stop the fire from coming
in because of the wind effects and everything that came down
that valley, doesn't that--on a case by case basis, forest by
forest, community by community, doesn't it make a lot more
sense to have the people that are actually on the ground making
the decisions as to where best to spend a limited amount of
money than for Congress to pass something that says you've got
spend it within a half mile of the interface?
Mr. Watson. That's ayes and no. On the Senate side, we're
seeing legislation crafted that goes beyond a half a mile,
maybe it links up with--extends three quarters of a mile to
link up with a logical geographic feature, a ridge top, a road
or river, something like that to make an effective fuel break.
The Chairman. But even that's talking about three quarters
of a mile.
Mr. Watson. OK, and then beyond that, looking at--defining
that acceptable zone as the area that's been looked at through
a community based fire protection plan that cuts across
ownerships and that could extend out to the ridge two miles
out, but there's been some kind of process, like you said,
locally based to develop a comprehensive fire protection plan
for that specific community and I think that bears looking at
very closely because it certainly could be far more practical
than just an arbitrary figure.
A half mile might be out in the middle of a dog-eared
thicket. It doesn't solve any purpose. I think one reason that
figure has shown up is if you look back to the National Fire
Plan, the Western Governors Association, the Sierra Nevada
framework, interior report language, they all have asked and
set the top priority as the wildland urban interface, however
that may be defined. I guess it could be defined in a number of
ways, but the top priority in the near term, next 5, maybe 10
years, is the wildland urban interface. That's probably how
long it's going to take to wok in that zone. And then once
that's done, then start going out into the forest.
The Chairman. In the bill that the House passed, that is
identified as the priority because I think we can all agree
that that should be the priority, but I've heard ever since 2
years ago, I guess, that we got into this bill, or 3 years ago
now, they keep talking, going back to trying to limit it as
much as they possibly can to as small an area as possible and
the more that we go out and listen to people and look at
forests in different places, we keep hearing from the people
who actually are there, that won't work here.
Mr. Watson. It's one size fits all. That doesn't make
sense.
It's got to be locally--I suspect that's where things will
wind up. Maybe it will be 50-50 in where the funding is spent.
I think the reason people are calling for a hard requirement,
not just setting priorities, but a hard requirement to spend X
percent in the wildland urban interface is Congress has been
asking the Forest Service to do that for a couple of years now
and it was 30 percent the first year and then maybe 50 percent.
I think in many ways there are times when the Agency has to
be given pretty clear direction on where it's supposed to work
because it does have a habit of wondering off wherever it wants
to work.
The Chairman. I don't disagree with you on that. I've been
a strong advocate of us being much more direct in the
legislation we pass and taking a more firm stand on exactly
what congressional intent is.
That's been--we like to blame the agency when they don't do
what we thought we told them to do, but we're not clear as to
what we told them to do. That happens all the time, but in this
particular case, I think it would be a huge policy mistake to
follow along this idea that we're going to have an arbitrary
limit and I don't care if it's a half mile or three quarters or
a mile. You can come up with whatever number you want because
every forest is different. And if we just look around here and
what I know and what I've seen of this particular area, that
doesn't necessarily solve the problem. In some areas it does
and other areas it just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Watson. And there's room for abuse at the other end.
You can sit at the bottom of the east slope of the Colorado
Rockies and say the wildland urban interface extends up to the
continental divide. That's not practical either. I mean that's
how far the fire may have burned, but that's not a practical
area to focus limited resources.
The Chairman. No. When you're dealing with limited
resources, you're accurate in that respect, but in terms of
what's best for the health of the forest, that may be what we
need to do. And if you look at the San Bernardino Forest,
obviously, the entire forest is in a world of hurt right now.
Mr. Rosenblum, I wanted to ask you, you said that it would
take 750 tons a day and that's just your work.
Mr. Rosenblum. That's correct.
The Chairman. That's not the rest of this stuff. That's
just what you have. So I guess it's about 30 truckloads a day
that will be coming out of there just doing yours?
Mr. Rosenblum. I think that's roughly correct.
The Chairman. And where would that go?
Mr. Rosenblum. Right now, it's going to all the places that
have been mentioned, some of it is trucked down the hill and
sold as lumber. Some of it as pulp. Some of it is going to
landfills and some of it will be in burners.
The Chairman. Why would we be putting it in landfills? Is
it because there's nowhere else to put it?
Mr. Rosenblum. I think that's essentially it. It has to go
somewhere.
That's why we're focusing so strongly on a biomass power
plant. We really think that's by far, if it's feasible, the
best solution. Unfortunately, it's going to take a certain
amount of time to bring it on line.
The Chairman. In this bill, we do address the biomass side
of it and the energy bill, as you know, we're trying to get
that through as well.
Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask the
Chairman to allow me to comment and perhaps question last
because first of all I very, very much appreciate the
dedication of Mr. Pombo, the Chairman of this Committee and the
Members who've been here today, but beyond that, Mr. Chairman,
to mention to you and to those members that we are for good or
for ill a crises-oriented society.
Mr. Grindstaff mentions some dams around this territory
that have finally been completed. I have told the story of a 4-
year-old boy standing by his back window on 17th Street in San
Bernardino and dropping a ping pong ball which dropped about
three feet and hit the water and floated out through the back
fence. Some 60 years after that, we completed the Seven Oaks
Dam which was stimulated by that flood.
Here, we have a potential crisis that is incredible to
imagine and yet you really have to see it to believe it. Mr.
Rosenblum has talked about the cost of just doing his work on
the hill. Between Mr. Rosenblum and Mr. Grindstaff's problem
with our watershed, we're talking about somewhere near a half
billion to $750 million of a real outlay by the citizens who
are serviced by these two areas. Taxpayers are involved,
consumers are involved and I would just really urgently ask you
and your members to help us convince the Congress that we must
give priority for high levels of dollar input now not later.
We're beginning to get the message, but sessions like this
help a lot. I see in the audience people who have spent their
lifetime in our forests, some professionally, others loving it,
but we're about to lose it because in many cases in many ways
by public policy and otherwise, we have abused it and indeed I
hope we can use this crisis to rethink our preconceived notions
about what is good management in terms of environmental
practice.
This forest is an incredible asset. We are about to lose
it. I will not stop here for we can play a progressive role
month in and month out to make sure that this model becomes a
forest that's being rebuilt as we go about trying to figure out
what to do with the dead trees.
I very much appreciate all of those on the Panel,
particularly the Wilderness Society as Mr. Pombo discussed Mr.
Watson, perhaps a moderate, but frankly those voices who care
about our environment need to be heard and in turn, those who
have cared the most over the years need to use crises like this
to rethink where we ought to be going because those simply
answers just don't provide real answers for the long term.
Mr. Chairman, you've helped us all a lot. You're to be
congratulated and we appreciate all of the Members'
participation.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[Applause.]
I just want to conclude by thanking the other Members of
the Committee, Mr. Cardoza is from Northern California. He had
a plane to catch, so he apologized to everyone, but he had to
leave a little bit early.
Mr. Gibbons from the State of Nevada, Mr. Walden from the
State of Oregon, have made the effort to take time away from
their Districts and their families to be here and I appreciate
the effort that they put in to be here as well.
I'd like to thank Congressman Lewis for his persistence in
getting us out here and constantly reminding us that the San
Bernardino National Forest is in a state of crisis and it was
extremely important that we bring the Committee here so I thank
him for doing that and for hosting us today.
I'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for the effort
that they put in. It is never easy to come before a
congressional panel and testify and usually it makes people a
little bit nervous about doing it and I appreciate the effort
that all of you put in in preparing your testimony and for
being able to answer the questions that the Committee has.
I will say that if there are any further questions, they
will be submitted to you in writing. If you could answer those
in writing in a timely manner so that they can be included in
the hearing record.
To those members of our audience who did not have the
opportunity to testify who would like to have had that
opportunity, the Congressional Record will be held open for 10
days. You can submit written testimony to the House Resources
Committee. That testimony will be included as part of this
hearing and it will be included at the proper point in the
Congressional Record.
I want to thank everybody for your hospitality. Thank you
for being here today. I thank our witnesses and members and
most of all, thank the audience for being here. And I'd also
like to thank the staff. They did a fantastic job of putting
this all together. It's always a little bit more difficult for
them to go away from D.C. and try to put a hearing together out
in a place like this, but I appreciate the work that they put
in.
Thank you all very much and the hearing is adjourned.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]