[Senate Hearing 112-593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-593
COLORADO WILDFIRES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
DISCUSS THE RECENT COLORADO WILDFIRES, FOCUSING ON LESSONS LEARNED THAT
CAN BE APPLIED TO FUTURE SUPPRESSION, RECOVERY AND MITIGATION EFFORTS
__________
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, AUGUST 15, 2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-533 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Buickerood, Jimbo, Public Lands Coordinator, San Juan Citizens
Alliance, Durango, CO.......................................... 14
Fishering, Nancy, Vice President, Colorado Timber Industry
Association, Montrose, CO...................................... 20
Hubbard, James, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 26
Kaufmann, Merrill R., Emeritus Scientist, Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station, and Contract Scientist, The Nature
Conservancy.................................................... 10
King, Mike, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, Denver, CO.......................................... 4
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record..................... 53
COLORADO WILDFIRES
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Colorado Springs, CO
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
Centennial Hall, Room 203, University of Colorado, Hon. Mark
Udall presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Pam. Before I officially call the
hearing to order, let me just acknowledge the leadership that
the Chancellor has long provided for this community and for the
State of Colorado. This is one of the 4 institutions that
represent the University of Colorado, and I am so proud and
honored to have been a partner with the great work that you do
here in Colorado Springs.
So thank you, Chancellor.
Let me officially call this hearing to order. This is the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Senate. It
is chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico. The
ranking member is Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. Both are
very effective and engaged senators who understand public lands
issues. I want to thank, in particular, Senator Bingaman, for
anointing me, if you will, today to chair this hearing.
There will be a similar hearing in Santa Fe, New Mexico, I
think, in just the next couple of days dealing with this same
very important topic.
I have a statement I'd like to provide for the record, and
then we're going to turn to the real stars of this hearing,
which is this great panel that we've assembled here today. They
will provide testimony, and then we will engage in a
conversation over the next couple of hours.
Again, I want to welcome all of you. I would also second
the Chancellor's comments that this is not a town meeting.
There are, however, cards available that my staff have,
Chancellor, on which you all can direct questions and comments.
You can be assured your concerns will be considered as a part
of the record as we move forward in this important quest to
return our forests to health, prevent catastrophic wildfires
like the ones we've seen in Colorado and, frankly, all over the
country this year, and, I hope, also find ways in which we can
turn the excessive biomass in certain forms that's the reason
these fires have been so catastrophic to economic uses as well.
So, again, good morning. It's, as I said, a particular
privilege to chair this field hearing here in my home State of
Colorado. I want to thank the witnesses that have joined us at
the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs for their work
and all the time, energy, and resources that went into making
this hearing happen. There is a lot of work that goes on behind
the scenes.
As I mentioned, all the statements today will go into the
congressional record because this is a Senate committee
hearing. I'd also like to recognize that we are here in
Colorado Springs, a city and community that experienced the
Waldo Canyon fire which is the most destructive fire in
Colorado history. I was here when the fire was still burning to
meet firefighters and displaced residents, and I know how much
this community has suffered.
The fire took two lives, destroyed 350 homes, and displaced
32,000 people. It also has affected the entire city as
businesses temporarily closed and some tourists canceled
longstanding plans to visit the area.
As everyone here is aware, the Waldo Canyon fire was just
one of many fires burning across Colorado in this historic
wildfire year. Twice within 3 weeks, we broke the previous
record for the most destructive wildfires in our State's
history. While big destructive fires like High Park and Waldo
Canyon dominated the national news, there were fires burning in
almost every area of the State, including the 14,000-acre Pine
Ridge fire in Mesa County, the 10,000-acre Weber fire in
Montezuma County, and the 45,000-acre Last Chance fire in
Washington County. That pretty well covers the State,
incidentally.
My heart goes out to everyone affected by these fires, and
my thanks goes out to all the firefighters, first responders,
law enforcement, and National Guard and military units who
worked tirelessly to protect us. In fact, how about a round of
applause for all those fantastic public service personnel.
[Applause.]
I have no question--because I have direct experience with
this--that Coloradoans are driven, determined, and innovative.
Today, in that spirit, I am focused on moving toward solutions
we can implement to improve the health of Colorado's forests
and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.
Today, we will have an informative discussion on the
wildfire challenges the West faces, as well as finding lessons
that we can apply to future suppression, recovery, and
mitigation efforts. Our forests are the backdrop and backbone
to many rural and urban communities. They provide a wide range
of benefits, including clean drinking water for millions of
people across the U.S., vital wildlife habitat, jobs in the
forest products industry, and a variety of recreation
opportunities.
But it's also well understood that our forests, regardless
of their stewards, face significant threats to their overall
health. More people in fire prone landscapes, larger and more
frequent wild land fires, long-term drought, the bark beetle
outbreak, and unhealthy landscapes have created a perfect
storm: wild land fires that continue to burn larger and require
more resources to fight every year.
Fire suppression now consumes nearly half of the U.S.
Forest Service's annual budget. That's an astounding figure
that should be an eye-opener to all of us. For a different
outcome, we need a different approach, and we all do have a
role to play. In this case, the best offense, in my opinion, is
a good defense. The same principle applies to wildfires.
Wildfires are a natural phenomenon, but we can reduce their
effects so that we can avoid catastrophic wildfires that damage
property and take lives. It is catastrophic wildfires in the
wildland-urban interface, not wilderness or roadless areas,
that cost tens of millions of dollars to put out and hundreds
of millions of dollars to recover from. I hope to use today's
hearing to discuss what this best defense looks like, including
both fire suppression and pre-fire mitigation.
Last week, as the Chancellor mentioned, I led an after-
action review with the top leaders of the U.S. Forest Service,
the State Forest Service, and the military to discuss the total
Federal response to the Waldo Canyon fire. We concluded that
these Federal agencies largely worked well together. This was
the first time a dual-status commander was activated. A dual-
status commander allows National Guard personnel to command
active duty personnel. If there are any military personnel in
the room, you know how revolutionary that concept is, but how
useful it is as well.
All participants agreed at this after-action review that
having a single point of contact on the ground helped to
streamline communication and to speed the delivery of DOD
assets. Another of my takeaways from the review last week is
I'm going to take a close look at the Economy Act of 1932--what
is that, 80 years ago--to explore whether it should be modified
for those extreme situations in which human health and safety
are at imminent risk. I would welcome any and all input as I
explore these policy issues. We are truly all in this together.
Let me pose a couple of questions. As to pre-fire
mitigation, where should we prioritize limited resources? What
can we do to better partner with and support forest-related
businesses? What can home owners and property owners do to
protect themselves?
There are great examples out there where communities,
businesses, and agencies are coming together to make positive
things happen. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Several home builders in the metro Denver area are using
local beetle kill wood to frame new homes. The Coalition for
the Upper South Platte, just up the road outside of Woodland
Park, is leading a strong effort with the U.S. Forest Service,
the National Forest Foundation, Denver Water or Rural Water,
Coca-Cola, and many others to restore the landscapes destroyed
in the Hayman fire some 10 years ago. A business called West
Range Reclamation, based in Hotchkiss and a contractor for the
State's first long-term stewardship contract, has partnered
with the U.S. Forest Service to complete over 70,000 acres of
forest improvement projects in 5 western States since 2001,
creating 55 full time jobs and subcontracting over 50 more.
Colorado's second long-term stewardship contract was
recently approved and will restore more than 1,000 acres a year
around the town of Pagosa Springs. This project was led by a
local businessman in cooperation and conjunction with the U.S.
Forest Service and the local collaborative force group. It will
use the complete chain of forest products by developing a small
sawmill and a biomass energy facility, reducing wildfire risks
while also producing local jobs and clean energy.
Right here in Colorado Springs, our very own Colorado
Springs Utilities collaborates with the U.S. Forest Service to
improve forest health conditions for critical water supplies
and has a cooperative agreement with the Colorado State Forest
Service to manage nearly 16,000 of city owned watershed lands.
These examples show that proactive force management done in
the right way can have a whole constellation of benefits. You
provide jobs to rural communities. You produce timber for homes
and businesses and biomass for renewable energy. In the
process, you protect homes and other infrastructure. You can
improve habitat for endangered species and other wildlife. You
increase forage production for livestock. You preserve
watersheds that deliver much needed water to our irrigated
fields, municipalities, and waterways.
The point I'm making is that there is a lot of opportunity
here. We've long known the Chinese have a symbol for crisis.
That symbol is actually made up of two symbols. One symbol
represents danger. The other represents opportunity. I think
there's enormous opportunity in the danger that we face and the
tragedies that we've experienced.
So, again, I want to thank everybody for attending today.
Let's move to the experts. I know you came to hear them,
not solely the senior senator from Colorado. As long as you
don't call me the senior citizen, Pam, I'm going to be all
right with that. But it's great to have everybody here.
I think we'll start from left to right. Why don't I, in
turn, introduce each witness as you begin to testify. So we'll
start with Mike King, who is the Director of the Colorado
Department of Natural Resources, who grew up on the West Slope
and is a wonderful asset in the Hickenlooper administration.
Mike, welcome. We look forward to your comments.
I would remind all of you that you each have 5 minutes. If
you can stay within that timeframe, I'd appreciate it. I won't
bring the gavel down too heavily if you exceed it by a little
bit of time. But we look forward to your comments.
Director King.
STATEMENT OF MIKE KING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DENVER, CO
Mr. King. Senator Udall, I appreciate the opportunity to
come speak with you about this issue that is so critical to the
future of the State of Colorado. Within the purview of natural
resources, I can't think of an issue that is more complicated,
more of a Gordian knot than forest health at this point.
I agree with you that there are opportunities. But as of
right now, to say that forest health management is challenging
is really a gross understatement. We are facing 4 million acres
of dead and dying bark beetle trees. We are wrestling with a
drought that we haven't seen since 2002 and prior to that. That
was considered the drought of the century. We have a weak
forest product market, and we can't afford to treat even a
fraction of the trees in the areas that need attention right
now.
So that puts us in a situation where prioritization is
absolutely critical. The year 2012 has been one of the worst
fire years in Colorado's history. We had 3 notable fires along
the Front Range, and they occurred during the spring and
summer. We lost over 100,000 acres of trees. Over 600 homes
were lost. Tragically, we lost 6 lives.
So the question becomes: What can we do to minimize the
risk of these types of fires in the future, and how can we pay
for those efforts? We look at forest management in 3 areas,
much the same way you do. The pre-fire mitigation is probably
where our efforts return the most from a cost benefit analysis.
The most efficient way to treat the fires is not to have them
in the first place, or if we have them, to have them in healthy
forests where the magnitude and scope is dramatically smaller.
We appreciate your leadership in 2010, bringing $40 million
to this area for our bark beetle efforts. It was very
important, and the money went to some of the critical areas
that we're talking about. But we have over a billion dollars in
bark beetle needs alone in Colorado, just to put that into some
sort of scope.
The Four Mile assessment that we continue to review, the
after-action report that you were so critical in bringing
about, showed that there are some lessons to be learned. We had
defensible space work that was done, but we learned that the
slash piles that remained in place posed a significant threat,
so that removing or knocking the trees down is important. But
if you don't remove the fuel, you don't get the full benefit.
Those who didn't remove the fuel from the forest floor found
that their homes were far more likely to burn than those who
had defensible space and were in areas where the fuel was
removed. That's critical.
That brings us to, of course, the question: What do we do
with that fuel when we cut it? Because we need to have a market
for it. Fire suppression is, obviously, critical. The early
response is the key, and with the number of lightening strikes
and other causes, it's always a question of prioritization and
trying to do as much as we can.
The funding is absolutely paramount. What we've seen--and
you referenced it--with a greater and greater portion of the
United States Forest Service funding going to fire suppression
each year, what we're seeing is that oftentimes those funds are
depleted early in the season, and the Forest Service is left
with no choice other than to look at other areas and take those
funds from forest management, paradoxically taking them from
the pre-fire treatment that would reduce the risk in future
years. So it becomes a very difficult cycle.
Then, finally, the post-fire recovery--FEMA provides good
support for the post-fire recovery through the Fire Management
Assistance Program. But we know that treating forests ahead of
time is far more cost effective, and we urge FEMA to expand the
use of those disaster mitigation funds to include prevention
treatments.
The prioritization that we discussed really leads us
directly to the wildland-urban interface. In Colorado, in 2007,
it was estimated that we had 715,000 acres in the wildland-
urban interface. That's predicted to go by 300 percent by 2030.
These are the areas that should be prioritized for the
treatment that we do. Frankly, we don't even have the resources
to treat the WUI, much less the broader country, the roadless
and the wilderness that you referred to.
So we do support an idea that was in draft legislation to
identify critical areas and streamline the review and
implementation processes in those critical areas. Those would,
of course, be the wildland-urban interfaces where the
communities and homes are most in jeopardy. We also strongly
urge Congress to reauthorize stewardship contracting and the
Good Neighbor Authority permanently. We think that those allow
us the tools to get the most for our limited resources at the
State level.
In Colorado, like many other western States, we continue to
work to bolster our traditional forest products industry.
You'll hear more from Nancy Fishering later. But we also began
to explore innovative approaches, including the use of woody
biomass for thermal heat. Last year, we formed the Biomass
Working Group and tasked it with identifying barriers to the
development of this industry, and they are making
recommendations to overcome those barriers. In Pagosa Springs,
we have the first example of a biomass energy plant. We hope to
see this effort replicated.
Finally, Senator, I appreciate your efforts to keep this
front and center in our public discourse. It is one of, if not
the most critical issue, because forest health impacts every
other aspect of our natural resources, to the very essence of
our water and our ability to keep communities alive and healthy
and thriving.
If we are to succeed, it will require leadership at the
Federal level, the full efforts of the State, our local
governments, and the citizens who live in these areas, all of
us working together making the resources that we have available
to this effort. We are committed at the State level to making
sure that we live up to our obligation. I want to thank you
again for your leadership on this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike King, Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you about a critically important issue in
Colorado, the health of our forests. My testimony today will address
the statewide impact of recent wildfires, funding for wildfire
prevention, suppression, and recovery, challenges presented by
Colorado's vast wildland/urban interface, and ways in which our forests
might be managed to improve their resiliency and reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire in the future. I will address the role and
importance of federal authorities, market-based incentives, state land
management, and place-based forest collaboratives in helping us improve
the health of our state's forest resources.
The problem of forest health is compounded by the bark beetle
epidemic across Colorado, one that has left us with millions of acres
of dead and dying trees. Markets for these trees are weak or non-
existent, making it prohibitively expensive to treat all the areas that
need attention. Drought has intensified the fire-prone condition of our
forests. These challenges facing Colorado and many western states are
being addressed with active forest management. Our state has a range of
efforts underway designed to help restore forest health while
simultaneously revitalizing our forest products industry.
2012 wildfire season
As the Committee is likely aware, Colorado has already had an
intense fire season. Toward the end of March, the Lower North Fork Fire
burned for a week in a populated area near Conifer, south of Denver.
That fire resulted in the tragic deaths of three people, the loss of 27
structures, and the scorching of 4,140 acres. At the peak of the fire,
over 900 homes were evacuated. Just two months later, the High Park
Fire erupted north of Fort Collins. That fire burned 87,284 acres,
destroyed 259 homes and 112 outbuildings, and resulted in one fatality.
Before that fire was fully extinguished, the Waldo Canyon Fire outside
of Colorado Springs erupted, eventually scorching 18,947 acres,
destroying 346 homes, and leading to two fatalities.
The fire season isn't over yet, but our work is now divided between
recovery from these destructive blazes and continuing to reduce the
risk of having additional fires. Impacts from the fires have touched an
array of individuals and agencies. Costs associated with wildfires
include suppression actions during the fire, structure and property
loss. Additional direct impacts include those to water facilities and
water quality. Longer term, revegetation and erosion prevention
activities can continue for decades.
For example, following the Buffalo Peaks Fire (1995) and Hayman
Fire (2002), erosion continued to cause problems for downstream
Strontia Springs Reservoir. Finally, in 2011, Denver Water had no
choice but to dredge it in order to remove the accumulated
sedimentation. The dredging project cost the utility an estimated $30
million.
funding for wildfires
We tend to think of funding for wildfire in three categories: pre-
fire mitigation efforts, fire suppression once the fire is underway,
and then post-fire recovery.
Pre-Fire Mitigation and Forest Health
Before a fire, maintaining forest health and protecting homes and
communities can reduce the eventual costs of wildfire. With
approximately 4 million acres of bark-beetle infested dead and dying
trees around the state, the scale of the challenge is daunting. Paying
for treatments that might mitigate this forest health challenge has
been exacerbated by a weak market for forest products in the state.
Since we know we cannot afford to treat every acre that deserves
attention, prioritizing treatment areas is essential.
We appreciate the efforts of Senator Udall and his colleague
Senators from Wyoming and South Dakota in securing $40 million in
fiscal year 2010 to this region of the U.S. Forest Service to help
mitigate the effects of falling dead bark beetle-killed trees as well
as additional treatment work in this infested area of our state and
region. That funding has indeed helped, but we have much more work to
do. It is estimated that the cost to treat the dead trees in the nearly
4 million areas hit hard by this current bark beetle epidemic could
cost upwards of one billion dollars alone.
After the devastating 2010 Fourmile Canyon Fire, where 168 homes
were destroyed north of Boulder, Sen. Udall requested a thorough
assessment of the incident from the Rocky Mountain Research Station. We
appreciate the Senator's leadership, and the report was released last
month (Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-289; July 2012). One of the most
interesting findings was that while several fuels treatment projects
had been conducted within the area that eventually burned, many of
those treatments failed to protect homes. Those projects had been
focused on improving the health of the forest, developing safe travel
corridors, and creating wildfire defendable zones using a shaded fuel
break near homes and communities. However, surface debris from the
treatments had not been removed in many instances either physically or
by prescribed fire. Thus, the efficacy of the fuel treatments was very
limited. This finding underscores the challenges associated with
funding shortages; while clearing timber is important, removing the
material is an expensive--and critical--piece of the strategy.
Incentivizing the removal of woody biomass could shift this pattern so
that forest treatments include that pivotal step. However, the results
did show that if property owners both removed excess trees and surface
vegetation, their chances of protecting their homes was improved, which
suggests that we need to do better about encouraging defensible space
around homes and communities.
Fire Suppression
Early response to wildfires is essential to ensure public safety,
reduce costs, and minimize damage to natural resources. Along with
three other western Governors, Governor Hickenlooper in July wrote a
letter to leadership in Washington, DC, urging Congress to provide
adequate funding through FEMA for states and local jurisdictions
pursuing fire recovery. The Fire Management Assistance Program is
particularly important for these efforts. Additionally, the Governors
noted their concern with the ongoing pattern whereby land management
agencies exhaust the funds available for firefighting and are forced to
redirect monies from other programs, including, ironically, fire
mitigation work. Raiding the budgets for recreation in order to pay for
fire suppression presents a significant problem in Colorado, where our
outdoor recreation opportunities on public land are unparalleled. We
support minimizing fire transfer within the federal land management
agencies, and more fully funding existing suppression accounts.
Post-Fire Recovery
Colorado appreciates the range of federal support available to
assist with post-fire recovery, primarily through the BAER teams and
FEMA.
While FEMA has provided invaluable support for post-fire recovery,
the research is clear: treating forests ahead of time and preventing
fire from occurring is more cost effective. For this reason, we urge
Congress to work with FEMA to expand the use of their disaster
mitigation funds to include disaster prevention treatments.
the wildland-urban interface
A recent Colorado State University study (D. Theobald and W. Romme,
2007) estimated the size of the WUI in our state as encompassing
715,000 acres; that same study predicts a 300% increase to over 2
million acres of WUI by 2030. Homes in the WUI are particularly
vulnerable to wildfire. They also present an unusual public policy
challenge, as individual homeowners need to be brought into a
landscape-scale approach that is based on the best available science.
The Fourmile Canyon Fire Report (referenced above) noted that home
destruction in the fire was due to direct firebrand ignitions and/or
surface fire spreading to contact the home. Therefore, significantly
reducing the potential for WUI fire disasters during extreme burning
conditions depends on a homeowner creating and maintaining a safe home
ignition zone or HIZ--the design, materials, and the maintenance of the
home including the area 100 feet around it. The Colorado State Forest
Service works with homeowners to help them assess and then treat
forested land to reduce the threat from fire. That agency is funded
largely through the State and Private Forestry program in the USFS
budget, and their work is limited by the funds available to support
their efforts. Again, these limitations point to the need for
prioritization.
We support the concept of identifying ``critical areas'' on our
national forests that are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire, and
then applying streamlined review and implementation processes for
thinning projects. These areas are in urgent need of expedited
treatment to reduce fuel loads to help reduce the threat to communities
from wildfires. Because our most urgent need is around communities, we
suggest defining the concept so that it refers exclusively to areas
within the WUI. This would allow for a focus of scarce resources to the
areas that are most critical: near homes, communities, and water
facilities. The Governor recently sent a letter on July 6, 2012 to the
Senate and House Agriculture Committees urging that this concept--as
well as many others--that appear in the Forestry section of the 2012
Farm Bill be adopted and passed so that we can employ these provisions
as soon as possible.
federal authorities
In addition to the ``critical area'' designations identified in his
letter regarding the Farm Bill, the Governor identified two other
federal authorities have played a key role in Colorado as we work to
find a private market for forest products, enhance the health of our
forests, and reduce the risk from wildfire. Those provisions are
Stewardship Contracting and Good Neighbor Authority.
Stewardship Contracting allows the USFS to focus on goods (trees
and other woody biomass) for services (removal of this material), and
helps the agency make forest treatment projects more economical.
Individuals who seek to build a business that requires a reliable
supply of timber have consistently reported that long term Stewardship
Contracts provide them with the security they need to secure
investments. We support permanent authorization for stewardship
contracting.
Good Neighbor Authority allows states, including our own Colorado
State Forest Service, to perform forest treatments on national forest
land when they are treating neighboring non-federal land. This
landscape-scale approach is essential for achieving landscape-scale
forest health. Fires don't respect ownership boundaries. We support
permanent authorization for Good Neighbor Authority.
market-based incentives
Another way to encourage the removal of woody biomass is to provide
incentives for the private sector. Using the wood to create traditional
forest products is one avenue. More recently, Colorado (and several
other states) has begun to explore the viability of using the wood as
an energy source. Colorado's 2011 Forest Health Act (SB11-267) created
a Biomass Task Force, tasked with researching the barriers to the
development of such an industry and making recommendations for
overcoming those barriers. The report noted that
Colorado should use more forest biomass to reduce the fuels
available to catastrophic wildfires. Biomass could be used in
wood-to-energy efforts, which work more effectively where the
full-value product chain, (i.e., the full range of possible
wood products is produced), is generated through forest
management activities. Higher-value uses of wood, such as
lumber and wood paneling, provide the financial support to
remove and utilize lower-value woody material, such as biomass
for energy, allowing this material to be used efficiently,
rather than being left behind to fuel a wildfire.
state lands
So far, this testimony has focused on the challenges facing federal
and private lands. We do, however, want to mention state lands. As with
federal public lands, the cost of removing trees when the vegetation
removed is of low economic value makes their removal costly. Of the
4,483,638 million acres of land that the state manages (State Trust
Lands, State Parks, and State Wildlife Areas), about 845,000 acres is
forested, and of that about 297,000 acres has been impacted by the bark
beetle, and of this about 8,000 acres is within the wildland/urban
interface. That means that of the 3.5 million acres of forest lands
affected by the bark beetle, state lands represent 0.2 percent of the
immediate threat to homes and communities. Still, we have been actively
treating these lands--when we can secure the funding to do so. To date,
the state has treated--that is, removed excess vegetation that
constitutes the fuel for intense wildfires--about 48,000 acres. Much of
this work was done with federal assistance (about $2.5 million between
2006 and2010), and this federal funding required state matching
dollars. The state is actively pursuing additional federal funding
(again requiring state matching dollars) for this year and beyond.
collaborative groups
Colorado has a rich environment of grassroots initiative and
cooperation that fosters gatherings of people from differing
backgrounds and interests coming together to address forest issues in
specific geographic locations through collaborative approaches.
Although there is a current national trend of citizens organizing
collaborative groups to work together to address complex issues facing
forests on public and private lands at the local and regional levels,
Colorado has a long tradition of successful collaborative problem
solving spanning nearly thirty years. There are twenty identified
place-based forest collaboratives of all sizes, organizational
structures, missions and operational philosophies active in Colorado
and at least three new collaboratives are being formed. Because of this
rich environment of collaboration, Colorado became the only state to
receive multiple awards when it got two highly competitive USDA
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program grants in 2010.
conclusion
Colorado is facing a host of challenges when it comes to managing
our forest resources and reducing the risk of wildfire to homes and
communities. The strength of our place-based collaborative groups
allows them to partner with land management agencies to leverage scarce
resources. Innovative small businesses have begun to emerge in the
state, seeking to make creative use of woody biomass. But Colorado
needs help. As described here, permanently authorizing provisions that
help our efforts is an essential step. We look forward to working with
this committee in whatever way is useful.
Thank you for your ongoing interest in and passion for these
issues.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Director King. I would also like
to acknowledge that the Department of Public Safety at the
State level has an important role to play. I know you work
closely with them. I see Jim Davis here. Perhaps Paul Cooke is
here as well, representing the Department of Public Safety. So
thank you for bringing the wealth of knowledge and experience
here to Colorado Springs.
Dr. Kaufman will testify next. He's the Scientist Emeritus,
U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, and he's
a contract scientist for the Nature Conservancy. I have to tell
all of you that Dr. Kaufman played a key role in the evolution
I underwent in the late 1990s when it came to forest health. I,
at some level, still believe every tree is a good tree. But I
had to understand that not every tree should be where we now
have those trees. Dr. Kaufman can put it more articulately than
I just did.
But I also wanted to acknowledge that Congressman Hefley--
who represented this area well and was a class act--and I
joined forces in 1999 to begin to address some of the forest
health concerns that were beginning to emerge, in large part
because Dr. Kaufman, along with Dr. Covington down in
Flagstaff, and this very focused group of forest scientists
began to put the clarion call out that we were facing a threat
like one we had never seen before.
So, Dr. Kaufman, it's terrific to see you. Thank you for
taking your time, and thank you for being so engaged in this.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MERRILL R. KAUFMAN, EMERITUS SCIENTIST, FOREST
SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION, AND CONTRACT
SCIENTIST, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Kaufman. Thank you. It's good to see you. I really
appreciate your continued interest in these forest health
issues, and thanks for including me in these discussions. It's
where we all need to be.
I'm going to jump right to some numbers that I've pulled
together for Front Range ponderosa pine and Doug fir forests.
That's where all the big fires are occurring and where we're
losing houses and lives. The numbers I want to share with you
are based in large part on our understanding of historical
ecological conditions and processes and also information that
was assembled for the 2006 Front Range Roundtable report, and
those pieces of information are still very relevant.
Our research showed that, historically, significant fires
occurred in these forests about one to 3 times a century, every
40, 50, 60 years or so. These fires were mixed in severity. The
numerous openings that were created by these fires were
generally between, say, one and a couple of hundred acres in
size or occasionally a little bit larger. In my studies, we
haven't seen any evidence of openings that were 1,000 acres or
larger from these standard placing components of this mix of
area fires. The forests remained irregular, patchy, and that
assured that subsequent ground fires couldn't be very large,
because few areas could develop that had really dense forests
over large areas.
We have about 800,000 acres of ponderosa pine and Doug fir
forest in the Front Range. If historical fire behavior had been
allowed to continue over the last century, we could have
expected probably about 180,000 acres converted into temporary
openings by these natural stand replacing fires. That would
have been somewhere between a thousand and two and a half
thousand openings of various sizes across the Front Range in
that vegetation zone. Most other areas would have been
significantly thinned and kept thinned by fire, and the forest
would have remained ecologically sustainable. They would not
have been vulnerable to these uncharacteristically large crown
fires that we've been having in the last two decades.
In just 3 recent fire years alone, 1996, 2000, and 2002--
not even including this year--there were 6 extreme crown fires
in these Front Range ponderosa pine and Doug fir forests that
created 6 openings that ranged in size from 3,000 to 60,000
acres, 60,000 being the Hayman fire. So roughly 85,000 to
90,000 acres of crown fire in just 6 openings represents about
half of the total expected amount of crown fire, but it should
have been distributed across hundreds to thousands of small
patches spread throughout the vegetation zone. Furthermore, the
natural thinning of forests by wildfire has been largely
eliminated.
So with that kind of backdrop, we've got new research needs
that always unfold from our observation of how treatments are
going and now from looming climate effects. But the scientific
basis exists for extensive improvement in fuel and forest
health conditions over the next few years. We're not lacking in
enough information to make headway.
Despite hard work by dedicated managers and agencies and so
forth, far too little has been done to provide adequate
protection from wildland fires in these Front Range forests,
and the ecological condition remains poor at best. Effective
treatment requires massive removal of biomass, and it doesn't
matter whether it's mechanical or prescribed burning. Somehow
or another, we've got too much biomass.
The costs are enormous. Thus far, it's been difficult to
find adequate value in the removed biomass to significantly
offset the cost of treating a forest and bringing them into a
better fuel and ecological condition, especially at the scale
we're talking about. I think it's safe to say that neither
agency nor industry capacity seems adequate for the scale of
work needed. We've got a huge problem and a pretty darned
limited capacity to address it, in spite of the hard work of
people.
I'll conclude just by suggesting that, obviously, I think
we must pay far more attention to fuel treatment and forest
restoration in these lower elevation ponderosa pine and Doug
fir forests. That's where the big fires are occurring, the
houses lost, and, tragically, the lives are lost.
I think we also need to be aware that we've got emerging
research issues that are not well funded. So somehow or another
we're going to have to address the research component of this
so we do stay ahead of the curve here, especially as we're
talking about a scale of treatment and a series of potential
climate impacts that we don't understand very well.
The effort needed to address these problems is far bigger
than we're accustomed to. Yet somehow or another we need to
find the will, we need to find the way that government,
politics, the public can all come together to try to solve this
problem.
I'll be glad to answer any questions you have after a few
minutes. But I think I'll conclude with that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaufman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Merrill R. Kaufman, Emeritus Scientist, Forest
Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, and Contract Scientist, The
Nature Conservancy
Current conditions of forests in Colorado threaten public safety,
property, and health of important natural resources. Beginning in the
mid-1990s and extending into 2012, a series of major fires in ponderosa
pine/Douglas-fir forests of the Colorado Front Range damaged
watersheds, and a thousand or more houses and a dozen or more human
lives have been lost. During the last decade, mountain pine beetle
damage to lodgepole pine forests has added serious public safety
dangers and new forest health issues in higher elevation forests.
Severe watershed damage and the loss of two lives caused by the
1996 Buffalo Creek fire prompted the beginning of a series of agency,
political, and public responses to forest health and wildfire issues in
the Front Range. Subsequent major Front Range fires included Hi Meadows
and Bobcat Gulch in 2000, and Schoonover, Big Elk, and Hayman in 2002.
Long before the 2012 fire season, a series of efforts culminated in the
2006 Front Range Roundtable report that described the nature and
magnitude of Front Range forest and wildfire issues, and outlined a
series of steps needed to mitigate wildfire threats and restore forests
to a healthier condition.
My testimony is based in large part upon research conducted in my
lab on fire history and ecology of historical Front Range forests prior
to Euro-American settlement, in concert with research conducted by
colleagues. My testimony is also based upon my extensive participation
in the Front Range Roundtable deliberations and implementation of
recommendations. I was one of two presenters of the Roundtable report
at its rollout in 2006 for Gov. Bill Owens, The Nature Conservancy, and
other participants.
Lodgepole pine and beetle kill issues are important, and threats
posed by falling trees and wildfire loom as a concern across much of
the state. Nonetheless, people have died, astonishing numbers of houses
have burned, and watersheds are at risk not in lodgepole pine forests,
but rather in lower montane ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests in the
Front Range and beyond. We cannot help but note that all the major
Colorado fires in the last two decades and thus far this year have
occurred not in beetle-killed lodgepole pine, but in these lower
elevation, heavily populated forests. Having led a recent review of
fuel treatment efforts across the country for the national Joint Fire
Science Program, it became clear to me that Front Range ponderosa pine/
Douglas-fir forests have perhaps the worst forest and fuel conditions
in the country, especially given the extensive urban interface
throughout this vegetation zone. Adding in drought, the current
destructive fire patterns strongly reinforce this assessment.
As you might recall from our over-flight and discussions following
the Hayman fire 10 years ago, and from extensive analyses conducted by
the Front Range Roundtable, these ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests
are in extremely poor condition as a result of past human impacts,
namely logging, grazing, and fire suppression. And now, climate
patterns are not working in our favor and appear to support a true
shift in climatic conditions that will affect many of our forests
adversely.
background information.
I've pulled together some numbers for Front Range ponderosa pine/
Douglas-fir forests, based in large part on our understanding of
historical conditions and processes studied at Cheesman Lake in the
South Platte watershed before that historical forest was destroyed by
the Hayman fire. And I have included information from the Roundtable
report that addressed the Front Range more broadly. I presented this
summary at the 10th anniversary meeting of the Hayman Fire June 21-22.
Historically, significant fires occurred in ponderosa pine/
Douglas-fir forests one to three times per century. These fires
were mixed in severity across the burned area. In some places
the fires were relatively cool and burned mostly on the ground.
In other areas trees were thinned by fire, and some places
burned intensely as crown fires killing all trees.
Collectively, patches of crown fires created openings amounting
to slightly over 20% of the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest
area during each century. The numerous openings created by
theses fires were generally between 1 and 200 acres in size and
occasionally somewhat larger, but there was no evidence of
openings 1000 acres or larger. Most of the newly created
openings became reforested within several decades, though in
some instances they persisted for well over 100 years. As a
result of these fires, forests remained irregular and patchy,
assuring that subsequent crown fires were not large because few
areas of dense forest were very large.
About 800,000 acres of ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests
exist in the Front Range. Except for the recent major fires,
wildfire has been largely eliminated as a factor shaping forest
structure. Most forests have become uniformly dense over large
areas, with very few open areas or areas of low forest density.
If historical fire behavior had been allowed to continue, we
could have expected about 180,000 acres converted into
temporary openings by natural stand-replacing crown fires over
the last 100 years. Somewhere between 1,000 and 2,500 openings
of various sizes might have resulted. Most other areas would
have been thinned by fire. Forests would have remained
ecologically sustainable and would not have been vulnerable to
uncharacteristically large crown fires as we've experienced in
the last two decades.
In three recent fire years alone (1996, 2000, and 2002), six
extreme crown fires in Front Range ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir
forests created six openings ranging from 3,000 to 60,000
acres. Roughly 85-90,000 acres of crown fire in just six
openings represents about half of the expected amount of crown
fire that should have been distributed across hundreds to
thousands of small patches spread throughout the ponderosa
pine/Douglas-fir zone over 100 years. Furthermore, natural
thinning of forests by wildfire has been largely eliminated.
Short of conversion to shopping centers or covered by volcanic
ash, it is hard to imagine a forest system in more difficulty.
These numbers and analyses leave little doubt that fuel conditions
in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests pose unrelenting threats not only
to an important ecosystem, but especially to human life, property, and
watersheds. And we are all aware of the dramatic new evidence of
current fire behavior illustrating the stunning magnitude of this
problem.
worsened by climate.
Changes in climatic patterns appear increasingly real. I've often
noted that some of our ecosystems are `out of whack' as a result of
past management activities. It now appears that all of our vegetation
life zones are out of whack to some degree. A massive mountain pine
beetle epidemic from Colorado to British Columbia, more frequent severe
drought, and extensive fires in forests and shrublands--evidence is
mounting that climate is triggering extensive changes in our natural
resource systems. Calamitous ecological trajectories punctuated by
abrupt disturbances are displacing normal ecological change and may
well be forerunners of shifting life zones, with important ecosystems
experiencing highly uncharacteristic and intense agents of change.
current situation.
Based upon existing research and extensive public and private land
experience, we have a sound understanding of what needs to be done to
mitigate fuel hazards to protect watersheds, lives, and properties.
Most of this information has been summarized in the 2006 Front Range
Roundtable report, and continuing work by Roundtable member agencies
and organizations such as The Nature Conservancy is both adding
scientific understanding and increasing the size of treated areas
having less fuel and better ecological condition. While new research
needs are becoming clear based upon assessing initial treatment
responses and looming climate effects, the scientific basis exists for
extensive improvement in fuel and forest health conditions over the
next few years.
Nonetheless, despite hard work by dedicated managers, far too
little has been done to provide adequate protection from wildland fires
in Front Range ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests, and forest
ecological condition remains poor. Consider the sheer magnitude of the
work needed. Effective treatment requires massive removal of forest
biomass, whether mechanically or using prescribed burning. Costs of
treating forests range from a few hundred dollars per acre in areas
suitable for prescribed burning, to two thousand or more per acre where
biomass has to be removed by logging, chipping, or other procedures.
Often a combination of treatments is needed. Furthermore, many areas
are hard to treat because of topography or proximity to urban
development. This both increases treatment expense and requires
widespread public acceptance of treatment activities and outcomes. Thus
far it has been difficult to find adequate value in the removed biomass
to significantly offset the cost of treating forests and bringing them
into better fuel and ecological condition.
Historical forests looked far different from current forests. While
public reaction to treatment outcomes mimicking historical forests has
been positive, public reaction has not been tested for the scale of
treatment work needed to resolve the fuel and ecological problem of
Front Range ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests, particularly where work
is needed in the wildland/urban interface. Furthermore, neither agency
nor industry capacity seems adequate for the scale of work needed.
please consider two recommendations.
First, we must place far more attention on fuel treatment in the
lower-elevation ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of the Front Range.
Our professional managers know what to do (with a caveat below), but
they lack resources to do the work. We must find the public, political,
and agency will to address this problem at a meaningful scale. Thus far
that will is lacking.
Second, at a time of growing concerns, we have a research funding
shortfall. We are facing considerable uncertainty regarding how climate
shifts mesh with our existing fuel and vegetation management
guidelines. The Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Geological Survey,
and universities have limited capacity to do the needed research work.
The forest health problems we face clearly affect our human lives
and sense of safety and well-being. The effort needed to address these
problems is bigger than we are accustomed to, yet somehow we must find
a way to bring people, government, and politics into play to solve
these problems.
This concludes my testimony.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Dr. Kaufman. Sobering statistics.
I've known you, though, never to pull your punch or punches,
and I think you, again, have been such a mentor to me. Thinking
back on what you've taught me, if any of you in the auditorium
here want to get a better sense of what we face, just look at
the photographs of 100 years of the ponderosa and Doug fir
forests. They were relatively healthy, and there's a lot of
open canopy. One ponderosa per acre--as I remember it--right,
Dr. Kaufman--was generally the average.
Mr. Kaufman. More than one.
Senator Udall. More than one, but not many more than one.
Much of the biomass was in grasses and shrubs, not in trees.
But we'll further explore some of your conclusions.
Next on the panel is Jimbo Buickerood, who is the Public
Lands Organizer, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and he is a member
of the Upper San Juan Mixed-Conifer Work Group. In the interest
of a full confession, I've known Jimbo for 40 years, although
he doesn't even look quite 40 years of age.
But we've known each other for a long time. He's a
consummate outdoorsman. There's nobody that knows the back
country better than Jimbo, and I'm glad he's here.
I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JIMBO BUICKEROOD, PUBLIC LANDS COORDINATOR, SAN
JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, DURANGO, CO
Mr. Buickerood. Thank you, Senator. I think I look younger
because I'm not in the Senate.
[Laughter.]
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this
important issue and welcome to everyone here today. I live in
the Mancos River Valley, right next to Mesa Verde National Park
between Durango and Cortez.
First of all, I want to express my sympathy and condolences
to the Colorado Springs residents who suffered losses in the
Waldo Canyon fire as well as other Colorado residents who
suffered losses in other fires this year. Our Mancos Valley
community was also impacted by a fire earlier this year that, I
believe--after listening to the Chancellor, who noted this
started--the Waldo Canyon fire--was started, I think, 2 days
before that.
We are very lucky in that the fire did not result in any
loss of human life and only minimal property damage. I must say
that homes and lives were saved, due to the incredibly fast
response of emergency services and also the preventive efforts
of home owners who safeguarded their homes and neighborhoods by
effectively removing hazardous fuels. As well, in my exhibits
and my testimony, there is a fine article that speaks very
specifically to what was done in that community that really
paid off in results. It is eye-opening and very good evidence
of what can be done.
As the senator noted today, I represent both the San Juan
Citizens Alliance and also the Upper San Juan Mixed-Conifer
Working Group, which is a collaborative community group working
in the Pagosa area on mixed-conifer issues. Pagosa Springs is
entirely surrounded by a national forest, and there are
approximately 144,000 acres of mixed-conifer forest, which
includes a ponderosa forest there.
From my work in forest issues over the past few years in
Colorado, including my involvement in the Mixed-Conifer Working
Group, I just want to share 3 fundamental points to start with
here having to do with reduction of wildfire hazards in the
wildland-urban interface or, as I hope everyone knows the term,
WUI. These are all things that should become our common
language, actually, living in Colorado.
First, we know that the existing structure of Federal
environmental regulations, including the National Environmental
Protection Act and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, provide
both the broad authority and sufficient flexibility to support
Coloradoans in addressing the challenges we have with our
Colorado forests. There is no need to pass additional
legislation, such as some now being examined in the House of
Representatives, to create new logging authorities, or to
transfer the jurisdiction of our public lands from the Federal
to State government in the name of wildfire hazard reduction.
Indeed, we have a regulatory structure through both NEPA
and HFRA that effectively supports us and allows us to address
the challenges at hand. Both of these processes include one of
the most important pieces of the solution, that of public
engagement. It is public engagement that brings us public
dialog and full disclosure, and that leads to good projects and
good outcomes. I think the example of the work we've done in
the Pagosa area is very specific to that. So when it comes to
the statutory and regulatory environment, the solution is: It
works. There is no need to change any of that structure.
Second, we need to continue to have greater funding and
continued funding to deal with these challenges. There is no
way around that. You know, the reasons for where we're at now
are multiple. Both of the gentleman who spoke before me spoke
of some of those, including disease and insect outbreaks,
climate change, forest management practices, settlement
patterns, and others.
Because we know funds are limited and they need to be used
wisely, the primary question really is: How do we best use the
resources available to us? I'd like to look at that, and we've
looked at it in our working group, really from a business point
of view, which is: What is the best return on our investment?
That's what we need to drill down to.
Fortunately, we have sound research and findings from
recent reports, though, as Dr. Kaufman noted, we need to keep
on that one. There's lots to learn. But, you know, findings
such as the Four Mile Canyon fire study really have given us
information about what we need to work on. I would say that
supporting initiatives such as the Community Wildfire
Protection Plan work and the Firewise program, are very
important pieces to the solution puzzle.
We also know that when we invest in fuel reduction
projects, the best use of funds is dealing with the hazards
that are close to homes, businesses, and infrastructure. There
is no need, and it is a poor use of resources and even brings
false hopes to suggest that extensive logging of dead or dying
trees will necessarily save homes and lives. The hazard is
closer to home than that.
As Senator Udall noted, when reviewing findings of the Four
Mile Canyon fire study, the fire taught us that the most
important yard tool you can have in a wildlife prone area is
not a chain saw. It's a----
Senator Udall. Weed whacker.
Mr. Buickerood. A rake.
Senator Udall. A rake. I thought Dr. Kaufman was going to
give me the quiz today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Buickerood. I just wanted to be sure you remembered
your previous remarks.
The other piece I want to speak to is, I think, a worthy
piece of funding that has been mentioned here previously, which
is the long-term stewardship contracts. It's important that
those efforts be supported. These can't be one or 2-year, you
know, shotgun approaches, but multiyear approaches in
communities.
Third, I just want to note that an important piece of that
is community involvement. When wildfires burn close to homes or
in communities, they affect everyone in the community, as the
Chancellor pointed out. As we've seen, an effective response to
wildfire necessitates community-wide response. Similarly,
effective prevention necessitates community-wide decisions.
I would just say that although the efforts and the work
that we're doing at the Mixed-Conifer Working Group in Pagosa
Springs may not necessarily be a template for all Colorado
communities, if you look at the report that's with one of my
exhibits--and we can talk further about this--that type of
community model where all the stakeholders are involved in
decisionmaking and priority setting is extremely important if
we're going to move forward on this. We don't have all the
money we want, so we need to make some choices, and they will
best be made by the community with extensive involvement.
Just a couple of other little pieces here on--I want to
talk a little bit about the Mixed-Conifer Working Group,
because I do think it's a good model. It's a working group that
was developed, actually, out of an outgrowth of a tour, I
believe, sponsored by the Colorado Forest Restoration
Initiative quite a few years ago. That group has been operating
since July 2010. It is an incredibly diverse group, with more
than 60 members. I can't say it's always a cum-bah-yah moment
of hand-holding and singing and we're all going in the same
direction. But, of course, we know that's one of the great
things about collaborative work groups, is that dialog and so
forth.
So we've had many informational presentations, a lot of
good dialog. We've had tours on the ground, and now we're at
the point of looking at what projects might be available, how
we outreach the community and move forward with the projects,
and with those, monitoring work as well to really know what the
outcome of our work is going to be.
In conclusion here, I just want to share a quote from Kevin
Khung, who is the district ranger of the Pagosa district of the
San Juan National Forest, which is the Pagosa area, that really
sums up the spirit of the group. ``The Upper San Juan Mixed-
Conifer Working Group is a diverse cross-section of people
interested in public lands. The group's desire to openly share
and learn from one another, as well as to support possible
solutions, is extraordinary. The fact that they want to be
problem solvers rather than problem identifiers is encouraging
for all public land managers.''
We know, realistically, that it's not true that all public
land managers and Forest Service personnel are willing to
engage the public in such an open fashion dialog for solutions.
But I think, as Director King pointed out, that is the way
forward. It's that engagement of communities in really honest
dialog and looking at the choices if we're really going to make
any headway on the challenges that Dr. Kaufman outlined.
So thanks once again for the opportunity to speak as we
move forward on some problem solving here. Later on, if you're
up for it, I'd love to ask you a couple of questions about the
work that you're doing on some kind of ancillary issues that
might relate to this, including such things as the insurance
industry and how that either supports residents or is
problematic for them.
So thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buickerood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jimbo Buickerood, Public Lands Coordinator, San
Juan Citizens Alliance, Durango, CO
Good Morning Senator Udall, Members of the Panel, and fellow
Coloradoans.
I'm Jimbo Buickerood and I reside with my family in the Mancos
River Valley lying just to the east of Mesa Verde National Park. I
appreciate and am honored by the invitation to come here today to share
my perspectives on the topic of Forest Health and Wildfire, and most
importantly to identify solutions to the challenges we collectively
face.
First of all, I want to express my sympathy and condolences for
those in the Colorado Springs area who suffered losses in the Waldo
Canyon Fire, as well as those other Colorado residents who endured loss
in the other wildfires this year in the state.
Our Mancos Valley community was also impacted by a wildfire earlier
this summer when the 10,000 acre Weber Fire burned Bureau of Land
Management and private lands immediately east of the Town of Mancos.
Fortunately the fire resulted in no loss of human life and only minimal
property loss. Homes and lives were saved due to incredibly fast and
effective response by firefighters and the preventive efforts of
homeowners who safeguarded their homes and neighborhood by effectively
removing hazardous fuels.
Today I represent both the Upper San Juan Mixed-Conifer Working
Group, whose collaborative work is focused on the forest lands in the
Pagosa Springs area, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance at which I am
the Public Lands Coordinator.
The San Juan Citizens Alliance is a 26 year-old membership
organization that organizes people to protect our water and air, our
lands, and the character of our rural communities in southwest Colorado
and northwest New Mexico.
Our nine staff focus on four program areas, 1) the Wild San Juans,
working to preserve the San Juan National Forest and Bureau of Land
Management lands and adjacent areas; 2) the Dolores River Campaign,
protecting the Dolores River watershed; 3) a River Protection program
safeguarding river flows and water quality in the San Juan basin; and
4) the San Juan Basin Energy Reform Campaign, ensuring proper
regulation and enforcement of the oil, gas and coal industry and
transitioning to a renewable energy economy.
From my work on forest issues in southwest Colorado over the past
few years, including involvement in the Upper San Juan Mixed-Conifer
Working Group I would like to share three fundamental points related to
the goal of reducing wildfire hazards in the Wildland Urban Interface,
the so-called ``WUI.''
First, we know that the existing structure of federal environmental
regulations including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 provide both the
broad authority and sufficient flexibility to support Coloradoans in
addressing the challenges we have in some of our Colorado forests.
Simply said, there is no need to pass additional legislation, such as
some now being examined in the House of Representatives, to create new
logging authorities, or for transference of jurisdiction of our public
lands from the federal government to the state government in the name
of wildfire hazard reduction.
Indeed, we have a regulatory structure in place that both
effectively supports us, and allows us, to address the challenges at
hand. Both NEPA and HFRA include one of the most important pieces to
the solution, that of public engagement which fosters public dialogue
and full disclosure, elements that lead to good projects with good
outcomes. It is a relief to know that when it comes to the regulatory
structure to address wildfire hazard reduction in Colorado, the
solution is simple: ``don't change it--it's not broken.''
Secondly, we need continued and greater funding to address the
challenges presented by a substantial increase in wildfire hazard
throughout the state. While the reasons behind the increased challenges
are many and include insect epidemics, climate change, settlement
patterns, past forest management practices, and others--there is no
doubt that funds are needed to address the current challenge. Because
we know funds are always limited and must be used wisely, the primary
funding question to resolve is, ``How can we most effectively use the
funds and resources available?,'' or with a business mindset it can be
framed as ``What is the best return on investment?'' The solution
therefore relates directly to where and how we prioritize the resources
available to us.
Fortunately we have sound research and findings from recent
reports, such as the Four Mile Canyon Fire Study, that point the way
towards the best use of funds. We know that increasing public fire
awareness is important, especially for those that live and work in the
Wildland Urban Interface, the WUI. Support for initiatives such as
designing and implementing Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP's)
for all Colorado communities potentially in harm's way of wildfires is
a very effective use of funds, as is support for the Firewise program
that educates and supports homeowners to minimize wildfire hazards
surrounding their homes. Coloradoans living and working in the WUI
should become familiar with such terms as HIZ, the Home Ignition Zone,
and how to ``firewise'' our communities.
We also know that when we invest in fuel reduction projects, the
best use of funds is reducing hazardous fuels close to structures. The
solution lies in fuels reduction projects close to homes, businesses
and public infrastructure rather than deep incursions into the forest
hoping that extensive logging of dead or dying trees might save homes
and lives. As Senator Udall noted when reviewing the findings of the
Four Mile Canyon Fire, ``This fire taught us that the most important
yard tool you can have if you live in a wildfire-prone area is not a
chainsaw; it's a rake and a weed-whacker.''
One other particularly worthy use of funds is the support for long
term stewardship contracts that allow communities to make a multi-year
and prioritized effort towards reducing wildfire hazard in forest lands
adjacent to them. The long term aspect of these contracts is
particularly important because of the considerable effort and
investment necessary to prepare and initiate these contract projects,
therefore funding and policy to support the contracts should be focused
on 5 to 10 year stewardship contracts.
Thirdly, I have come to recognize that a central piece of the
solution to address wildfire hazard reduction in Colorado is the
element of involving a wide spectrum of people and interests in every
community to address this challenge. When wildfires burn close to, or
in our communities, they affect everyone in the community and as we
have seen, an effective response to a wildfire emergency necessitates a
community-wide response. Similarly, effective prevention necessitates
community-wide decisions and actions in anticipation of the
catastrophes that can take place.
I suggest that we need to shift more of our focus and funds towards
the engagement of communities in defining and preparing for their
future as ``Firewise community.'' Though the effort of Mixed Conifer
Working Group in Pagosa Springs may not necessarily be a template for
all Colorado communities who reside in the Wildland Urban Interface, it
does effectively model the approach that the a community desiring to
deal with the wildfire challenge can move forward by bringing together
as many constituencies as possible to understand, plan and implement
prevention actions. Whether these actions are implementing Community
Wildfire Protection Plans, initiating an active Firewise outreach
program, providing recommendations to federal or state forest managers,
or others; it is likely that a collaborative community effort will
bring the most effective wildfire prevention to a community most
quickly.
To provide more detail as to the possible substance and process of
a community-wide effort working to address these issues I would like to
share the story of the Upper San Juan Mixed-Conifer Working Group, a
collaborative community group focused on forest and wildfire issues on
both public and private lands in the Pagosa Springs area.
The Mixed-Conifer Working Group was established to provide a venue
to share stakeholder perspectives and to develop science-based
collaborative priorities for management and monitoring of mixed-conifer
forests on the Pagosa Ranger District (RD) of the San Juan National
Forest in southwestern Colorado. The group has been active since July
2010.
The groups mission statement reads, ``The Upper San Juan Mixed-
Conifer Working Group is committed to collaborative approaches to
improving the health and long-term resilience of mixed-conifer forests
and the communities located near them in southwest Colorado. The
workgroup will focus on strengthening understanding, sharing knowledge
and lessons learned, developing management approaches, initiating high
priority projects, and monitoring results using an adaptive
framework.''
The spirit of the group is summarized nicely with this quote from
Kevin Khung, the District Ranger for the Pagosa District of the San
Juan National Forest: ``The Upper San Juan Mixed-Conifer Working Group
is a diverse cross section of people interested in public lands. This
group's desire to openly share and learn from one another as well as
support possible solutions is extraordinary. The fact that they want to
be problem solvers rather than just problem identifiers is encouraging
for all public land managers.''
The Working Group members are a varied set of people and groups
representing business interests, conservation organizations, local
governments, Colorado State Forest Service, U.S. Forest Service,
recreation, ranching, home owner associations, fire protection district
officials, scientists, utility companies, as well as many interested
citizens. The diverse nature of the group insures that all interests
have a place at the table, which increases the reliability that the
recommendations of the groups will reflect and be supported by the
community as a whole.
The Working Group meetings consist of a blend of informational
presentations, field tours, forest management and policy dialog,
wildfire hazard and protection discussions, and other sessions in which
the group examined both the overall status of forest health and
wildfire hazards, as well as the specific examination of the status of
eight polygons representing about 144,000 acres of forest surrounding
Pagosa Springs.
The Working Group is cognizant of the many ecological, social, and
economic trade-offs within forest and community landscapes. Using this
reality as guidance, the workgroup has made recommendations as a means
of planning and implementing a range of high quality projects that will
contribute to improvement in forest conditions on the San Juan National
Forest. The themes and parameters of the recommendations are offered as
a set of directions and guidelines that will serve as a framework for
long-term project work. They are also intended as goal and objective
statements that can guide implementation and monitoring, rather than
mandates that must be achieved at every step throughout the process.
The following set of general principles and values were decided
upon by the Working Group and to the extent possible, the following
guidance will be utilized:
A watershed perspective will be emphasized as a management
framework, wherever possible.
In some vegetation areas, particularly cool-moist mixed-
conifer, additional field monitoring and evaluation are needed
as part of an adaptive management approach.
Management activities will emphasize forest resilience and
diversity.
Environmental assessments for proposed projects will address
water quality, wildlife habitat, insect and disease trends,
wildfire mitigation objectives, invasive weeds, and recreation
activities, among other ecological and community needs and
concerns.
To the degree possible, management activities that mimic
natural disturbances will be utilized.
In the long-term, management actions will seek to create
conditions for manageable, planned and unplanned ignitions to
meet multiple objectives, such as wildland fire for resource
benefit to safely occur in mid to higher elevations.
Forest management should encourage a sustainable and
appropriately scaled forest product industry, for both
community and ecological benefits.
Sustainable and healthy community life is intrinsically
connected to the well being of diverse, resilient, and
naturally functioning forest landscapes.
Management activities will be designed to meet multiple
objectives, coordinate with supportive and/or participative
landowners or parties, and foster economic efficiency.
Thank you once again Senator Udall for the opportunity to engage in
this hearing today, and I look forward to further discussion on this
issue as Coloradoans work together to meet the challenges of wildfire
hazard reduction in our state.
With my testimony I am submitting four exhibits* that specifically
relate to the focus of hearing. All of the exhibits contain information
that will be helpful as we move forward with solutions to these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits have been retained in committee files.
Senator Udall. Thanks, Mr. Buickerood.
In that spirit, we've been joined by Nancy Fishering, who
represents the Colorado Timber Industry Association.
Nancy, thank you for taking the time to be here. We had a
lot of battles back in the 20th century about what products and
how we would harvest the resource in our forests. I've
increasingly come to see the forest products and the timber
industry as an important partner in maintaining and increasing
forest health, and I think that's the spirit in which Mr.
Buickerood commented. I look forward to your comments, and,
again, thank you for being here. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF NANCY FISHERING, VICE PRESIDENT, COLORADO TIMBER
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, MONTROSE, CO
Ms. Fishering. Thank you, Senator Udall. Thank you for
those comments. I think we were all tutored a little bit by Dr.
Kaufman over the years, and we did a lot of learning together
throughout the State of Colorado.
I am pleased that today's hearing is focusing on solutions,
but solutions, to me, is action. It means changes in policy and
financing, in my view. So, therefore, most of what I'm going to
say is going to have to do with where the rubber hits the road,
which, to me, is the industry, the folks that are out there
cutting the trees, hauling the trees, culling the biomass from
the national forests and trying to figure out how to do it
economically so we can treat more acres.
Fire has always been present. We've been talking about it
in our little tutorials, and it's important for Coloradoans to
keep in mind. But my observation over the past 15 years is how
huge the challenge has become for the State of Colorado. Mike
King talked about 4 million acres. That was one small part of
it. It's close to 7 million or 8 million acres in Colorado if
you added all the bark beetles, all the fire acres, and we only
have 22.6 million forested acres. It has become a huge thing in
the State of Colorado.
So we are a poster child of these issues. So much of it is
managed by the Forest Service. We've got 68 percent of the
lands in some sort of public management, most of that in the
U.S. Forest Service. We have a big problem, as you mentioned,
and we need big solutions. I've been dismayed over the years.
I've been in the industry since the early 1990s.
We haven't done big, huge policy changes yet. We keep
tinkering and tinkering and tinkering, and I think it's to the
point that, hopefully, after this year, we actually grab it,
figure out the finances, get the right people at the table, and
make some of these policy changes. So I do believe that we
might have legislation, but I think some of it ties the hands
of our public lands managers. I work closely with them. I serve
on collaboratives. We need to take the handcuffs off. We have
big problems.
Nationally, we have 65 million to 82 million acres that are
in need of some type of restoration across the whole United
States. Colorado isn't the whole story. Of those, the experts
on the ground have said some 12 million acres need some sort of
mechanical treatment.
Last year, we treated 195,000 acres across the whole United
States and all the national forests. That means it would take
64 years to get through a treatment cycle. Something needs to
change. The cost paid by the city of Colorado Springs is way
too great. So what are we going to do differently going
forward?
I think the Forest Service has to have as their highest
priority--just cut to the chase--forest health is key for
recreation, for so many other uses in our national forests. I
think sometimes it gets lost in all the different programs that
we throw at the Forest Service and say, ``Get these done,
too.'' We've got to figure out our highest priority.
Forest products companies will not invest in Colorado. We
will not grab the capacity that we spoke of that we need unless
we have a reliable supply for the long term. Then we get into
these little conversations between 100 feet from a home, back
country, Western Slope, Front Range. We have got to figure out
a way that prioritizes it in a way that doesn't eliminate the
industry.
The industry--what that allows you to do is take trees off
that we pay for. The industry that--by the timber sale, we
actually pay into the Treasury. We don't just get paid to
operate. The more we can pay into the Treasury, the more acres
you're going to get treated. We've got to figure out that sweet
spot there.
The Forest Service must look for efficiencies in every
timber management project. I don't care what kind it is.
Because we know at the end of almost every project we see,
we've left out acres, we've left out trees, we've tried to be
careful, we've tried to be too careful. I would argue that
across the United States, we would be astounded at how many of
those acres could not mitigate a forest fire of the scale we're
seeing today, as Merrill Kaufman explained.
We need to look at the reorganization of the Forest
Service. Where are the staff? Are we spending too much money in
regional offices, Washington offices? The money needs to go to
the ground. I believe that we still have analysis paralysis. We
say that the laws are good. We've had 3 Forest Service chiefs
go on record that it doesn't work. We're tying them in the
Gordian knot that Mike King spoke of. We need to fix that. How
long can we talk about it? We've been talking about it as long
as I've been in the industry.
NEPA came out last year--the Council on Environmental
Quality said no NEPA document needs to be over 150 pages long,
or 10 to 12 pages long. I challenge you to find one that short.
We need to stop spending the money--quite the amount of money,
but the analysis is important. NEPA is very important.
Environmental protection is important, but we are spending way
too many resources on that, in my view.
Then I think we've never really acknowledged that the 40
million or 73 million acres that we have identified across the
West--we're just the 6.6 million acres of that 40 million to 73
million acres of bark beetle. No one has declared an emergency
situation and used NEPA to get out there and do some broad
scale stuff. I think that there's room within our existing
legislation. I agree. But we need to be using it and thinking
outside the box.
We need to look at our Lynx Amendments. We're now doing
sage grass planning. Every time we plan a new initiative, we
tie the hands of our land managers. You slow down the process.
The loggers that are working on the ground can't work this day
and this day, and you have to carve out this time for this
project and this project. We are in a hurry. Sixty-four years
is too long to fix the problem. We have gotten biomass studies
that for every ton we take, there's 18 new tons coming on at
the same time. We are not at all keeping up with the scale of
the problem.
Last is funding. I put it last, but I think it's most
important. But I do recognize we have a funding crisis at the
State level, at the municipal level, at the Federal level, but
is it key. Colorado is the second lowest funded region in the
country. For the most part, for as long as I've been in the
industry, they say, ``Use your existing resources. Here's $40
million.'' But then they cut us $20 million over here. When you
are the second lowest funded region, which is Colorado,
Wyoming, and South Dakota, you can't do it from your existing
budgets.
Bottom line, we have needed every bit of your leadership,
and I know you've been working nonstop on this issue. You've
been trying to get authority for more money just for bark
beetle. But that's essential. Thank you so much for all the
work and attention, Senator Udall, that you've put, personally,
on that issue.
So I'm going to cut myself off, because I know I'm in the
red zone. But I am going to say two more things.
Senator Udall. There's a red zone and there's the red zone.
Ms. Fishering. I know. I know. Because it might not come up
again, we do have a web site for the Colorado Timber Industry
Association. It's going to be so important for your defensible
space--how to choose a logger that can do it safely. That's the
next hurdle that you deal with after a fire, and you need to
know that kind of information. You can get it from the Colorado
Timber Industry web site.
The smoke that we're seeing around Colorado Springs right
now--there are fires happening right now. It's not just
Colorado. The smoke we're seeing today is from California and
Montana. It's all over the West. We've got to figure out a way
to cut to the chase, to bring down the cost so you can treat
more acres. My argument is you're going to have to marry your
WUI treatments with some back country treatments, and back
country treatments are going to protect your electric grid.
The entire eastern United States requires some of the power
grid that goes over our national forests. Eighteen downriver
States use our watersheds. Those watersheds up there need as
much protection as springs and reservoirs outside of Colorado
Springs. So I'm saying that there's some sweet spots. We can
get some real saw timber that will keep an industry alive and
bring down the cost of biomass removal.
I'm all for this hearing. Thank you so much for having me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fishering follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Fishering, Vice President, Colorado Timber
Industry Association, Montrose, CO
Thank you Chairman Bingaman, Senator Udall and Committee Members.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the perspective held by the
forest products companies in Colorado regarding wildfires in our
forests and practices to improve the long-term health of our forests. I
am pleased that today's hearing is focused on solutions which in my
mind equates to action. ``Lessons learned'' are important only if they
translate into policy change and implementation. I welcome your efforts
to make this happen.
Fire has always been present in Colorado's forest landscapes, but
started to escalate as a major concern in the mid-1990s. The scale and
intensity of fires over the past 15 years has increasingly placed lives
and property at great risk as evidenced in the recent Fourmile Canyon
Fire near Boulder, the High Park Fire adjacent to Ft. Collins, the
Waldo Fire here in Colorado Springs, and numerous smaller fires along
the Front Range as well as the Western Slope. The following chart*
displays this growing issue in our forests, and we note that this risk
affects all land ownerships. Cumulatively nearly 1 million acres have
burned in Colorado during this time span.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneously, during the same 15 years, 'Colorado's forests have
been under siege by a variety of insect epidemics, including:.
6.6 million acres affected by bark beetles (all beetles)
since 1996
3.1 million acres affected by the mountain pine beetle alone
Keep in mind that Colorado has 22.6 million acres of forestland, of
which 68% is owned and managed by the federal government, with 72% of
those federal lands managed by the US Forest Service. Private lands
account for 28%, with the State and municipalities a small 4%. Putting
all those numbers in context, over 1/3 of Colorado's forested landscape
have significant forest health issues. Cumulatively, these issues: 1)
have affected public health and safety, 2) can threaten the water
supply for Colorado and the other 18 downstream states dependent on our
headwaters, 3) can threaten the electric grid that transverses the
Rocky Mountains, and 4) affects all uses and users--recreation, timber,
grazing, wildlife, and the people who live, work and play in our
forests. Our possible remedies and solutions are largely tied to the
entities having legal jurisdiction of our forests.
The point of this summary is to acknowledge the sheer scale of
forest health issues that challenge this special state (and many other
states as well). There is noquestion that the proactive responses
implemented by the various entities have not been on anything close to
a comparable scale. Big problems require big solutions. Unfortunately,
my observation is that big solutions for Colorado's forest health
issues are inhibited by old style management paradigms and conflicting
laws passed in times of other forest conditions. I believe we have a
problem with bureaucracy and case law, and policies and financial
directions that were built over many years for another time. The very
best efforts by the folks who work in these agencies cannot meet the
new challenges posed by Mother Nature unless we change or enhance the
tools. Again, my observation is that the public and many in Congress
agree that forestry work is important and that it needs to be done in a
reasonable amount of time, and especially now, at a reasonable cost.
The Colorado forest products companies have been significantly
impacted and integrally involved in working on forest health projects
and have identified both barriers and potential solutions for moving
forward. (The picture* below is a mitigation project completed by
Morgan Timber Products that successfully protected property in the 2012
High Park fire.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Photo has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This input is nothing new. . . sadly many of these ideas were
discussed after Colorado's largest fire year in 2002, and some were re-
stated as we addressed the escalating bark beetle epidemic. One can
only hope that these past two years of large scale events in Colorado,
New Mexico, Arizona and other western states will bring us to the point
that you can garner the bi-partisan support to adopt policies and
regulations that fit the times.
Now I will share some forest product company suggestions.
These recommendations include:
1. The Forest Service and USDA, from the top down, need to
make the health of our national forests their highest
priority--not just the words, but also their actions.--The
Forest Service has so many competing programs, constituencies,
and initiatives that forest health gets lost in the priorities
and budgeting.
2. Reliability of supply is essential for the economic
solvency of the forest products companies.--Colorado's forest
products companies are more heavily dependent on the national
forests for supplies of forest products than are our
counterparts in most other western states. The flat or
declining budgets result in uncertainty, missed opportunities,
swings in funding priorities, and therefore more uncertainty in
the supply of timber which is essential to maintain an
industry. Several options are for the Forest Service to
evaluate the trade-offs of providing for every program
currently performed in their agency, and reducing staffing and
costs of the Regional and Washington Offices
3. Efficiencies need to be found in every timber management
project.--This concept would achieve treating more acres at a
reasonable cost by maximizing sawlog-quality material in every
single timber project from conventional timber sale contracts,
stewardship contracts, service contracts, and Indefinite
Duration Indefinite Quality (IDIQ) contracts. The forest
processors and loggers have unavoidable costs and break-even
points. We are not a high margin business sector, and sawtimber
is essential to our existence.
Myriad issues exist which drive up costs and drive down
management acres. To name a few:
multiple restrictions on operating seasons;
delays in new contract offers which results in skewed
appraisals/ timber costs since up to 49% of timber sales are
offered during summer construction seasons when lumber costs
are highest;
inflexible financial clauses which place the costs and risk
on business rather than shared risk between contractual
parties;
road packages that are too costly in today's economy; and
maintaining a balance between service contracts (FS pays to
manage) and timber sale contracts.
Many foresters who work for the forest products companies,
and some who work within the agencies, and some in academia
have concerns that the myriad design compromises within forest
management projects are resulting in final projects that do NOT
meet the original project objectives. We may find that the
final treatments are no longer effective enough to mitigate
fire risk or ultimately improve forest health. We rarely hear
this conclusion in public (one example is with the Fourmile
Canyon Fire Report discussed in this hearing), but we can no
longer afford to sweep this issue aside. The challenges are too
great and ineffective treatments are simply too costly.
4. The Forest Service needs help with ``analysis paralysis''
or the ``process predicament'' and the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA).--NEPA is a valuable process but has
become too costly and time consuming. Thus far three former
Forest Service Chiefs have raised this point. We saw NEPA used
efficiently in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, yet we
haven't implemented complementary fixes. In the fire prone
areas and insect threatened forests, why not put together a 10-
year program of NEPA-cleared work? We need to stop holding
every forest management project in those non-controversial
acres to the same standard as you would if you were entering
roadless.
Last year, the Council on Environmental Quality published a
draft document titled ``Improving the Process for Preparing
Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the NEPA''. In
that document, the CEQ reiterated previously issued CEQ
Guidance encouraging agencies to focus NEPA documents on
environmental analysis, not producing an encyclopedia of all
applicable information, and specifically re-iterated that FEISs
should not exceed 150 pages and EAs should not exceed 10-15
pages. I won't mention specific Forests or projects, but trust
me, you don't need to look very hard to find FEISs and EAs that
significantly exceed those page recommendations.
5. Acknowledge that a 40 or 73 million acre beetle outbreak
is an emergency and use emergency authority under NEPA to do
something about it.--If every NEPA project implements every
possible acre, the result would be more trees per acre (paid
for by industry and not taxpayers) and then more acres treated
at less cost. The essential task of removing biomass simply
costs time and money. In a recent biomass conference an
interested statistic was presented that the Colorado ratio of
net forest growth to removal (in green tons) is 18.2. This
means that for every 18.2 tons of new growth, we are only
removing one ton of wood from the forest. We are losing the
battle of thinning the forests to reduce overstocking and fuels
build-up. Colorado had the highest biomass ratios in any
western state, or Colorado has one of the biggest jobs to keep
up with necessary fuels and forest health treatments. Adding
sawtimber components (which has a higher value for processing)
would help to subsidize, and therefore, increase the treatment
rate of removing small diameter trees and fuels that exacerbate
forest fires.
6. Review and reconsider the direction in the Southern
Rockies Lynx Amendments as part of their forest plan
revisions.--This doesn't require legislation. In fact, the
Forest Service committed to do just that in their SRLA Record
of Decision, but they now appear to be reneging on that
commitment. That decision has unduly and unnecessarily
encumbered management of suited timberlands, increased Forest
Service costs, and reduced the effectiveness of their forest
management. The Endangered Species Act requires the Forest
Service a) to not jeopardize listed species and b) to not
adversely modify critical habitat, neither of which justify a
decision to manage 54% of the national forests in Colorado for
lynx habitat.
7. Last, and of great importance is providing adequate
funding to meet the scale of the challenge.--This item comes
last in deference to the fiscal challenges facing the country,
but the reality is that significant progress cannot occur
without an infusion of dollars. Somehow, we recognize that fact
in extraordinary events like drought, hurricanes, and floods.
There has never been an adequate, realistic economic response
to address the unprecedented events happening in our forests
and wildland urban interface. Asking the Forest Service to meet
these new issues from their existing budgets is an impossible
task. In actuality, the budget belies the words about forest
health priorities and undermines the Forest Service mission
``to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the
nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present
and future generations.''
The final suggestion is cautionary and regards winners and
losers. Operating under the numerous constraints discussed
above can lead to ideas and solutions that pose new and
different problems. Throughout Colorado or throughout the USFS
system, new areas are faced with fire or insect pressure in
ever increasing geographical areas. In Colorado, one year it is
on the Front Range, one year in the ski country, and one year
SW Colorado. In 2012 it was first one incident in Larimer
County, then one incident in Montezuma County, multiple fires
in other counties, and the major fire in El Paso County.
Limited resources lead to incredible competition between
national forests, states, and among counties and even
municipalities. I would urge everyone not to lose sight of the
big picture, both the near term threats and the mid-term
threats. We need to find long-term policy improvements that
increase our treatment capacity across the vast forested
landscapes without sacrificing one area to treat another.
I'd like to make it clear that I consider these ideas to be
systemic. I have watched fine people in my local districts, the
Regional Office, and the Washington office of the FS and the USDA
search and find directives that can address emerging problems. We
benefited from several solutions that were specific to issues rather
than systemic such as the recent provision for mutual cancellation of
timber sales. The industry was thankful, especially to Senator Udall,
because the remedies were essential for some companies to survive the
great recession, but achieving that result took far more work than it
should have. Many of barriers receive attention and are works in
progress with the Forest Service, but the patchwork of old laws and new
laws and shifting priorities create a huge challenge and uncertainty
for Forest Service staff as well as our industry. Since the early
2000s, the Colorado Congressional delegation and other members of
Congress have been actively engaged on many of these fronts and have
supported numerous pieces of legislation to assist this unwieldy
system.
(Examples include Senator Udall's forest health bill, Senator
Bingaman's Community Forestry Landscape Restoration, Senator Tester's
Montana approach, and Senator Wyden's Oregon Forest bill.
Simultaneously we receive important new studies: `The True Cost of
Wildfire in the Western US, 2009 by the Western Forest Leadership
Coalition, ``The Process Predicament, 2002 from the USFS, ``Review of
the Forest Service Response: The Bark Beetle Outbreak in N. Colorado
and S. Wyoming 2011 requested by Senator Udall from the USFS, The
Conference Report for HR 2055, which included the FY 2012 Forest
Service appropriations, stated ``The Forest Service is directed to
improve the health and resilience of national forests and through these
efforts, work to achieve 3 billion board feet of timber sold.''
Unfortunately, the Forest Service appears unable to achieve even this
modest increase in timber outputs as a step in accomplishing more on-
the-ground management, and the national target to the ``field'' of only
2.6 billion board feet.)
In spite of all this effort, we have not successfully passed many
good ideas. We all want a system that is rational, environmentally
sound and one that is economically viable and sustainable. Our fear is
that the patchwork approach that adds laws while not removing
antiquated processes designed for a different time.
I am honored to testify, and I would be delighted to work with you
to give additional detail to quickly enhance an efficient,
environmentally sound forest health strategy.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Fishering. Thanks for
challenging the policymakers, the public, all the stakeholder
groups. I have to suggest that I think the only red zone we're
excited about as Coloradoans is when the Denver Broncos are in
the red zone, and the other red zones we want to avoid if at
all possible.
[Laughter.]
I was thinking about your comment about NEPA. I think we'd
like to turn those trees into less paper and more energy crops.
Maybe that's another way to think about it. But thank you for
those comments.
Our next witness is Jim Hubbard. I'm going to correct for
the record--Jim did head the Colorado State Forest Service ably
and with passion. The U.S. Forest Service noted that experience
and his record. He now works as the United States Forest
Service Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry.
He's been joined by Jack Cohen, who is a research
scientist, who works at the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station. Jack was a key director of the Four Mile
Canyon fire study. Jack, because of a rule, is not listed as a
formal witness. United States Forest Service line staff are not
permitted to serve as witnesses under the definition of a
witness. But he's here because we want to hear from him. I know
Jim and Jack are going to team up to share their point of view
with us.
So, Jim and Jack, welcome. Jim, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF JAMES HUBBARD, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND PRIVATE
FORESTRY, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Senator.
The State and Private Forestry part of the Forest Service
does include the fire program, and so that's part of my being
here.
Nancy, I'm glad you cut yourself off. I wasn't about to.
[Laughter.]
The Forest Service would also like to express our
condolences to the losses. We know those are serious. We deal
with them a lot in a lot of places, and we never like it when
we have to face those kinds of losses. We offer our
condolences.
I'm going to talk more broadly and set some context and
talk more about some of the Forest Service activities in the
fire program across the West with some specifics, but,
hopefully, the questions will get us to more. Western
wildfires--on a 10-year average, we deal with 42,000 of them.
They burn about 3 million acres. That's growing.
It's getting to be more of a problem because of the
prolonged drought, because of the high temperatures, because of
the low humidities. That results in lower fuel moisture, higher
fire intensity when we try to deal with fire, uncharacteristic
behavior of fire, and seasons that start earlier and last
longer. After a fire, that burn severity on the ground is more
than we're used to, so it makes the restoration more difficult.
Those aren't just seasonal anomalies. That's a trend that
we've been facing for some time, and we expect it to be with us
for some time. Typically, our Western fire season begins in
Arizona and New Mexico, although we've had a little bit of
trouble with Oklahoma and Texas lately, and moves up into
Colorado. Currently, it's in Utah, Montana, Idaho, and
California. We have 18,000 firefighters deployed today,
fighting 70 uncontained large fires.
So those seasons have become busy, and I expect they will
remain busy and in large part due to the condition of the
vegetation in the West. Colorado is no stranger to this. As
you've heard, we've experienced in Colorado a lot of large
fires, damaging fires, especially along the Front Range. If you
try to take the footprint of those fires that have already
occurred and put it anywhere else along the Front Range, it
doesn't fit without affecting property and sometimes lives. So
it is a major issue.
Our response and our mitigation priorities are definitely
in the interface and something that we have to pay even more
attention to. We'll continue with aggressive initial attack,
and our priorities will be life and property. But when wind
comes along in combination with all those other factors, we
quickly turn to evacuations. There's not a lot of firefighting
that you can accomplish in wind events, and you get people out
of the way. In Waldo, it was 32,000 people out of the way. Most
of our losses on those major fires come during the periods of
those wind events.
We constantly evaluate what happens with our fires, what
goes on in an incident, what actions need to be taken, what the
conditions are that we are facing. That translates into
response evaluation and interagency deployment. The Forest
Service is heavily involved, but by no means the only ones, and
never the only ones. It's always an interagency response which
has to be well coordinated if it's going to be effective.
We constantly evaluate from those incidents the fire
behavior to see what we're learning new because of those
changed conditions. Within the communities, it becomes a
mitigation and a prevention activity--what else we can do to
prepare a community when fire comes. On the landscape, it's how
do we reduce those hazardous fuels that pose the risk to life
and property.
We have 70 million acres nationally, a little over 70
million acres, that we consider a forest at high risk to this
kind of fire behavior. So, yes, Mike King is right. We have to
prioritize. We do that on a basis of fire occurrence,
vegetative condition, values at risk, and cross-boundary
actions that can be taken. We don't do very well when we just
come up to a boundary and stop. It works a whole lot better
when we ignore those boundaries and work across them. So it's a
matter of where we need to make some change that makes a
difference, and it's a matter of where we can make a change
that makes a difference.
I'll leave you with 3 thoughts. The critical area of
priorities, including the home ignition zones that Jack is
going to talk a little bit about and more this evening, are
priorities that we really have to place a high emphasis on. The
policy tools that help us get more done have been mentioned,
Good Neighbor Authority and stewardship contracting. Good
Neighbor allows us to cross those boundaries. Stewardship
contracting allows us to get more done for less cost.
Then maybe most important is this idea of local agreements,
local agreements that involve the home owners, the land owners,
the local government, the State, the Federal--as the Chancellor
said, the coming together. We find that coming together happens
often and strongly during an emergency event. It's harder to
maintain after one, because that's rolling up your sleeves and
doing a whole lot of work together, and it's not necessarily
the same work in any two places. It's similar, but it's not the
same. Those local modifications are important.
So we look at fire response, we look at community
protection, and we look at landscape treatment. There aren't
many certainties in this business, and the conditions I would
offer you will remain difficult in the West. But some actions
that we take can make a difference and improve our chances.
Dr. Cohen is going to talk to you just a minute--give you a
preview, maybe, of this evening and a little bit about this
home ignition zone and the importance of it.
Jack.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Jim.
Thank you, Senator Udall.
Actually, we need slides. There we go. I'm here to provide
some information and some perspectives with regard to houses
burning down during wildfires. In the next slide and
thereafter, I'm going to give you a sense of some of the
research examinations that I've done that reveal most homes
destroyed during extreme wildfires are not ignited directly by
the big flames of intensely burning wildfires.
In this next slide, it shows you an example of what used to
be 4 houses, totally destroyed, surrounded by unconsumed and
green vegetation. What that tells us is that something other
than the intense wildfire, which, by the way, never actually
entered this particular community, can destroy the houses.
So how is that occurring? In the next slide, intensely
burning wildfires commonly loft burning embers, what we call
firebrands, to initiate ignitions--in the next slide--directly
on homes, where we--and in this particular case, where we have
highly vulnerable flammable wood roofs that result--in the next
slide--in total destruction surrounded by unconsumed
vegetation. Note in that photo that we have a highly involved
home surrounded by--well, this is southern California, so those
are eucalyptus trees, gasoline on a stick. Or they ignite
within the community fires that spread potentially continuously
to contact the structure.
So now I have a video for you that shows you a
demonstration experiment that we did in South Carolina, and
we'll go ahead and roll it. What we're seeing here is a house
being exposed to a firebrand blizzard, which would be
reasonable for short main spotting, which would be on the order
of a few hundred yards to less than a quarter of a mile, during
a very high wind event with canopy fire, crown fires, burning
upwind.
As you're watching real time, there are pine needles along
the base of the front of the structure and bark mulch around
that reentrant corner. There are pine needles in the gutters
and in the valley of the roof. What we see are the ignitions
that are occurring without any flame exposure whatsoever. You
can see that because of all the personnel that are standing
there between the exposure and the structure. So the only fire
that's going on is ignited by firebrands, which then burns and
potentially can ignite that structure.
Some of the gutters, the ones that don't collapse, are
metal. The ones that do are vinyl. There is vinyl siding on the
right side of the structure on the front, fiber cement on the
left side, and composition--what we call comp board,
manufactured wood comp board, on that reentrant corner.
Interestingly enough, the pine needles burning in the valley of
the roof, which is composition shingles, is not a problem with
regard to igniting the structure.
Here we have heavy involvement of the structure, which we
ended up suppressing. What you saw there was the ignition of
the structure without protection to its total destruction in
less than 5 minutes. It always doesn't happen that way,
however.
So what I've found is that, given extreme wildfire
behavior, the home characteristics in relation to the area
surrounding the home within about 100 feet principally
determine the potential for the home ignitions. This is what I
call the home ignition zone. The idea here is to address the
ignition resistance of the home such that an exposure such as
this can result in something like this. This is the same home
afterwards.
Next slide. This is the idea. This house survived without
any significant protection.
So in the next slide, the point is that we have the
opportunity--and let me emphasize--we have the opportunity to
prevent at least the disastrous home destruction during a
wildfire. It's one of the issues we have with wildfires, but we
have the ability to deal with this problem if we so choose.
One of the huge issues, one of the huge obstacles, as I see
it, is that in the next slide, the home ignition zone, this
area of the house and its immediate surroundings within 100
feet, is largely privately owned. So the point I make in the
next slide is that without home owners taking the
responsibility commensurate with the authority that they have,
because it's private land, private ownership, we cannot deal
with this problem. Home owners have to become engaged. That's
it.
Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Jack.
Thank you, Jim.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Hubbard, Deputy Chief, State and Private
Forestry, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Senator Udall, thank you for the opportunity to come before the
Committee. I am James Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State and Private
Forestry of the United States Forest Service. With me today is Jack
Cohen, Research Physical Scientist from the Rocky Mountain Research
Station's Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. I want to
extend my deepest condolences on behalf of the Forest Service to the
families of those who lost lives, property or were otherwise affected
during the recent wildfires which have impacted Colorado and other
states throughout this fire season.
I am here before you today to discuss the recent Colorado
wildfires, restoration efforts and what was learned as a result of
these fires. Finally, I will discuss projections for future wildfire
conditions and best practices that can improve forest health.
The Southwest United States and the State of Colorado are currently
in a severe drought condition. Snow pack during the 2011-2012 Winter
was below the 25 percentile of normal snowfall. At the time of ignition
of the High Park and Waldo fires, heavy and fine fuels were extremely
dry--the result of extended periods of above average temperatures and
below average moisture. In June and early July, record low fuel
moistures, weather and topographic elements aligned to produce extreme
fire behavior.
The recent fires that have impacted the State of Colorado were
unprecedented in their destruction of life, property and resources. At
the peak of fire suppression efforts this summer in Colorado there were
over 4,700 firefighters and support staff working in a coordinated
interagency effort to suppress the fires. During the height of Waldo
Canyon fire suppression activities, there were over 1,500 personnel
assigned to the fire. Air resources committed in Colorado during that
same time included 37 helicopters and10 large airtankers--including 4
Air National Guard C-130 Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS)
retardant planes. In total, over 470,000 gallons of retardant were
delivered to the Waldo fire.
As a contingency and in coordination with the United States Army at
Fort Carson, basic firefighter training was initiated for over 400
soldiers. The Forest Service worked closely with Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and other federal, state and local agencies
to assure communities were supported to the highest degree possible.
Additionally, the Forest Service remains committed to working with
partners to coordinate restoration of impacted lands in Colorado.
fire recovery and mitigation efforts
The Forest Service, along with the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), other Federal, State and local partners, began planning
and implementing immediate recovery efforts to mitigate the impacts of
fire affected lands. In the case of five Colorado wildland fires this
year, including the High Park and the Waldo Canyon fires, Forest
Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) and NRCS Emergency
Watershed Protection teams began planning and implementing emergency
flood prevention on National Forest System and adjacent private lands
before the fires were declared contained.
BAER is a Forest Service emergency program for National Forest
System lands that responds to imminent and unacceptable risks to people
and resources that are triggered by changed conditions caused by fires.
Common threats include excessive erosion, flooding, invasive plants and
falling trees/rocks. The goal of the BAER program is to recognize these
potential problems and, when possible, take immediate actions to
minimize the damage. BAER treatments are completed for the purpose of
preventing or minimizing additional damage. Emergency response actions,
including treatments, are implemented immediately and for up one year
after the fire.
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service administers the
Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program on private, State, and
tribal lands. Through EWP, assistance is provided for reducing threats
to life or property, protection from flooding and soil erosion, and
restoring a watershed's hydraulic capacity. EWP work typically includes
removing debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges;
reshaping and protecting eroded streambanks; correcting damaged
drainage facilities; repairing levees and structures; reseeding damaged
areas; and purchasing floodplain easements. Assistance is provided
through a project sponsor, such as a State or unit of local government
or Indian tribal organization.
The Waldo Canyon BAER team began assessment of the 18,247 acres
impacted by the fire on July 5, five days prior to the actual
containment of the fire. The Forest Service joined with Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Colorado Springs
Utilities and Colorado State Forest Service to share information and
coordinate emergency response measures. The Forest Service has
committed $5,087,000 to the emergency response efforts to complete over
3000 acres of aerial mulching, road and trail storm protection
mitigation, closures and warning signs, invasive detection/treatment,
shooting range hazmat stabilization, and recreation site safety
measures on National Forest System lands.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service received a verbal
request for EWP assistance from the Colorado Springs Utilities Board,
which owns and operates reservoirs within the burn area that provide a
significant portion of drinking water for Colorado Springs.
The Forest Service response to the High Park fire was similar.
Approximately 50% of the total High Park Fire acreage was on National
Forest System lands. An interagency BAER team was formally established
and started field evaluations in safe areas. To date, nearly $7,000,000
has been approved to implement the High Park Fire BAER assessment and
recommendations on National Forest System lands. Projects include
aerial straw mulching on approximately 5,000 acres and wood shred
mulching on approximately 600 acres, road storm proofing, closures,
trail stabilization, warning signs and invasive plant prevention
treatment.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service also responded to
the High Park Fire. NRCS team on the ground in Soldier Canyon
identified potential treatments to protect Horsetooth Reservoir and all
of the Colorado Big Thompson Project facilities. NRCS personnel have
also reached out to Larimer County, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District, City of Fort Collins, and Soldier Canyon Water Treatment
Plant for potential EWP funding.
The Forest Service and NRCS remain committed to providing the
resources necessary to meet emergency response to the wildfires that
occurred on National Forest System, private, state and tribal lands in
Colorado and throughout the west. Additionally, the Forest Service will
continue to closely coordinate with other Federal, State and local
partners to assure that we complement our respective efforts.
fourmile canyon fire report
The Fourmile Canyon Fire study was conducted by a team of Rocky
Mountain Research Station scientists at Senator Udall's request, in an
effort to learn from this incident and focus on reducing the risk of
future catastrophic fires to communities in the wildland urban
interface (WUI). Understanding how the Fourmile Canyon Fire burned, the
damage it caused, and how people and agencies responded is an important
way for us to reduce the destructive results of future wildfires on the
Front Range.
Without widespread fuel reduction on public and private lands,
ignitions that occur during extreme weather conditions are now capable
of burning tens of miles in a matter of one or two days. The Fourmile
Canyon fire, Waldo Canyon fire, and High Park fire are just the latest
examples. Decades of research has demonstrated fuel treatments can be
extremely effective at changing fire behavior, limiting ecological and
watershed damage, and improving suppression effectiveness even under
extreme weather conditions.
During wildland fire events, public and firefighter safety is the
highest priority. While property losses experienced during the Fourmile
Canyon Fire were tragic, there was no loss of life thanks to an
efficient, coordinated emergency response. There are no guarantees when
it comes to protecting homes from wildfires, but we have opportunities
to reduce home ignition potential by focusing efforts at the home and
its immediate surroundings (within the home ignition zone, HIZ) to
increase chances homes will survive without necessarily controlling
extreme wildfire behavior.
Firebrands/burning embers directly igniting homes and surface fire
spreading to contact homes were largely responsible for home
destruction in the Fourmile Canyon fire. This serves as a reminder that
reducing home ignition potential is more than a one-time effort of
thinning dense stands of trees and other large fuels--it also requires
regular maintenance like removing flammable materials adjacent to the
home, keeping tall grasses mowed, removing dead vegetation and pruning
shrubs, and clearing debris from roofs and gutters.
Homeowners have the opportunity to significantly reduce the
potential for wildland-urban interface disasters by creating and
maintaining a HIZ. A HIZ includes a home's design, materials and
removal of flammable debris in relation to its immediate surroundings
within 100 feet. Although home ignition potential is most effectively
reduced within the HIZ, in some vegetation types fuel treatments beyond
the HIZ can affect fire behavior by diminishing the intensity and
slowing the spread of wildfires. This can provide more options for
residents to evacuate safely during a wildfire, and enhance firefighter
safety.
improving forest health and future wildfire conditions
Increasing the pace of restoration of the Nation's forests is
critically needed to address a variety of threats--including fire,
climate change, and bark beetle infestation, among others--for the
health of our forest ecosystems and watersheds. The Forest Service is
engaged in a broad range of actions designed to restore the health of
the lands and waters of the National Forest System.
There is no one correct strategy for reducing risk to, and
protecting communities and firefighters from wildfires. While reducing
fuels through prescribed burning or mechanical treatment might be most
effective in some areas of the country, in others it may be more
effective to focus on landowner awareness, preventing ignitions and
preparing communities for wildfire.
Through the Accelerated Restoration Strategy, the Forest Service is
responding by restoring and working to maintain the functions and
processes characteristic of healthy, resilient forests and watersheds
not only in Colorado, but nationwide. There are between 65-82 million
acres of National Forest System lands in need of restoration. In 2011,
restoration treatments (watershed, forest and wildlife habitat
restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction) were accomplished on 3.7
million acres. Components of the Accelerated Restoration Strategy
include a suite of programs and efforts to efficiently advance
restoration efforts. Stewardship contracting, Good Neighbor Authority,
the Bark Beetle Strategy, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Act, and the Cohesive Strategy are all tools the Forest
Service has available to implement the Accelerated Restoration
Strategy.
Stewardship Contracting
This tool allows the Forest Service to acquire needed restoration
services. Reauthorizing this authority and expanding the use of this
tool is crucial to our ability to collaboratively restore landscapes at
a reduced cost to the government by offsetting the value of the
services received with the value of forest products removed pursuant to
a single contract or agreement. In Fiscal Year 2011, 19% of all timber
volume sold was under a stewardship contract and funded activities such
as watershed and wildlife habitat improvement projects, and hazardous
fuels reduction. In 2011, 208 contracts were awarded treating 189,000
acres of hazardous fuels.
Good Neighbor Authority
The Good Neighbor Authority was first authorized in 2000,
responding to increased concern regarding densely stocked stands at
risk from insect and wildland fires. The law authorizes the USDA Forest
Service to use contracting procedures of the Colorado State Forest
Service to conduct certain watershed restoration activities on National
Forest System land when conducting similar activities on adjacent state
or private land. In 2004, Utah and BLM received the Good Neighbor
Authority. Federal and state officials who have used Good Neighbor
Authority cited project efficiencies and enhanced federal-state
cooperation as its key benefits.
Bark Beetle Strategy
The Bark Beetle Strategy, developed in 2011, focuses management
efforts on priority treatment areas to ensure human health and safety
and to reduce hazardous fuel conditions. The mortality of conifer trees
caused by the bark beetle has escalated in the last decade, affecting
nearly 18 million acres of National Forest System lands. In Colorado,
nearly 3.2 million acres of National Forest System lands have been
infested with bark beetle. The Chief of the Forest Service has
committed to spending $101.4 million on bark beetle work throughout the
western regions in FY 2012. The Rocky Mountain Region's share is $33
million.
The Region has focused initial efforts on heavily impacted areas
around the White River, Routt and Arapaho Roosevelt National Forests.
We are prioritizing our forest health efforts across the entire region
focusing on safety, resiliency and recovery. Within the bark beetle
area, the Region has worked with partners to address threats to the
infrastructure, including powerlines, roads and communities. For
example, the Forest Service developed a large-scale powerline
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which covers the three national
forests most heavily impacted by beetle mortality. The Region remains
committed to working closely with the powerline companies where they
are interested in more aggressively treating the transmission
corridors.
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR)
In fiscal year 2012, the Forest Service received the full $40
million authorized by the CFLR Act. The Secretary funded ten new
projects, in addition to the continued funding for ten projects
selected in 2010. Three additional high priority collaborative projects
were also funded from other appropriated FS funding. These 23 projects
have demonstrated collaboration among stakeholders can facilitate
large, landscape scale restoration, thereby improving forest health,
reducing wildfire risk, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, and
increasing timber and biomass production from our national forests.
The U.S. Forest Service reduced fire threats on more than 123,000
acres of land under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Program nationwide in fiscal year 2011 as part of a larger effort to
improve the health and resiliency of national forests.
In its second year of funding, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program also contributed $21 million to local economies
through treatments which included prescribed burns and fuels thinning,
producing 121 million board feet of lumber and 267,000 tons of woody
biomass for bio-energy production on ten projects around the country.
On three National Forests throughout Colorado, CFLR projects have
reduced fire threats over 14,000 acres using mechanical thinning and
prescribed fire.
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy
Annual fire suppression costs are significant for Federal, State
and local governments and can exceed $2 billion for the Federal
Government in severe fire seasons. In 2009, the escalating Federal fire
suppression costs and adverse impacts to other Federal land management
programs led Congress to pass the Federal Land Assistance, Management
and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act), which authorized an additional funding
source for Federal emergency wildland fire suppression. The FLAME Act
required the development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire
Management Strategy for managing fire-prone landscapes and wildland
fire across the Nation.
The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy has three
major components:
1) To restore and maintain landscapes.
2) To develop fire-adapted communities.
3) To use the most cost-effective and safest fire response.
Restoration
The Forest Service is pursuing a number of policies and initiatives
to increase the pace of forest restoration and management on the
national forests and grasslands.
Over the next three years, the Forest Service is also committed to
increasing by 20 percent the number of forested acres being
mechanically thinned. This will increase the number of acres and
watersheds restored across the system, while supporting jobs and
increasing annual forest products sales offered to 3 billion board
feet, up from 2.4 billion board feet in 2011.
Building public support for forest restoration and active-
management activities is critical. To this end, the Forest Service
continues to collaborate with diverse stakeholders in developing
restoration projects on National Forest System lands.
Fire-Adapted Residential Communities
Homeowners and others are not powerless against wildfires. In fact,
many studies have shown homeowners who take an active role such as
clearing brush and debris away from structures are a vital component in
slowing the spread of fire and protecting their property, as identified
in the Fourmile Canyon report.
The National Fire Protection Association's Firewise Communities
program teaches homeowners, community leaders, planners, developers,
firefighters and others about ways to protect people and property from
wildfires. The Forest Service is a partner in this vital effort and
others such as the Ready, Set, Go Program (International Association of
Fire Chiefs). .
In addition to urging homeowners to make their properties as safe
as possible from wildfire, the intent of the Cohesive Strategy is to
work through cross-jurisdictional partnerships with Tribes and other
Federal, state and local governments before wildfires start. The
agency's community partners have an array of tools at their disposal,
including building external fuel buffers and internal safety zones,
developing community wildfire protection plans (CWPP), supporting codes
and ordinances, that address wildfire threats, using proven forest
management and fuels mitigation techniques and joining cooperative fire
agreements.
Wildfire Response
The intent of the Cohesive Strategy is to conduct rigorous wildfire
prevention across all jurisdictions. Most wildfires are human caused,
and while the Forest Service will continue to fully suppress all human-
caused wildfires and actively promote fire prevention, firefighter and
public safety are the highest priorities on all fires. Human safety and
risk management guide all fire-management decisions and actions
undertaken by agency fire managers. Wildfire-management strategies are
based on many factors including risks to public and firefighter safety,
type and condition of fuels, weather, land management plan directions,
cultural and historic properties protection, and available firefighting
assets. Strategies can change as conditions change. All wildfires have
a suppression strategy to--at a minimum--protect life and public
safety, but some fires will have additional management strategies to
meet ecological objectives.
The Forest Service responds vigorously to wildfire with an array of
assets, which include more than 15,000 USDA and DOI firefighters (about
70 percent from the Forest Service), up to 950 engines, 19 large
airtankers, eight Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems, 34 heavy
helicopters and 300 call-when-needed helicopters.
The Forest Service has also awarded exclusive use contracts for
seven ``Next Generation'' airtankers. Three will be operational in 2012
and four in 2013. This is the first step in implementing the Large
Airtanker Modernization Strategy, which was submitted to Congress in
February 2012 and recommends 18 to 28 large airtankers.
In addition, wildland fire managers use fire analysis tools
developed by Forest Service Research and Development, such as fire
behavior software, to model the probability of fire occurrence in a
specific location. They can also help predict the spread and direction
of a fire based on, among other things, the type of trees or other fuel
for the fire and whether the fire is on the surface or in the tree
crowns where a wildfire can quickly spread.
The three main factors that influence fire behavior are fuel,
weather and topography. Of the three elements that determine fire
behavior, fuels represent the one element that can be adjusted to
reduce the potential for extreme fire behavior. Whether by reducing
heavy fuel loads in forests or by reducing the amount of fuel around
homes and private property, fuels management is an effective approach
for reducing risks to homes and structures.
In 2006, the USDA Forest Service initiated a program to evaluate
the effectiveness of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments designed
to reduce the risk of wildfire. When a wildfire starts within or burns
into a fuel treatment area, an assessment is conducted to evaluate the
resulting impacts on fire behavior and fire suppression actions. In
2011, the Forest Service made the effectiveness assessment mandatory
whenever a wildfire impacted a previously treated area.
Since 2006, over 1,000 assessments have been completed. Data has
shown fuel treatments are effective in reducing both the cost and
damage from wildfires. The summary of data from these administrative
studies indicates over 90% of fuel reduction treatments changed fire
behavior and directly led to control of the wildfire.
In summary, wildfires know no boundaries and we must work within an
all-lands context to manage for and respond to wildfires. Additionally,
we will continue to provide assistance to communities that have been or
may be threatened by wildfire. As wildland fires have impacted lands
across the Country, we recognize the interest, urgency and willingness
of many members of Congress to provide tools for the Forest Service to
apply restoration principles.
Thanks to the panel for some very enlightening and
important comments. I'd like to acknowledge some of the other
experts and elected officials who are in the audience. I'm sure
I will miss some of you. If you will let me know if I've missed
you, we will ensure that you are acknowledged by the end of the
hearing.
But I see Commissioner Dan Gibbs from Summit County here,
former State Senator Gibbs, who lives in the Frisco-
Breckenridge area. Those of you who have been to the Frisco-
Breckenridge area know that there are a few bark beetle killed
trees in that county. Dan has been a leader on this topic for
many years.
Sitting next to him is Commissioner Clark, a long-term
friend of mine who served El Paso County well and I know still
is feeling the effects of what happened just a few weeks ago
here.
So it's great to see you, Sallie.
I think Kyle Hybl is here--CU Regent--right here, yes. OK.
You didn't move around on me. I think I see Commissioner
Domenico from Boulder County as well. I always feel thrilled
when Boulder and El Paso Counties are in the same room
together, brought here by a common interest and two very highly
respected county commissioners.
I alluded to the fact earlier that I didn't want to be
called a senior citizen. But I am going to call for a 5-minute
recess. I'll be back shortly, and we will then convene a round
of questions with our witnesses. So I'll be back in 5 minutes.
If anybody else needs to take a quick break, please do so, but
we'll start right back up in 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Udall. If everyone will take their seats, we have
about an hour. I'm really looking forward to the conversation
that we'll have. I want to start with Jim Hubbard.
Jim, as I mentioned, we saw each other at the after-action
review meeting just a few short days ago. I thought, all in
all, the various agencies and sectors involved worked extremely
well. We can always improve our response. But as far as a
baseline goes, there's a lot to acknowledge that went well.
There were a lot of news reports--it wouldn't come as a
surprise to you all--that questioned why more air tankers or
airplanes were not used to fight the fire. I've been on the
scene of a lot of fires. I'd like to actually reduce the number
of fire scenes I visit in the future. But that's why we're
here. In the process of doing so, I've learned a lot about how
fires are fought.
Tankers play an important supporting role. I want to
underline the word, supporting. But the most important are the
ground crews that get literally on the ground. As a member of
the Armed Services Committee, I've also learned that fighting a
fire is similar to fighting in a theater of war. You've got to
have air support, but you have to have troops on the ground to
win.
We've discussed in detail whether the Air Force's C-130s
were deployed quickly enough. I believe that they were launched
as soon as they could be safely and effectively deployed. I
also mentioned the Economy Act of 1932, which basically says
the private sector should have every opportunity to provide
services before we call in the military or other government
agencies and--well intended, as I said, but it's one of those
I'm going to take a look at for the long term.
But will you describe the U.S. Forest Service's, in this
context, strategy for air tankers and any takeaways you had
from the after-action review?
Mr. Hubbard. Certainly. You're exactly right on the use of
air tankers. The primary use by the Forest Service for air
tankers is initial attack. Their purpose is to slow a fire down
until ground forces can get there. When we get into large
fires, we often have air tankers, but in a support role, and
the role they're playing is in combination with those ground
forces, where we're taking actions to not only protect the
ground forces but to buy them some time.
Burnouts are something that we often do, and those planes
lay down a line between that burnout and those firefighters so
that they have some protection. So those planes aren't flying
to drop retardant on the head of a wind-driven, large fire. It
doesn't do any good. Those planes usually aren't even flying in
winds. If the wind speed is at a certain level, we don't
launch.
It's a matter of working with the two together. So if you
can't put ground forces into a situation, an air tanker is
probably not going to do much good on a fire. But in
combination, they do a lot of good. We had no shortage of
aircraft during this last siege. At one point, Colorado had 92
aircraft committed. That includes the helicopters as well.
That's a lot of aircraft. It takes quite a bit to manage that
kind of air space over fires, too, and that's an important
consideration.
As far as the C-130s, the Forest Service very much likes
that platform as an air tanker tool and would like to use it
more. The Economy Act does require us to exhaust the private
resources at our disposal before we call on the military to
activate the 130s in the mass units. But we're having
conversations, as you well know, about perhaps where we have
some imminent threats and we have some capability to deploy
those resources. Maybe there's an exception that should be
considered. We hope that gets examined.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that, Jim.
I direct these comments to Commissioner Clark, but also
other Front Range communities, county commissions, and local
government entities. We all know the history here in the
Springs and the pride in which we all take in the presence of
the military and the men and women who serve us so well. I
know, as we all tried everything we possibly could, it was not
initially understandable why the airframes at Peterson weren't
covering El Paso County.
The point I'm making is I think there's a possibility of a
MOU or some arrangement here, because we don't want another
fire to occur here, but we have to be prepared, given that
Colorado Springs' red zone is particularly prone to fires,
which, Sallie, we've all known for a long time. In fact,
there's a lot of planning that's already been underway.
But I want to pursue further whether there's not some sort
of a specific agreement here, given the proximity of the
aircraft, that would be in force if, in fact, in the future we
need to fight a fire of any size. I'll work with the
commission, with our military leaders, and the Forest Service.
That was one of the conversations we had at the after-action
review.
There's still a lot of questions to be answered, and we
don't want to, again, create an impression that Colorado
Springs gets special treatment, but I think that's not what
we're talking about. We're talking about making sure we plan
for every contingency, particularly given the proximity of
aircraft that could be of help. I just wanted you to know that.
Let me go to Jack. As I mentioned, you were one of the
primary researchers on the Four Mile Canyon fire. Based on your
findings, what are 3 things a home owner can do in the
wildland-urban interface to protect their property?
Mr. Cohen. I think the first thing that a homeowner needs
to recognize is that the fire is inevitable. The wildfire is
inevitable. It's going to be inevitable under extreme
conditions. It may not be very frequent, but they need to
recognize that they're not necessarily immune for this kind of
an event.
They also need to recognize that fire suppression, fire
resources, are going to be overwhelmed during those conditions.
Because of that, many houses are not going to be capable of
being protected. So, given that kind of motivation, perhaps we
can then get home owners engaged, with their recognition that
without their engagement, fire resources can't protect
communities.
So, in essence, what we've got, then, is fire suppression
and fire protection from structure agencies assisting,
essentially, what homeowners have already done. Having said
that, then, with that motivation, the homeowner--the first
thing that needs to be done is to look at where to change out
flammable wood roofs. If you don't remove flammable wood roofs,
then, by and large, you can't do anything. From my experience
and from the research that I've done, there is virtually
nothing that you can do if you're exposed to firebrands.
So the first thing is to get the largest piece of flammable
material off your house, at which point, then, you begin with
the house to look at flammable debris that's in the rain
gutters, that's on the deck next to your house, between the
deck and the wall, and start removing that kind of material--
firewood piles, lumber. I mean, just because we live there,
it's going to be vulnerable, and my house included.
We start at the house and look for all of those things that
can ignite and start working our way away from the house and
making sure that flammable material that can product flames and
contact the house or be in contact with the house, like bark
mulch, just isn't there. We just remove that. That doesn't mean
that you have to live in pavement. You just need to make sure
that the dead material is out of those shrubs and removed away.
To cut myself off, I would suggest that home owners start
looking at web sites like Firewise.org for greater details to
remind them of all of those things that might be present at
their house that they should be mitigating.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that.
Mike, I want to go to you and then Jim, in turn, a simple
question, but I'll ask you all to try to keep your answer
succinct because it's the fundamental question, in a way.
What's the reason that more fuels treatments aren't done?
Mr. King. Money. I mean, that's it at the end of the day.
We're struggling with that at the State level, as we've done--
you know, the private sector folks are out of jobs, and it
results in less revenue through taxes. We've lost $4 billion in
the State budget over the last 4 years. We've begun to turn the
corner this year. We cut down, through the fat, through the
meat, to the bone, into the bone, and it became a matter of
prioritization.
So you've got to make decisions in State government, like
are you going to close schools or do fuels treatments--horrible
decisions. We simply at the State level don't have the ability
to spend in deficit, and so we kept our infrastructure in place
and the emergencies were taken care of.
Luckily, we're coming through that, and I think that you
can rest assured that we are looking for ways to increase our
funding for forest health and to partner through the State
Forest Service with the U.S. Forest Service and local
governments and water providers. We think there's a real
opportunity there.
We're talking about potentially making money available with
a match to municipal water providers to do work that protects
local infrastructure. Denver Water is clearly out in front on
this. They did it on their own around Dillon reservoir, and we
think that it protected their water infrastructure, but it
protected the community as well.
When you look at Rampart reservoir and other reservoirs
around the State, there are the opportunities to get multiple
benefits for the expenditure of limited resources through this
partnership. I think that's what you're going to see at the
State level. As we begin to come out of this recession, that's
where our priority will be, and we'll show progress in the next
legislative session toward doing just that.
Senator Udall. Excellent.
Jim, do you want to follow on? I know you have some of
those numbers in your head. What's really vexing about this is
it's less expensive to treat and prevent a fire than it is to
respond to the fire, which is very expensive. Any time you hear
a helicopter going over, it's cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching,
not to mention all the people that are on the ground. But then
to rehabilitate those areas and then to find the capital to
rebuild the infrastructure that's destroyed--much, much more
expensive. But it's hard to find those dollars on the front
end. Would you comment, too, on that on the heels of Mike's
comments?
Mr. Hubbard. Certainly. The succinct answer is it's money.
But the Forest Service budget has in it $946 million for
suppression. We're likely this season to spend $1.4 billion on
suppression. We have $300 million for hazardous fuel reduction.
Of that $300 million, whatever hasn't been spent probably will
pay the bills for that suppression effort, because you don't
stop fighting fires. So it's hard to get ahead of this one
because of the press of the emergency that you have to respond
to.
In hazardous fuel reduction, the cheapest acres we do are
prescribed fire, and we can do prescribed fire for as little as
$30 an acre in some places. The most expensive is $2,000 an
acre, and that's when you're removing small material with no
market, and you're in the interface, and you have limited
opportunities for any kind of efficient operation. We have 70
million acres plus that need this kind of treatment, and we get
to about 3 million a year. It's really important that we pick
the right 3 million.
Senator Udall. On the heels of those comments, let me turn
to Nancy and Jimbo and Merrill. I think we're all in agreement
that we ought to do more fuel treatment. Supporting the forest
products industry, in my opinion, is a way to have a triple win
scenario, a win-win-win scenario. If you do it right, we're
removing these hazardous fuels and we're turning that
opportunity into jobs. How should fuels treatments be designed,
and what needs to be done to get more work done on the ground?
I think, Nancy, the killer opportunity, the killer app,
almost, is how do we empower the private sector, and can we
craft a model, a formula, that has a profitable incentive
behind it, and then we would unleash the private sector? That's
my vision, my hope, my dream. But would you comment? Then
we'll, in turn, go to Jimbo and Dr. Kaufman.
Ms. Fishering. Thank you for the question, Senator Udall. I
think we've had examples in Colorado where we have had that
sweet spot. I see Forest Supervisor Casamassa. The one that
comes to mind is a stewardship contract that we did around
Grand Lake in the middle of the bark beetle epidemic, where the
essential services were to make those campgrounds safe. That's
hand work. It's biomass. It's not a saw timber kind of quality
thing.
So the person that had the stewardship contract goes in
there, does the hand work, gets paid for the hand work. But
then they went into the back country a little further where
there was conventional saw timber. That's a tree that you can
actually turn into a two-by-four and actually sell it on the
market and pay for the cost down below. It made perfect sense.
So what I see slipping is we get work--and it's a huge
challenge. The biomass thing is huge in Colorado and throughout
the West. But we keep saying, ``Well, we can't afford to do
everything. We'll do a service contract.'' We do way too many
service contracts. There's got to be a way to marry it into
stewardship where you have enough saw timber to pay for the
hand work. That's the combination.
I would argue our industry across the United States has
come up with examples of way too many environmental impact
statements. We've gone through the community meetings. We have
all the consensus. Then we don't treat it aggressively.
Senator Udall. Explain to us the difference between a
service contract and a stewardship contract.
Ms. Fishering. The Forest Service is so segregated in these
different entities. But a service contract is like a
procurement contract. It follows different rules, and you're
paying somebody to go out and just start cutting trees or
cleaning campgrounds or cutting hazard trees. There's a lot of
things. But you're paying money for services because there's
not enough value there to cover it.
In stewardship, what we're trying to do to bring down costs
is to have enough saw timber. It's a technical term, but it's
what you need if you're going to turn it into a two-by-four
where you can make some money. That pays for the service work.
We're not doing that aggressively enough.
Senator Udall. It's a form of hybrid technology, if you
would. We're all excited about hybrid vehicles in the military,
hybrid energy systems----
Ms. Fishering. It is a hybrid.
Senator Udall. I don't think I'm putting words in your
mouth. It's a hybrid----
Ms. Fishering. No, because the Colorado timber industry
isn't what some people stereotypically would think of.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Ms. Fishering. We do a lot of--you mentioned West Range
Reclamation, a very interesting and progressive company that
wants to do restoration, and they want to work with the
biomass. Even their business plan requires saw timber. It helps
them cash-flow everything they do. Saw timber is the economics.
Where the rubber hits the road, you get the value and you can
treat more acres.
Senator Udall. Jimbo, share your thoughts on this. I know
you may bring a slightly different perspective. Please feel
free to tell us how you see it.
Mr. Buickerood. Thank you, Senator. First of all, as sweet
as it would be that we could have one model that fits
everywhere, that's probably not the case. So I do think the
solution by region, by area, by community, needs to be given
consideration. As noted before, my experience most recently has
been working with the Pagosa Springs community. You know, we've
hit the multiple benefit win-win-win piece there.
Fortunately, the Forest Service awarded the stewardship
contract there, and that's really going to make it happen. I
mean, our working group has really looked at the forests around
the community and priorities and what needs to be done. The
stewardship contract will give us the money over--it's a 10-
year contract--to really get after the action piece of that.
At the same time, it's not a lot of acreage every year.
You're talking about 1,000 to 2,000. However, we hope to be
smart about that and operate in the WUI and get after that to
begin with. The other piece of that--and I know you've been out
on the ground there. The exciting piece of that project is that
that will really remove the fuels from the ground.
Senator Udall. Yes, literally from the ground. When you say
from the ground, you don't mean it figuratively. You mean from
the ground level.
Mr. Buickerood. Yes. That'll be taken off of the forest,
and in this case would be used for chips for the biomass plant
that'll be generating electricity. However, that said, it's a
great model for the Pagosa area. I think the scaling of that is
really important. J.R. Ford, who is the proponent of that
project and the businessmen behind it--when he gave his
testimony in Montrose at the House hearing, he said, ``Hey, the
way this is going to work is because it's scaled to this.'' You
know, his haul distance he can work with economically is 50
miles.
So it's not going to be a one-large-project-takes-care-of-
everything type of thing. But it fits well in that community
for what the needs are. So I think that's an important piece of
the puzzle.
I would say the other piece of it, Senator, is--and this is
what the working group was--our next phase here is to bring the
public along, basically. You know, we've done our initial work,
examining the landscape priorities, et cetera, et cetera, with
this great diverse group. But the next piece is we need to get
the public on board. So that's our next piece, this outreach to
the community. Frankly, we're trying to piece together the
funding to do that, but, you know, as everyone has pointed out
here, that's the best return of investment right there on that
piece of it.
So, anyway, I'd say, overall, that scaling is really
important. It might be a different fit for different
communities, as far as what forest type they have around and so
forth, and the scaling is really a big piece. So what might
work in Pagosa may not be the solution in some other
communities in the State.
Senator Udall. Merrill, would you comment, and perhaps as
you do, give us all a 60-second tutorial on the context of your
comments tied to my question about the different forest types
in Colorado? It's tempting to talk about the lodgepole forest
where you have stand replacement fires and where the bark
beetle is most evident. But you have the ponderosa-Doug fir
ecosystem up and down the Front Range, where I'm very, very
worried, but then in Jimbo's area, it's a slightly different
forest type that's more southwest, more 4 corners based.
Then, of course, you have the Pinon-juniper forests that
were part of, I think, the Mancos fire, certainly the Pinon
Ridge fire, which, by the way, almost overran I-70 and that
railroad corridor and quite a number of natural gas and oil
wells. Although it didn't burn many structures, that was a fire
that was very, very scary for, I think, about a 2-hour period.
I'm saying too much. I want to hear from Dr. Kaufman.
Mr. Kaufman. There's no question that we have 3 or 4 major
forest types that are fire dependent in one form or another--
lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine-Doug fir forests, Pinon-
juniper--to a much lesser extent the Subalpine forest and
spruce-fir. What keeps coming up in my mind is that we've got
an enormous problem with dead trees in the lodgepole pine zone,
and attention to that issue is really important.
But I can't escape in my mind the observation that so many
of the big fires have been occurring not in the lodgepole pine
zone--including with the dead trees that are standing around
the ground--but rather in these ponderosa pine-Doug fir
forests, particularly in the Front Range. That could change
tomorrow. We could have a bad fire in lodgepole pine somewhere.
My colleagues at the Nature Conservancy--I just learned
this morning--have done some calculations of how much fire has
occurred in lodgepole pine in the last decade or two. It's
numbering in the 10,000-acre range, not in the half million-
acre range. So from the standpoint of the sheer impact of where
the fires are and where the risks are, I still think the
ponderosa pine-Doug fir forests are the worst case.
I actually led a review for the Joint Fire Science Program
a couple of years ago, looking at fuel treatment approaches to
substitute for fire. This was a review of a study that had 11
different sites around the country. In all honesty, the Front
Range situation with ponderosa pine-Doug fir forests and,
particularly, then with the WUI is probably one of the top one
or two worst situations around the country, not lodgepole pine,
in spite of how damaging the beetle kill has been and how it
has changed the look of those forests.
Again, I don't want to get into a judgmental position here
of what's more important. But the observations are that the
fires and the damage, the loss of lives, are occurring in these
lower forests.
There's a conundrum. Treating these forests is cheaper than
fighting the fire and putting out the fire that burns them
down. But can you tell me where the next fire is going to be,
so you know where to treat? So we don't have that knowledge. We
can do some things. Obviously, we try to prioritize in the WUI.
But we can't come up with a true prediction of where the fire
is actually going to occur.
Now, all this said, you know, I hear Nancy's point that the
industry needs to make some money, and they can make some money
with saw logs. Ponderosa pine doesn't produce a whole lot of
really high-quality saw logs, in the Front Range area, at
least. It may in the southwest--certainly has over the years.
So we're left with enormous quantities of biomass in trees that
don't have that much commercial value.
So if you look at the whole picture, somehow or another, we
have to find ways to extract the best economic benefit that we
can from whatever we take out of these forests to improve their
ecological condition and to improve the protection from
wildfire. But we're still going to have mountains of biomass to
deal with. If we let it sit there, we'll, obviously, at some
point in time, burn it up and have another big fire, whether
it's in small piles around the woods or whether it's in big
piles in centralized locations.
There's energy in it. Can we somehow or another figure out
a way to use that energy to offset fossil fuels, to provide
either power or fuel, gas--you know, liquid fuels or whatever.
I don't know the technology. I'm not going to pretend to know
it at all. I know there are a lot of problems, or we would have
had that nut cracked by now.
But I don't see how we can address some of these major fuel
problems for wildfire without addressing what to do with the
biomass. We cannot pile it along the road somewhere outside of
subdivisions. So, you know, again, we're going to have to come
back to some kind of prioritization.
Nancy's point that you have to make some money to support
the industry and that then will generate enough of a picture to
help deal with the places that are not so profitable--I agree.
We've got to do that. I won't say for a minute that lodgepole
pine harvesting should not be done to support the industry and
keep it on its feet in some fashion or another. But we've got
to find a balance, and I'm not going to tell you I've got the
answers.
Senator Udall. You spoke earlier about research in your
lane, and we need to redouble our efforts there. You're also
alluding to the fact that we need to continue to do research on
the alternative liquid fuel front. There's some promising
developments there, but we still haven't cracked another code,
that is, how do you accelerate mother nature's processes that
generally take millions of years to work to create liquid fuels
into a few short years.
Mr. Kaufman. We've got questions of how to be effective at
a large scale of operation, at a landscape scale. Do we really
know how to modify the forest landscape in a way that does
provide the protection that keeps Jack Cohen and his colleagues
happy, that we're protecting places? So we've got to do that.
But, to my mind, having spoken countless times to groups of
people, we've got an enormous education process that's been
alluded to to help people understand what their problem is and
to help people get into a better position to decide whether we
can undertake this kind of industrial activity in our forests.
Because if we really expect to solve the problem, we're going
to have to tolerate some things that aren't very comfortable
for us. We like our forests the way they are. We've all come to
like them. But we may--you know, I think we understand the risk
of that as well.
Senator Udall. Again, back to you, the photos that you
showed me that were taken along the I-70 corridor as you come
out of Denver--that landscape looks natural and healthy. We
venerate, literally, because the trees to us are something--I
should speak for myself--sacred, something marvelous, something
that demonstrates the miracle of life on this planet. There are
way too many trees--and you'll have to correct me in the back
room here, but I remember something on the order of just a few
mature trees per acre 100 years ago in the ponderosa ecotype.
Mr. Kaufman. Many places, historically, would have had 40
fairly large trees in an acre.
Senator Udall. In an acre.
Mr. Kaufman. You know, that's a very open forest. It's
almost a woodland kind of setting instead of a forest setting.
Where restoration work has been done, like on some of Denver
Water's land in the South Platte--where that kind of work has
been done and is shown to the public, the public buys into that
end result. They may not like the way it looks for a year or
two in the process. But, afterwards, the place is good for
biodiversity. It's a pleasing environment to look at. It
doesn't have the same privacy if you are screening from
somebody's house a few yards away.
Senator Udall. That's one of the changes that'll be--this
will all work out. It just won't necessarily work out in the
human life span. That's what's so distressing to all of us.
Mike and Jim and Nancy, in turn, speak a little bit more
about biomass and what we're doing or what we could do. Of
course, again, biomass--we throw that term out there. You can
use it to produce heat. You can use it to produce electricity.
You can use it to produce liquid fuels, although, as I
mentioned, that's still a big challenge. But speak to what you
know on that topic.
Mr. Buickerood. We're wrestling with a lot of different
variables. Every time we try and crack the nut, we find that
there's another impediment in the way. What we found with some
of the liquid fuels companies was a sense that to get the
investment into the new technology, they needed 20-year
supplies of massive quantities of trees. Then, of course, the
Forest Service contracting doesn't allow that. So that was an
inherent impediment.
Some utility providers look at coal fire, which I think has
the potential to really make a difference at a landscape level.
Then you get coal that's remarkably inexpensive and gas
treating at $2.10 an mcf, and the economics don't work. So
every time we think we have a potential solution, just
invariably something pops up, whether it's economic or
technological or contracting or NEPA or all of these things
that seem to be conspiring to lock us into a situation that is
untenable.
Every one of them seems to have something, which is why I
think that the Pagosa experiment--the model works, because it
is site-based. It's not requiring a level of resource that
makes people uncomfortable. We're not talking about 400,000
acres of trees being dedicated to this facility. It's right
sized, and if we can replicate that model at various businesses
around the State of Colorado, I think that, again, gets us a
long way toward where we need to go.
But I absolutely share your perspective that if the private
sector isn't driving this, if we don't figure out a way to have
these products making money in the private sector, we in the
public sector simply don't have the resources to ever scratch
this.
Senator Udall. Nancy, do you want to speak?
Ms. Fishering. It sounds disheartening, but I think we just
went through one of the worst economies, the great recession.
But the sawmills that I know in Colorado were right on the edge
of implementing more and more of those wood-to-energy projects
when the capital dried up just to nothing. But credit is now
loosening up.
The good news--we had the--we don't have many sawmills in
Colorado. But the largest one we had that did 90 percent of the
fire killed around the Hayman fire in Colorado Springs in
2002--95 percent of the bark beetle processing in the lodgepole
went to a mill in Montrose, Colorado. That's where I used to
work. It went into receivership. It's coming out of
receivership. We now have two mills close to Colorado, being
Saratoga, Wyoming, and the one in Montrose, that are perfectly
capable of making money and helping with the biomass issue.
So I think we're on the precipice again of getting back
into where the economics are going to work, and we're going to
see what we're speaking about on Pagosa. We're talking small
biomass. We're not talking the huge size. When the
Intermountain mill went into receivership, we had companies
from China coming to buy it. But they wanted to work on a scale
that you're going--please, don't. We have community support. We
want to keep that community support. But I think we're going to
be very encouraged to see our opportunities grow for biomass.
Back to the research, we have a good research project going
on the Western Slope specifically on this issue. We're doing it
through Rocky Mountain Research Station. It's part of our
monitoring money through the Community Forest Landscape
Restoration Program. His findings are going to be out in
September.
But he's got the dollar figures. How much does it cost to
get the biomass out of the forests? How much is it going to
cost you to get back on a kilowatt hour before it's going to
make sense? What we're finding is combined heat and power are
the most efficient projects, where you have a use for the heat,
a use for the electricity, a use for the--you need all 3 of
them, combined heat and power. We have those opportunities in
Colorado.
So I think we've got opportunities. We talk about
challenges, but we've got huge opportunities. Getting out of
this economics of the past two or 3 years is going to help us.
But we've got the feasibility studies already done. We've got
engineering done. It's on the shelf ready to be implemented.
We're pennies away. So I think we're going to get there.
Senator Udall. Jim, would you respond as well from the
Forest Service perspective?
Jimbo, you've got your hand up. Do you want to make a
comment as well after--OK.
Mr. Hubbard. I agree with what's been said. I've been
waiting for that breakthrough that hasn't come. Even some
progress on electricity to the grid hasn't moved ahead enough
to be the answer. So it becomes a matter of local heat and
power, and it becomes a matter of scale, like Pagosa has
learned.
Pagosa put together some unique approaches and some unique
public support to do what they're doing. There are some common
elements there that everybody shares, though, and that's the
fire risk and the values to be protected. But those local
solutions, to me, offer us the most hope. That's a local
solution for a piece of this puzzle, though. That's the
hazardous fuel piece. If we don't do that in combination with a
Firewise community and with the coordinated suppression
response as a package, then we still will have trouble.
Senator Udall. Mr. Buickerood.
Mr. Buickerood. It's pretty obvious, but just to carry
through on that, this is one of these situations that the
magnitude--it's like we need all the tools. I just want to
throw out another possible tool--and maybe you're becoming
familiar with that--and that's the use or the term of biochar.
The reason I bring that up--and we're starting to work on--it's
another one that is very local, but who knows what the scaling
is on that. We're starting to work on that locally.
But there is a commercial enterprise--it's outside of
Loveland or Fort Collins--that is starting up with a very large
project right now, which is very exciting. So I think that's a
large scaling on that. I mean, they're talking about semi loads
of materials.
But the reason it has come up in our community is, coming
off a Firewise program, we have contractors who are doing fuels
reduction projects, and they're like, ``OK. What are we going
to do with the biomass?'' The county is like, ``Well, we don't
want it in the land fill,'' et cetera, et cetera. So it's, once
again, one of these things that could line up to be multiple
benefits.
There are some hurdles to overcome, but the State has--I
think you had funds before for it, for the support, and maybe
that's run out, because, you know, it deals with a little bit
more money to be able to figure a couple of these pieces out.
I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but with biochar, one of
the win-win-wins on this is that we also have a lot of mine
reclamation pieces, and we have well site reclamation. These
are all agricultural amendments, et cetera, that biochar can be
used for.
The market for biochar is definitely there. We have to get
over this hump--production deal. We're just looking at it in a
small way, but it might be possible, as is being done up--I
think it's the Fort Collins area--to do that large scale, too.
So I'm just suggesting this, like, ``Yeah, let's look at all
the tools.'' I think that's one of them that, hopefully, we can
move forward on.
Senator Udall. Biochar is a fascinating opportunity for us.
It sequesters carbon. It puts minerals back in the soil.
There's a lot to recommend. So thanks for pointing that out.
I know we're starting to get close to the end of the time
we have allotted. I did have a couple of other questions I want
to ask, and then I'd like to ask each one of you to summarize
in your final comments the 3 most pressing things that Congress
could do. So you can get ready to share that with me.
But, Mike, let me ask you a question about the roadless
rule. We went through a 7-year collaborative process. Some
would argue it went on even longer than that. I played a role
in it. I think we did ourselves proud, frankly. There are some
who still have concerns about it. But I want to ask you did any
of the major wildfires this year affect areas protected by the
Colorado roadless rule?
Mr. King. Senator, the answer is no. I'm not as familiar
with the one down by Mancos because it didn't have the huge
impact on the communities like the 3 on the Front Range did, or
at least the immediate acute impact. So what we've seen is that
the Colorado roadless rule does provide far more flexibility
than the 2001 rule for treating around these communities. That
is one of the fundamental benefits of the Colorado roadless
rule.
The 2001 rule was a great conservation effort, and it did
some tremendous things. But it was promulgated in a time when
we weren't sitting on 4 million acres of dead and dying trees
in Colorado. So this is one of the things that we felt was so
important, that we had the ability to treat within a half mile
of the wildland-urban interface with temporary roads and tree
cutting, and then we could go another mile beyond that with
tree cutting and fuel removal. So we think that, again, if we
can come up with the resources and focus our energies in those
areas where roadless does come up adjacent to communities, we
have far more flexibility and that's one of the primary
benefits of the Colorado roadless rule.
Senator Udall. I'm a strong supporter of the roadless area
concept. I think the Clinton administration was wise to promote
it and propose it. I also know that in the process of working
through it, we found the need for some flexibility as you
described. I know the really destructive fires have been
occurring most notably along the Front Range, with some notable
exceptions. But that doesn't mean that in the roadless and
wilderness areas we don't have water systems that are at risk,
we don't have transmission lines that are at risk and other
infrastructure that is an important part of Colorado.
Jim, in that context, would you speak to wilderness areas?
Can the Forest Service fight fires in designated wilderness
areas, and did any of our major wildfires this year affect
wilderness areas? You can be frank on this. I think people know
where, certainly, my lean is on this. But we want all the facts
in front of us so that we're making the right kind of policy
decisions. But please speak to that question.
Mr. Hubbard. Certainly. Yes, we fight fire in wilderness
areas. Even though there are some restrictions, those
restrictions are left at the discretion of a regional forester,
so they can grant an exception within minutes if they need to.
But our response is aggressive, and we go into wilderness
areas. Oftentimes in remote situations, that might be smoke
jumpers, but along with those smoke jumpers on that plain are
chain saws and mechanized equipment, that if they decide they
need it, it goes in with them.
So we sometimes aren't as aggressive with our suppression
response in wilderness areas, and fire does its thing in the
system and reduces future risk. But we are aggressive any time
we have values at risk.
Senator Udall. Talk about the High Park fire, the western
reach of that fire. You'll have to remind me the category that
area is a part of. But we let that part of the High Park fire
burn for a while because it was in an area similar to
wilderness. Will you speak to that a bit?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes. It falls into that land management
planning decision that the local line officer has authority to
make. If that means that that part of the fire doesn't get the
same suppression action, the same asset allocation that other
parts of the fire that are threatening higher values get, then
they have that discretion to pick that kind of a strategy and
they do. They use that.
So we put our assets where we have the most values at risk.
We don't ignore any fire on the landscape, because it does
threaten to be a future problem. But if it is reducing future
risk, we like to manage it that way.
Senator Udall. It was a silver lining, albeit a very dim
silver lining, in the High Park fire that there were areas
that, in effect, then, were subject--back to Dr. Kaufman's
comments--to controlled burns because of the fire that began
outside of our control, and we were able to at least put that
fire to a little bit of good use. If we take the attitude,
which we're--and Dr. Kaufman has made it clear we have to take
the attitude that we have to coexist with fire. Fire is going
to have the last say--that there are, in some cases, those
kinds of opportunities.
It certainly wasn't the opportunity in the Waldo fire,
because it's been so devastating. But you still had a mosaic
pattern of burns, which is, in the end, what--a healthy forest
would have a mosaic pattern, not in the kind of way we've seen
some of those patterns.
Mr. Hubbard. Whether we like it or not, fire treats more
acres by far than what we have money to treat.
Senator Udall. Yes. I think we've come to the point in the
hearing where I would, as I said, like to ask each of you to
make any final comments and to give it to me straight, as a
member of the Senate and a member of the U.S. Congress, what
would be on your list that the Congress could and should do,
either in an imperfect or a perfect world.
So maybe I'll start with Mike, and we'll move across the
panel.
Mr. King. Thank you, Senator. Again, I want to reiterate my
appreciation for you hosting this forum for us to put some
ideas out on the table. It's been very enlightening, and I look
forward to following up on some of the ideas that have been
presented.
I think that, from my perspective, one of the things that's
frustrating is the contracting provisions. Having dealt closely
with trying to get the Montrose mill up and running and viable,
I think there's a fundamental problem with the Federal
contracting process that cannot shift from viewing our trees as
an asset for the Federal treasury. They are now a liability,
and the contracting process simply cannot adjust to that
dynamic, and we need to have a different contracting process
for our dead and dying trees, because they are a liability, not
an asset at some point.
I think we need to have a streamlined review process. I hit
on that a little bit. I'd like to see those areas in the WUI be
given an expedited process. They've got to be economical.
They're marginally economical at best. But maybe if we can get
to them faster, they can fill in the blanks for mills as they
are working toward their longer-term, more sustainable, more
economic material.
Then, finally, I think that we need to always be looking to
make sure that our air quality permitting process is
appropriate for our treatments. So one of the things that I
hear is a constant concern is that the windows of opportunity
open and shut too quickly and that we can't do the prescribed
treatments in an effective way because of some of those things.
Of course, when you have these massive conflagrations, the
air quality standards aren't--they go out the window, because
mother nature doesn't comply with air quality permits. So I
think in the long run----
Senator Udall. Let's haul her into court.
[Laughter.]
Mr. King. She rules me, not the other way around. So those
would be the 3 things that I would put on the table.
Senator Udall. Those are all very helpful.
Merrill.
Mr. Kaufman. I haven't given a ton of thought to your
questions.
Senator Udall. You can submit ideas, too, for the record
later.
Dr. Kaufman. Yes. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to
be here. I really appreciate the discussions you're fostering
with your actions and activities.
I've mentioned this numerous times. The whole question or
difficulty of ecology and field problems is worse in the Front
Range, so focus there. Others may dispute or argue with that.
That's fine. But my take would be that this Front Range has a
demonstrated bad problem, and related to that, sort of some
knowledge questions or issues that need to be addressed.
One is how do we actually distribute the work that we do on
the ground to be the most effective for mitigating the fuels
problems and for getting the ecology as restored as we possibly
can? Second, fostering collaborative analysis and research
effort to understand what both the possibilities and the
barriers are for kind of the system or body of work that needs
to be done to pull everything off--how do you make all the
pieces and parts come together, and which parts? Is it energy?
Is it the biomass? Is it the economics? Is it whatever? Try to
come up with a kind of a systematic or systems analysis of
where the most critical barriers are, and try to then foster
activities and efforts that would address those to become more
effective.
I know the roundtable asks that kind of question on a
regular basis. Those questions, I think, need to be addressed,
I mean, at the State level as well. They obviously are.
Finally, again, a knowledge question--we need to make sure
that we've got a growing understanding of the ecological issues
as they come up, having to do with scaling up treatments over
large areas. It hasn't gotten mentioned today, but the whole
uncertainty of climate is a big concern. I know the Senate and
many other players are looking at that question.
It's not necessarily just the ponderosa pine-Doug fir zone
that's out of whack. All of our Front Range and all of our
statewide life zones may be out of whack for the conditions
that we're likely to have emerging in the next decades. So
issues such as that, as well as the human dimension, the social
issues, and how they play a factor in understanding the nature
of the problem, committing to doing something about it, and how
to implement those efforts in a way that our public, all of us,
can live with.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that.
Jimbo.
Mr. Buickerood. Thank you. Three pieces here. I think,
first of all, Senator Udall, your leadership and leadership, in
general, on this issue is big. It's kind of the oeuvre piece to
the whole issue. You know, to have the visibility for the
concerned and to move it along in the State level and the
Federal level and so forth really takes, you know, leadership,
and I appreciate you taking the point on that. I would
challenge you to do something that you like to be challenged to
do, which is to bring that leadership in a bipartisan nature to
the State and to the Nation.
But, you know, if we can get the full congressional
delegation here in Colorado on the same page as to what the
priority of this issue is and all hands on deck, all tools we
need, funding and so forth, I think that's like the top issue.
Adjacent to that is the funding issue. I guess it humors me
kind of in a sad way that we can't get across the point that
the cost to treat, to do fuel treatments and so forth, as noted
by Jim's numbers here, is multiple times cheaper than
suppression.
So there's your challenge on that one, which is of the
Senate. It's like do we want to spend money with this return on
investment, or this, you know? So I think that's a really
strong piece. I think there's a lot of information there to
support you in making that point. But it's a big piece, like
let's get the money up front here, as much as we can. I know
it's a big challenge, but I think that funding--you know, let's
put it where it's going to pay off.
Then another piece, I think, what was curious about pieces
of the solution that are maybe a little bit different or
inventive or--maybe not in a huge way, but on the State level,
I'm curious as to what could be done legislatively to move
communities forward toward prevention efforts. For example, the
county that I live in, Montezuma County, which is not the most
progressive county in the State, nonetheless has what I believe
is the first piece of the land code--though there may have been
others since that time, but they tell me they're first--and it
has to do with new subdivisions in the land use code and
requiring them to have CWPPs.
I'm not all the way up on what the latest is on that, if
other counties are doing it. But that would be a great
initiative to see in the State legislature of moving that
forward. Once again, one size doesn't fit all. But, you know,
to move the communities toward that--it's a good use of time
and investment. So I think those--and there's other pieces like
that, too, that might be done legislatively in the State. But I
think that one, to move the home owners, to move HOAs, and
counties in that direction would be very helpful as well.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Buickerood. So I appreciate your leadership on this
issue.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Nancy.
Ms. Fishering. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Thank you, Mike King, because you pretty much said my top
three. So I'm going to reiterate that funding is key. We've
said it. We understand the constraints at every level. But
funding, fundamentally, has to be part of that whole equation.
The operating restrictions--that's an in-the-weeds
suggestion, but I'm sure that there's fixes that the Forest
Service would like to see, because they're the ones that--their
hands are tied, because it's in case plots and old regs.
They're not designed for trying to walk into 6.6 or 7.6 million
acres of problems. We can't do it the old way. So that's huge
for me.
I understand the priority issue, something we talk about at
every collaborative table that I know of in the Colorado Forest
Health Advisory Council. But we don't want to tear our State
apart by saying this is the only place we have a priority or
it's our biggest priority.
We've got to figure out a way to be working across the
State, because there's issues across the State. Perfect
solutions in Pagosa--we've been working on it outside of
Montrose. But it would be awful. At one point, they talked
about taking 60 percent of all the funding from southwest
Colorado to deal with the lodgepole. We do not want to do that
in the State of Colorado.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that.
Jim, will you speak on behalf of yourself and Jack?
Mr. Hubbard. Certainly.
Senator Udall. You've been waiting for that moment.
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Senator Udall. Thank you for the
hearing and inviting us to participate.
I would still want to reiterate that our solutions come in
the form of fire response, community protection, and landscape
treatment, and that addressing those issues as a package is
important to us. But, specifically, things that we could use
your help with--our large air tanker fleet is old, 50 years
old, and that needs some attention. We've had some discussions
about options, and we need to figure out how we want to
modernize that fleet.
Our approach to how we finance suppression is problematic,
too, because it affects too many of the other funds that can
help solve this problem and get ahead of this problem perhaps.
So I'm not offering you a solution, of course. But I am
suggesting that it's a major impediment to getting at some of
the solutions, making the money available to get at some of the
solutions, even within the current budget. I think your
attention to some of the tools that can help promote local
solutions, like Good Neighbor and stewardship contracting, are
important.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that, Jim.
If I might, I would like to make a couple of comments to
further clarify a couple of other comments I've made and ensure
a couple of my thoughts, and then we'll conclude the hearing.
I'll speak to Commissioner Clark again. I got caught up--as
we all said we shouldn't fully get caught up--in the air
support that we can direct to fires. One of the other
conversations we had at the after-action review was training
the soldiers and airmen that are based here, within the
military's budgets and within the military's other needs, to be
on call to fight fires.
The point I'm making is that, as we've heard over and over
again, it's the firefighters that really make the difference. I
know that was another concern here. But Dan Gibbs is a
firefighter, and he knows the adrenalin rush, but he also knows
the danger that's involved. I think I heard from everybody from
General Anderson to General Jacoby that they think they can
find some ways in which to train their personnel here so that
if again there is a fire in this area, we may have additional
firefighting capability right here on the ground, which is what
the community has asked for and which the community would, I
know, fully support.
So that's, again, back to what I was saying earlier about
looking at some arrangements here, given the assets we have
right here on the ground. I don't know that it would have made,
with the terrible conditions that developed that night, that
late afternoon, much of a difference in those few hours with
the intensity and ferocity of the winds and the fire. But that
was also part of the after-action review, so I wanted to make
sure you and the community knew that.
Let me just say thanks to all of you for compelling
testimony, excellent insights, some ideas I can take back to
Washington. I heard a lot about local involvement.
Jimbo, you asked about the insurance sector. I think you're
beginning to see that that's another form of the private sector
responding, providing incentives. When that's tied into
counties and local governments working in the best way to
develop some ordinances and codes to encourage and incentivize
home owners to create firewise communities and fire adapted
communities, I think that's a form of a sweet spot.
Nancy, I never thought 20 years ago, when I envisioned
perhaps having an opportunity to serve in public office, of
being an advocate for sawmills, I have to confess. But, as you
know, I have been. We worked closer together to keep the
Montrose mill open, although there's still real concerns. Of
course, there's a sawmill in Delta. There's one in Sawatch.
We'll keep weighing in, pushing the Forest Service,
respectfully, but nonetheless pushing them and working with the
private sector, because the sawmills are important to forest
health, particularly here in our State of Colorado.
Merrill, you mentioned climate. I don't want to give you my
30-minute speech on climate. But, certainly, you're welcome to
visit my web site, listen to and read what I've had to say. I
think we have to factor this in. There's so much opportunity in
responding to the threat of climate change that I get excited
about it, from national security to job creation to the
environmental benefits.
This hearing was focused more on the short and the medium-
term steps we must take. But you can't ignore what's happening
with climate. After all, even if the 99.9 percent of the
scientists are wrong, the steps we ought to take to respond to
climate change will serve us well, again, when it comes to
national security, job creation, and environmental protection,
because of the new technologies that will be generated. So
thank you for mentioning that.
Jimbo, you've triggered in me a thought that, although
there's a loose coalition of senators in both parties who are
working on forest health, perhaps we ought to formalize that.
Perhaps we ought to come up with a set of principles and
proposals that include many of the ideas that have been
generated here.
There's a great list of senators, from Jim Risch in Idaho
to John Thune from South Dakota--who would have been an
excellent vice Presidential candidate, by the way, but we'll
talk about that later--to Mike Johanns in Nebraska to Orrin
Hatch in Utah, and those are all Republicans I mentioned. There
are, of course, Democrats who are very engaged in this as well.
So that's a great call to action.
I wanted to finally acknowledge the great staff that serve
us all so well. There's a question in Washington: How do you
know who the senators are? The answer is always: They're not
carrying anything. If you've ever been there--and you can take
that literally or figuratively. But, you know, they're a great
staff, young and middle aged and the like, carrying big
notebooks around and making hearings like this happen. Then
they're responsible for accumulating all of the thoughts and
ideas and keeping those thoughts and ideas alive.
So I just wanted to mention the staff that are here today.
Kevin Rennert is behind me right here, and he has worked
closely with Senator Bingaman and has taken time out of his
August State work period to come up here and help this happen;
Jill Lazarski, who is back here to my right; Jacqueline
Emanuel, behind me, who works for the Forest Service and is a
Fellow in my office right now; Melissa Peltier--she's back up
here and works in Colorado Springs, and she and Angela Joslyn--
where's Angela--there's Angela, who is my regional director
here in the Springs.
They're quite a team, and they're always on call to respond
to any of your questions having to do with anything with the
Federal Government.
Jennifer Rokala is here. She's my State director.
Now, who have I forgotten, Angela? Who's here that I
didn't--Mike Seconi--and wonderful interns. We pay interns
marvelously well in psychic rewards. But, seriously, they're a
real important part of my office, and they are marvelously
tireless in their work. Thank you for your support. But, again,
this is one of the many steps in this journey.
Pam, let me do a couple of housekeeping matters and then
I'm going to turn it over to you.
Again, I want to thank you all formally for being here.
We're going to keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks for
additional comments and maybe additional questions that I might
direct your way or Senator Bingaman might direct your way. You
can send statements, those of you here, to my office in
Colorado or to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
I will formally adjourn the hearing, but I'd ask you all to
sit just for a few more minutes so the Chancellor can make her
remarks. So the hearing in Colorado Springs, in the great
State, the centennial State of Colorado, of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Eric Howell, Colorado Springs Utilities, Forest Program
Manager, Colorado Springs, CO
With the recent wildfires along the Front Range this year, Colorado
Springs Utilities itself has been directly affected by the Waldo Canyon
Fire from both a water supply standpoint as well as disruption of
service and extensive damage to gas and electric systems from the fire
storm that entered into the Mountain Shadows subdivision in the north
western part of Colorado Springs. While efforts to made to repair and
quickly restore gas and electric service shortly after the fire,
Colorado Springs Utilities is facing long term risks to its water
supplies and infrastructure from post fire flooding and sedimentation.
Given the nature of the infrastructure and operations at risk, there is
a potential that water service to nearly 200,000 customers-owners could
be disrupted.
Of the total 18,247 acres burned by the Waldo Canyon Fire, 14,422
acres was on national forest land, 3,678 acres private land, and 147
acres on Department of Defense land. Of the private land burned, only
60 acres operated and managed by Colorado Springs Utilities was burned.
Predominantly the lands of concern with the greatest potential to
disrupt water service or cause damage to infrastructure from post fire
impacts are under the ownership of the U.S. Forest Service.
Colorado Springs Utilities worked diligently during the incident as
well as during this post fire period to communicate our values at risk
and provide support to the Type I Incident Command Team and U.S. Forest
Service during suppression operations. Those efforts graciously
resulted in the protection of our water system as a high priority
during the incident and continued with ongoing coordination with the
BAER Team during the emergency response planning phase. Recognizing the
priority and limitations of the BAER Team to protect life and forest
service assets, Colorado Springs Utilities is seeking to work beyond
the BAER Team recommendations through a collaborative effort with the
U.S. Forest Service, Pikes Peak Ranger District and Coalition for the
Upper South Platte. These efforts will include supplementing immediate
emergency response treatments as well as focusing on long term
restoration projects to better protect Colorado Springs Utilities water
supplies and assets affected by the burn area.
In light of the extreme fire and weather conditions that led to the
explosiveness of the Waldo Canyon Fire, it must be recognized that this
incident is an ongoing need to address the forest health and wildfire
conditions along the Front Range. As already studied and summarized in
the 2007 Protecting Front Range Forest Watersheds From High-Severity
Wildfires, An Assessment By the Pinchot Institute For Conservation
Funded By The Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership, wildfires in
Colorado are increasing in intensity, severity, and size due to forest
conditions and the prolonged disruption (suppression) of fire regimes
and intervals in the lower montane and Ponderosa pine forest types
common along the Front Range. As a result of suppression activities,
frequent-low intensity fires have no longer been allowed to burn and
naturally thin and reduce excess fuels to better maintain healthy
forest conditions across these landscapes. Not only would these low
intensity fires help to reduce the wildfire hazards, but they also
serve to create forest conditions that are more resilient to insects
and disease that in turn provide a more sustainable system for water
supplies and many other resource values of importance.
The Pinchot report should be revisited by members of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee as a guide for the forest management needs
in Colorado along the Front Range. Although there are many forest
management issues across the state, especially with bark beetle
incident, there is, however, the greatest wildfire issue occurring in
this ten county area and funding to address this issue is lacking as
compared to what is available for the bark beetle incident.
Colorado Springs Utilities has long been engaged and active in
forest management programs for the purposes of mitigating wildfire
hazards and forest restoration on its watershed properties. Through a
cooperative agreement with the Colorado State Forest Service, nearly
3,500 acres have been treated on Utilities watersheds in El Paso and
Teller County. Colorado Springs Utilities has also collaborated with
the U.S. Forest Service to participate and fund the 2010 Catamount
Forest Health and Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project, Environmental
Assessment. Colorado Springs Utilities will continue to participate and
assist with funding for the implementation of this project which will
allow treatment of approximately 23,000 acres on the Pikes Peak massive
to protect critical watersheds and other natural and developed
resources within the project area.
In October 2012, the U.S. Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy
will be initiating the West Monument Creek Collaborative (WMCC) as
another restoration project within the Pike National Forest. The WMCC
project area, which includes the land area burned by the Waldo Canyon
Fire, was targeted for the overlying assessment area prior to the fire.
Colorado Springs Utilities will again participate in this effort to
assist with developing priority areas for forest restoration, post fire
rehabilitation, and evaluate funding opportunities for project
implementation in priority watersheds. Recognizing the need to partner
and collaborate with the U.S. Forest Service to advance such projects,
Colorado Springs Utilities is currently working to formalize its
partnership with the U.S. Forest Service through a Memorandum of
Understanding to focus on restoration and wildfire priorities Forest
Service lands.
As we move forward to address the current forest health and
wildfire conditions in Colorado, Colorado Springs Utilities recognizes
the need for greater action to mitigate wildfire hazards on private
lands as well as developing partnerships to manage federal lands. With
the Catamount project as an example, it is of our opinion that those
that wish to engage and help direct forest management decisions on
Forest Service lands, the opportunity exists through the National
Environmental Policy Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act to work
collaboratively with the U.S. Forest Service to achieve both community
and natural resource goals. With this said, it seems that the Healthy
Forest Management Act of 2012 may be unnecessary as it could lend to
additional layers of government control and conflicting priorities
rather than allowing the technical and public process to formulate the
best forest management alternatives and decisions.
It is also of interest to Colorado Springs Utilities in effort that
there U.S. Forest Service and State of Colorado recognizes the
importance of allowing forest management in priority watersheds to
sustain water supplies for future generations as well as meeting needs
as the state's population increases. Understanding the final ruling of
the Colorado Roadless Rule the rule allows for treat cutting under
certain circumstances, water providers will be working to request for
exceptions in Roadless Areas and Upper Tier designations where
appropriate forest management projects can be completed. In addition to
working through Roadless Rule constraints, Colorado Springs Utilities
encourages the ongoing use of prescribed fire as a management tool when
it can be safely and effectively be implemented. With respect to those
lives that were lost and the damages suffered from the Lower North Fork
Fire, Colorado Springs Utilities understands the need for halting
prescribed fire operations to assess the circumstances and protocols
that can be improved upon. As an agency willing to continue with its
prescribed fire program when appropriate, we will be cognizant of the
lessons learned from the Lower North Fork Fire as well as reassessing
our own internal protocols to ensure the safety of our program. As we
look to continued use of prescribe fire on City-owned watershed lands,
we also encourage greater flexibility within the Colorado Smoke
Management Program to allow greater use of prescribe fire by the U.S.
Forest Service on federal lands in Colorado.
On behalf of Colorado Springs Utilities, I very much appreciate the
focus on these issues and the opportunity to provide comments in the
best interest of our national forests and our reliance on these
critical watersheds. If you have any questions or would like further
information on Colorado Springs Utilities forest management program,
please feel free to contact me.
______
Statement of Sallie Clark, Commissioner, Dirstrict 3, and Vice Chair,
Board of Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado Board Member,
National Association of Counties
Thank you for the opportunity to attend and comment on the recent
field hearing conducted on August 15, 2012, by U.S. Senator Mark Udall
regarding forest mitigation efforts, wildfire concerns and healthy
forest management. This discussion is about more than healthy forests;
here in Colorado it is a matter of public safety. The lives of our
citizens are at risk when dead and diseased trees turn the mountainside
into a tinder box, ready to explode into a firestorm with the next bolt
of lightning.
On June 23, 2012, the Waldo Canyon Fire began in El Paso County,
Colorado, very near to our well-known mountain Pikes Peak, in the Pike
National Forest. While this fire primarily impacted the commissioner
district which I represent in western El Paso County, it also took its
toll and had a profound economic and emotional impact on our entire
community. Fuelled by dead trees on National Forest lands, the fire
quickly spread over 18,000 acres. It was the most destructive fire in
Colorado history. More than 300 homes were lost and two El Paso County
citizens lost their lives.
There were many lessons learned from this disaster, but one of the
most painful is that the public lands which contribute so much to our
quality of life also pose a substantial threat to public safety.
Wildfire risks can and must be mitigated. Thousands of acres of dead or
dying trees adjacent to urban neighborhoods are a recipe for the kind
of disaster we experienced with the Waldo Canyon fire. Now, as our
community only begins to recover in the aftermath of the fire, the
burned and scarred mountainside provides little comfort or mitigation
to the ensuing flooding we are seeing today. This is currently
threatening, not only homes, roads and infrastructure, but the lives of
both adults and children, with at least one elementary school in the
direct line of flooding destruction for which our county and school
district must protect through local taxpayer dollars.
It is our belief that with the right tools in the hands Forest
Service managers, working collaboratively with state and local
officials, they can identify and mitigate the dangers posed by
unhealthy forest lands throughout Colorado. Beetle infestation,
drought, and poor forest health are undoubtedly contributing factors to
deadly wildfires. By flagging this threat and outlining prescribed
remedies and streamlined efforts, this will prevent avoidable fires and
create defensible boundaries between future wildfires and urban
neighborhoods.
The climate of the Western United States' will continue to see
cycles of ample precipitation and drought. Insects and disease will
continue to take a toll on our forests but we have a responsibility to
manage these issues and mitigate the risks. The Waldo Canyon Fire was a
stark reminder of the need to be proactive in our efforts to protect
our citizens, property, and resources. We understand that no single
effort is perfect and we cannot end the threat of destructive
wildfires. But it is important that we recognize and establish a
framework for state, local and federal government agencies and the
private sector, to work together to identify and manage our forests in
a responsible way and to implement policies that provide the ability to
get the job done. Appropriate forest mitigation recognizes the need to
preserve our natural resources while protecting the health, welfare and
safety of our citizens.
On behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the
Board of Commissioners of El Paso County, Colorado, I urge proactive
measures to lessen the likelihood of future deadly and destructive
wildfires like Waldo Canyon. We thank you and each of your subcommittee
members for your thoughtful consideration and for your ongoing support
of legislation and policies that will provide state and local agencies
with the proper tools and resources to ensure the protection of our
public lands and the safety of our communities.
______
Statement of Shirley Pfankuch, Registered Agent and Manager of
Administration, Slash Solutions, LLC
I am writing as an owner and overseeing operator of an Air Curtain
Burner in Red Feather Lakes and our business is called Slash Solutions.
Last year as our community was faced with more roadblocks to a local
slash disposal site, I raised $150,000 and engaged 49 property owners
to open our ACD site in 95 days. Why--because it was imperative we have
a local and affordable site or owners would likely not continue the
work.
Having just survived the High Park Fire, Hewlett Gulch Fire and
others nearby, this is so important!
air curtain destructors
Slash Solutions sole purpose is to allow the property owners in our
area the ability to conveniently continue to mitigate their properties
for Forest Health, RMP Beetle mitigation and most importantly for Fire
Safety. A large part of the volume we receive comes from Crystal Lakes,
which is 1630 properties (800 homes), which are in heavily forested
severe mountain terrain, with 85 miles of dirt roads, and with limited
access to the area if a large fire should occur. The majority of our
owners are weekenders--and for them to continue mitigation of their
properties and have to haul material to the Fort Collins Landfill would
in all likelihood have brought many efforts to a halt, as most do not
have the equipment or wherewithal to make large hauls that distance.
And at one haul per weekend, the progress would have been all but
derailed! Every day we in mountain communities are at huge risk from
accidental ignition and lightning strikes. So just because the big
fires have occurred--it does not mean we are safe!
state epa permitting
As we have been in the midst of the recent new permit process with
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment it has become
blatantly apparent that there are so many things that are involved in a
Title 4 Permit that really should not apply to the burners. It is
imperative that Federal Standards be modified to allow States with
particular crisis situations to be able to assess and make decisions as
to what is the biggest benefit. Our units are not huge polluters--yet
we are pushed into a class with those. I received a 100 page
application to complete . . . Yes we do create some pollution, but it
is miniscule in comparison to the fires and the smoke they produce.
Further we are held to State Regulations that indicate the fire must be
totally extinguished--which is not possible. And, that there cannot be
ANY release of after hours smoke. Our operation has reduced that to an
absolute minimum, but it is imperative that the CDPHE be given the
``authority'' to weigh individual situations more carefully, as we have
other measures in place that should allow us to meet the requirement.
Otherwise, we subject ourselves and CDPHE to regular and frequent
difficulty!
The standards for open and prescribed burns also need to be
amended. Part of why we came into existence is that the local Mutual
Aid Agreements made it too scary for anyone to want to continue to do
large pile burns in the winter.
road accessibility
Obviously the recent fires have hit home for us as we are reachable
from one direction at this point and the secondary routes that were
available when CR 74E closed are in many places one lane and jeep like
terrain. While there could be access from a couple of directions over
USFS land, they have been blocked for years and berms have been put in
place to keep folks out. It is imperative that the forest service
consider reopening some secondary routes for our safety.
tax subtraction measure
Also, there is a Tax Subtraction that allows credit for mitigation
work--but it is set to expire. Further, the amount of the credit is not
sufficient for most folks! It costs approximately $2,000-5,000 to
mitigate an acre depending on the forest density. This is not a one or
two year project and this incentive is not known to enough property
owners. We have it on our web-site at www.slashsolutionsllc.com
funding to assist property owners
It is imperative that more grant funds and stewardship assistance
be available. So often people want to do the work, they simply cannot
afford it. By working in communities we can team together and get more
done for the dollars spent. This year Crystal Lakes Greenbelt Committee
was able to mitigate 12.2 acres of Greenbelts. 6.6 acres was done by a
professional contractor with grant funds, and the remaining amount was
done with volunteer workers. That was a terrific accomplishment--
however we have 563 acres of greenbelts . . . so at that rate it will
take us a lifetime to complete. Our grant money was stretched as far as
possible to get the most out of it and absolutely would not have paid
for the entire requirement of 16-18 acres without hundreds of hours of
volunteer labor. And, while our volunteers are awesome--often this
terrain is not for the everyday volunteer and requires professional
contractors.
insurance and insurability
I have held Property and Casualty Insurance License in the State of
Colorado and my concerns here are 1. I hear there is a push to
``exclude wildfire'' from the standard policy. 2. The settlement
process--particularly on Personal Property forces a nightmare on the
victims--as I have talked to several 3. Writing moratoriums. Many
states do not allow the agonizing ``proof process'' for personal
property. If you have a set personal property coverage, the check is
written. People are forced through thousand step processes to determine
their settlement. Even though they have Replacement cost coverage on
contents, they are told they will only receive Actual Cash Value--until
they purchase the replacement. Certainly there is enough trauma in this
type of situation; they have paid for the coverage for years and often
decades. They should be able to regroup and use those dollars in ways
that make sense today to rebuild and refurnish their homes; not be
restricted to those items. The same standards should apply to dwelling
replacement. If the owner decides to change their floorplan, increase
or decrease size, postpone rebuilding, etc., should not matter. They
should not be punished by reverting to a lower pricing because of that.
Obviously they have invested and funded the coffers for the companies
to allow them to operate. Insurance companies can set their rate
structure, and the loopholes do nothing but add insult to injury! I
know it costs them horrendous amounts of money to micro-manage these
claims . . . perhaps it would be better spent benefiting the victims.
The overall principle of insurance is to rate and make the coverage
affordable to the masses.
Thank you, Senator Udall for hosting this hearing and for your
regular support on these types of issues. It is crucial that we think
outside the box and get to solutions that are available, affordable and
efficient.
I am willing and able to serve wherever I am able.
______
Statement of Michael T. Goergen, Jr., Executive Vice President and CEO,
Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF), the national scientific
and educational organization representing the forestry profession,
would like to thank Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Wyden, Senator
Udall, and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee for holding the hearing today on Colorado Wildfires. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify on this issue as it greatly
affects our jobs, communities, and safety. We would also like to thank
Senator Udall for his support and urgency in addressing the issue of
wildfire. Thank you for your leadership, and know that the SAF and its
members are able to assist in research, on-the-ground projects, and
development of strategies to reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire in
our communities.
SAF is one of the largest professional societies of foresters in
the world with more than 12,000 members including CEOs, administrators,
natural resource managers, scientists, and academics. We believe in
forest management capable of responding and adapting to the ever-
changing conditions that impact our nation's forests. Across the
country, there are seriously impaired forests (particularly on the
federal estate) that will have wide-ranging negative impacts on
adjacent lands and the entire forest sector. These negative impacts
include, but are not limited to: additional loss of forest management
infrastructure, the loss of high-paying jobs in rural communities,
pressures from invasive species, increased areas of negative impacts
from insects and disease, overstocked stands, and high risk of
wildfire.
We are focusing this testimony on how wildfires have impacted
Colorado this year, and addressing the larger issue of wildfires
throughout the west. We will discuss several of the barriers that
challenge and impede the ability of forestry professionals to use their
knowledge and expertise to manage forests. Finally, SAF will present
several recommendations for the Committee regarding how these obstacles
can be addressed by Congress and stakeholders to help reduce the high
risk of catastrophic wildfire and improve upon forest resilience.
wildfire and its impact
Impacts of wildfire play an integral role in our communities and
affect everything from wildlife, to recreation, to our water sources.
One in five Americans get their drinking water from National Forest
Systems.\1\ Fire can be beneficial in fire-adapted forest types, but
increasingly larger, hotter, faster fires are severely damaging
forested ecosystems. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center
shows that in the mid-1980s, the annual number of large wildfires
increased nearly four-fold when compared to the previous decades. Total
area burned increased 6.5 times, and fire seasons were also found to
have increased in length.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA Forest Service. 2012. US Forest Service Teams with
Nonprofit Foundation in Wildfire Recovery Efforts. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/08/nonprofit.shtml; last
accessed August 21, 2012.
\2\ A.L.Westerling, H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, T. W. Swetnam.
2006. Warming and Earlier Spring Increases Western U.S. Forest Wildfire
Activity. Sciencexpress. 1-6. Available online at http://
www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2006/07/06/
science.1128834?explicitversion=true; last accessed August 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, Colorado has already had several record fires that
have devastated the State. The fire season began early this year with
the Lower North Fork Fire that burned approximately 4,000 acres near
the town of Conifer, south of Denver. This summer the High Park Fire,
north of Fort Collins, caused extensive damage to the forest, and was
quickly followed by the Waldo Canyon Fire that burned over 350 homes
outside of Colorado Springs. These three fires alone burned 110,371
acres. Direct suppression costs for the High Park Fire and the Waldo
Canyon fire total $54.5 million with the suppression costs of the Lower
North Fork Fire still unknown. \3\ This is not the end to the cost of
these fires. The Western Forest Leadership Coalition in its report, The
True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. states, ``the true costs of
wildfire are shown to be far greater than the costs usually reported to
the public, anywhere from two to 30 times the more commonly reported
suppression costs.'' Costs associated with erosion control, loss of
property value, loss of business, loss of ecosystem service, and more
aren't often fully known until years later.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Denver Post. 2012. Colorado's Largest Wildfires (Burn Area).
Available online at http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20934186/
colorados-largest-wildfires-burn-area; last accessed August 21, 2012.
\4\ Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 2010. The True Cost of
Wildfire in the Western U.S. Available online at http://
www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/324_pdf.pdf; last accessed August 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This year, the US Forest Service has approximately $1.7 billion
dollars in Wildfire Fire funding.\5\ This includes: Suppression,
Preparedness, Hazardous Fuels, Rehabilitation and Restoration, State
Fire Assistance, and other fire operations. The Forest Service
forecasted in March 2012 that the agency could spend upwards of $1.4
billion in suppression costs (FLAME included) alone.\6\ This would mean
having to shift much-needed funding from other Forest Service accounts
to cover the costs of just fire suppression expenses. According to the
National Interagency Fire Center, the current wildfire acreage burned
is approximately 1.5 million acres above the 10-year average. If this
trend continues, the Forest Service will need to move funds from other
important programs to cover these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ US Congress. 2012. Consolidated Appropriations Act 112th
Congress. Available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-
112publ74/pdf/PLAW-112publ74.pdf; last accessed August 21, 2012.
\6\ USDA Forest Service. 2012. Federal Land Assistance, Management
and Enhancement (FLAME) Act Suppression Expenditures for Interior and
Agriculture Agencies: March 2012 Forecasts for 2012. Available online
at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/requests/
7166984_FY2012%20March%20FLAME%20Report.pdf; last accessed August 21,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
barriers to reducing wildfire risk
There are approximately 65 million acres of the total 193 million
acres of National Forest System lands that are at high or very high
risk of catastrophic wildfire.\7\ Many factors have led to the high-
level wildfire risk we are experiencing today. For purposes of this
testimony, SAF would like to highlight several key barriers that
greatly affect SAF members. This includes the loss of the timber sector
and associated reduction in available infrastructure, the bottleneck of
planning, and an insufficient emphasis on prevention treatments as
opposed to the focus on suppression after the fire starts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USDA Forest Service. 2012. Increasing the Pace of Restoration
and Job Creation on Our National Forests. Available online at http://
www.treefarmer.com/images/Increase--PaceRestoration-1.pdf; last
accessed August 22, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber-Sector Losses
Constraints on forests and forest management have led to a steady
decline in fuels treatments, and subsequently a decline in timber-
related employment. From 2005 to 2010 primary (forestry and logging,
paper, wood manufacturing, etc.) and secondary (residential
construction, furniture, etc.) employment have seen a combined
reduction of 920,507 total jobs. In fact, total US annual timber
harvests are at their lowest levels since the 1960s. Loss of jobs and
capacity to manage our forested landscapes has, in part, led to the
``perfect storm'' conditions that have resulted in the current 40
million acre Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic and increased fire frequency
and intensity.
This lack of production has also led to the closure of more than
1,000 mills from 2005 to 2009, which decreased overall sawmilling
capacity by 15 percent, and lowered production levels below 50 percent
of capacity at the remaining mills.\8\ Less than 2 percent of wood from
timber harvests come from our National Forest System lands. It's
imperative to build support for a vibrant market and timber sector in
order to reduce wildfire risk and create a sustainable supply of wood
products. This will, in turn, bolster the forest sector and allow for
the mitigation of insects and diseases, and overall reduction of
wildfire risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Smith, B.W., and Guldin, R.W. 2012. Forest Sector Reeling
during Economic Downturn. The Forestry Source January, 2012. Available
online at http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource--201201/
index.php; last accessed March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottleneck of Planning
Every year the Forest Service spends millions of dollars on
planning that could otherwise be used on implementing projects and
monitoring the results. Research has documented that the NEPA process
(and subsequent judicial review) can significantly delay federal agency
decisionmaking because of controversy that may occur from its final
decision. To discourage conflict, federal agencies often overcompensate
and conduct excessive analysis to make more certain of the success of
the project under litigation, thus adding additional time and resources
to the NEPA process. According to a 2008 article for the Journal
Environmental Practice, The Forest Service, on average takes 2.7 years
to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Within the
timeframe of the study, the average time to complete an EIS actually
increased by another 60 days. Finally, it was noted by the authors that
while NEPA litigation is not a major component of all federal
litigation, the threat and the potential for adverse judicial decisions
has had a much greater effect on ``bullet proofing'' the EISs than
litigation itself.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ deWitt, P. and deWitt, C. (2008) ``Research Article: How Long
Does It Take to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement?''
Environmental Practice 10(4):164-174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this year the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
published their draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Guidelines. In those comments CEQ acknowledged that there is a current
``bottleneck'' to the planning process, and recommended that federal
agencies make Environmental Assessments and EISs concise and no longer
than necessary, limiting page counts to 15 and 150, respectively. While
arbitrary limits on page counts may be unnecessary, it is important
that federal agencies begin making their analyses more concise.
Preventative Measures
In the current framework, forest treatments and management by the
Forest Service and other federal agencies are, unfortunately, heavily
driven by incident response as opposed to application of treatments to
prevent catastrophic events. Preventative measures are often less
costly in the long run, and would help stop the need for program
borrowing when large fire seasons occur. The True Cost of Wildfires in
the Western U.S. report notes that, in 2008, total expenditures were
$260 million more than the total wildfire funding for the Forest
Service. The extra monies had to be transferred from other programs,
thus impacting other agency work.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 2010. The True Cost of
Wildfire in the Western U.S. Available online at http://
www.wflccenter.org/news--pdf/324--pdf.pdf; last accessed August 21,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the 2011 Wallow Fire in Arizona that burned over 500,000
acres, a report was completed by several Forest Service employees to
evaluate the effectiveness of fuels treatments prior to fire. The
report found that several of the prior treatments to thin forest
density resulted in the high-severity crown fire dropping from the tree
crowns to the ground surface. From there firefighters were able to
contain and extinguish the flames.\11\ Preventative treatments also
reduce the risk of wildfire, especially in the arid west. Treatments
both within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and outside the WUI are
important to improve forest health while reducing risk of wildfire,
insects and disease, public safety, loss of property, and more. While
size of treatments and removal of slash and debris from treatment areas
play an important role in effectiveness, it's important that
stakeholders, Congress, and the general public understand the benefits
of preventative treatments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ US Department of Interior: Indian Affairs. 2011. Wallow Fire
Fuel Treatment Effectiveness on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation.
Available online at http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xnifc/documents/text/
idc015931.pdf; last accessed August 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
SAF has several recommendations that we believe would benefit
forests and people, reduce the barriers we have discussed, and offer a
larger solution.
1) We need a viable forest-products industry that supports a
healthy forest sector. A healthy industry and market creates
jobs, benefits rural communities, helps pay for forest
management improving forest conditions, and improves public
safety. We are losing infrastructure and capacity at a rapid
pace; it's important that Congress and the public support the
remaining industry and encourage investment.
2) Federal Agencies need to more effectively and efficiently
develop and implement project plans. We understand funding is
limited, which demonstrates the strong need for efficiency. SAF
encourages the Forest Service and other federal agencies to
implement CEQ's recommendation to develop concise EAs and EISs.
We also ask that Congress and the courts support this
direction. SAF also supports the Forest Service's proposed
Predecisional Administrative Review rule. We believe it will
increase collaboration in the beginning of project scoping,
reduce conflict, and speed implementation of treatments.
3) Landscape-scale restoration efforts need to be increased.
The Forest Service, in their 2010 report Increasing the Pace of
Restoration, identified the need to increase treatment efforts
on NFS lands. SAF supports their efforts and would recommend
increasing annual goals for acres treated. There are
approximately 60 to 80 million acres in need of restoration;
it's important that federal, state, and local entities work
together to implement restoration projects.
4) SAF would like to thank Senator Udall and other members of
Congress for their work to reauthorize the Stewardship
Contracting Authority, and the Good Neighbor Authority through
the Draft Senate 2012 Farm Bill. We would also like to thank
Senator Udall and others for their continued support to treat
insects and diseases in our National Forests. The provision in
the 2012 Draft Senate Farm Bill to amend the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003 to increase treatments on insect and
disease-infested forests is very important. We need these tools
to address the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic so that we can
restore our forests.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to comment.
______
Statement of Pam Motley, West Range Reclamation, LLC, Hotchkiss, CO
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. My name
is Pam Motley and I represent West Range Reclamation, LLC, a forest
management company based in Hotchkiss, CO. West Range was founded in
2001 by Cody and Stephanie Neff out of a deep desire to manage forests
in a responsible and beneficial way. Over the past 11 years, our firm
has completed over 300 contracts and 70,000 acres of forest improvement
projects on public and private land in five western states, helping to
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, restore native vegetation and
wildlife habitat, and create a healthy environment to ensure forest
regeneration in the future.
Over the past several years, Colorado has witnessed unprecedented
forest health problems and large catastrophic wildfires. Although
wildfire has historically played an essential role in the natural
development of our western ecosystems, today's wildfires are not those
of the past. We have all seen on television, or witnessed firsthand,
the recent devastating wildland fires. They are haunting evidence of
the effects of a century of fire suppression combined with several
decades of declining forest management activities. Unhealthy forests
are not only at risk of wildfire, they are much more susceptible to
disease and insect epidemics. Fuels reduction of these hazardous
substances is a necessity. Forest management, when done properly, will
help conserve the western landscape attributes that are so greatly
valued by all. Most importantly, sound management of these resources
will help insure that our forests can achieve their full potential and
will continue to provide for the rural communities and wildlife that
depend on them.
West Range employs 55 full time people and subcontracts to over 50
additional fulltime individuals. Our crews are currently hard at work
on forest restoration and fuel reduction treatments on numerous private
ranches and state lands throughout Colorado and southern Wyoming as
well as stewardship contracts on the White River, Arapahoe-Roosevelt,
Pike-San Isabel, Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison, and Medicine Bow-
Routt National Forests.
In 2009, West Range was honored to have been selected through a
competitive bid process to serve as the contractor on the 10-Year Front
Range Long Term Stewardship Contract. The purpose of this contract is
to restore National Forest System lands along the Front Range of
Colorado to historic conditions in order to prevent catastrophic
wildfire and improve overall forest health. Through strategic placement
of treatments, the Forest Service aims to reduce risks of
uncharacteristically severe wildfire to the ecosystem and communities
and lower fire-fighting costs. Much of the area is deemed critical for
protecting communities and municipal watersheds (which supply drinking
water to over 75 percent of Colorado's population) from the impacts of
catastrophic fire. The partnership between West Range and the Forest
Service has pioneered for the nation a new approach to managing our
national forests in a manner that increases the pace of forest
restoration and fuels reduction work while creating economic growth.
Through the contract, West Range treats a minimum of 4,000 priority
acres annually.
We believe that Long Term Stewardship Contracting (LTSC) is an
effective and necessary tool to manage the millions of acres of
National Forest in this country that require fuels and forest health
treatment. This work could not be accomplished at the scope and scale
that is required if we were to continue working project-by-project. Our
experience on the Front Range LTSC shows us that it can facilitate the
creation of a `Restoration Economy'--allowing for the utilization of
more byproduct material and creating economic growth. Utilization of
large quantities of dead trees, small roundwood and limb, tops and
brush would not be possible without a ten year commitment of supply.
Lumber, pallet and pellet mills, as well as future bioenergy
facilities, require the security of this steady supply of material. By
utilizing woody biomass material, we can generate additional funds to
further offset treatment costs, resulting in more work accomplished and
supporting strong industry in the region. We also reduce waste and air
pollution by limiting pile burning. The continued stability of the ten-
year project has also allowed West Range to provide well-paying,
steady, year-round work for our employees. In addition, LTSC establish
cooperative relationships and open communication between industry, land
managers and key partners leading to more effective and efficient
management of our forests and natural resources.
We feel our experience to date has given us valuable insight into
ways to improve forest health in a manner that will support communities
and encourage economic growth. Therefore, we respectfully submit the
following recommendations to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.
Stewardship contracts need to include a larger commercial sawlog
component
Dead trees, small roundwood and limbs, tops and brush alone
do not contain enough value to effectively offset treatments.
To truly make forest treatments and biomass utilization
economically viable, costs must be offset with higher value
sawlogs costs. This is the power of stewardship contracting,
allowing forests to retain timber receipts to accomplish more
acres and moving us closer towards the goal of zero cost
treatments. As federal budgets continue to decrease, sawlogs
will provide much needed funds to accomplish vital work. I
commend the Forest Service for their progressive partnerships
with private entities like Denver Water and I see that by
incorporating higher value timber, the forest products industry
can be a similar strong partner. In addition, incorporating
sawlogs into LTSC helps support existing sawmills in the region
that currently struggle to maintain viability while being
supplied only through individual timber sales. Lastly, because
LTSC focus on fuels, forest health and restoration treatments,
the ability to remove green trees and larger diameter trees
will lead to healthier forests, rather that creating even-aged
stands.
The Forest Service must guarantee minimum annual volumes of sawtimber
and non-sawtimber within Long Term Stewardship Contracts
Currently, the majority of stewardship contracts only
guarantee a minimum amount of acres per year. To encourage
utilization and support industry, National Forests should be
required to guarantee a minimum and maximum volume per year for
sawlog and non-sawtimber material within LTSC. Private industry
invests millions to develop infrastructure to utilize woody
biomass and inconsistent supply leads to businesses failing,
loss of jobs and a loss of trust.
The Forest Service needs to set minimal operating restrictions for
priority forest health treatments
It is understood that forest treatments are ultimately best
for wildlife and recreationalists, yet implementation of sound
forest management projects are regularly handcuffed for
wildlife and recreational interests in unmanageable ways.
Examples include: weekend and hours of operation restrictions,
deer and elk winter range, and lynx. These restrictions add
significant cost to projects and slow progress down.
The appraisal system needs much more flexibility in terms of rates as
well as using discretion at the local District level
The US Forest Service needs to update appraisal procedures to
reflect current markets and the deteriorating quality of dead
trees. Appraisal policy and procedures should be revised to
allow for timber to be sold at Base Rates for a five year
emergency treatment period, either Statewide or in designated
``high priority areas''.
Weight limits should be increased on State and Interstate Highways in
Colorado to reduce haul costs
The high cost of transporting low value woody biomass
currently limits the ability to utilize material. Increasing
weight limits on highways will lead to increased utilization,
less pile burning in the woods and fewer logging trucks on the
roads.
In closing we want to extend our gratitude to Senator Udall for his
continued support of forest management in Colorado. His assistance has
resulted in additional priority acres being treated this year. We
believe that all fuels and forest health treatment projects should be
approached as a partnership and we are privileged to be a part of the
collaborative, sharing in the vision of enhancing ecological, economic
and social values.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. West
Range is committed to supporting sustainable forest management, strong
communities and job creation. We would be delighted to work with you
and your staffs to develop efficient, environmentally sound forest
health strategies.
______
Statement of Mark A. Volcheff, Major General, USAF (Ret), 10 Tanker Air
Carrier, Colorado Springs, CO
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the record to
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources conducted in
Colorado Springs, CO on Aug 15, 2012.
Recent Colorado wildfires have once again reinforced the importance
of aerial fire fighting tankers providing fire suppression and
containment support. Hindsight and lessons learned frmn each fire would
likely tell us that incremental use of fire fighting resources which
provides ``just enough'' resources to fight the fire at hand did little
to avert the large fires we have encountered in 2012 and past years.
Fires grow out of control most likely from not bringing in overwhelming
resources, sooner, to contain the fire. The product needed from an
aerial fire fighting perspective is gallons of suppressant in the right
place at the right time. The right time is always early. Inadequate
``gallonage'' in the initial load dramatically decreases effectiveness.
Hence the (inaccurate) paradigm that, ``airplanes don't put out
fires.'' While historically true, that can and has been proven wrong by
the early use of a DC-10 fire fighting aircraft. Deployment of DC-1C
aircraft successfully containing fires in other fire fighting efforts
allows us to conclude that bringing in the DC-10 to drop on the
ridgelines of Waldo Canyon, for example, would have contained that fire
in its early stages.
There are initiatives underway to provide US Forest Service with
organic aircraft platforms. They will have no mission in the fire
fighting ``offseason'' nor can they be operated as economically as
commercial options, and some of the specific platforms being
considered, have no demonstrated capability to fully perform the
mission.
Similarly, considerations to increase or rely more on the DoD fleet
is costly, detracts from their current wartime mission and violates the
specifics and intent of the Economy Act, 49 USC 40125 and other Public
Law and policies. Relative to the DoD Modular irborne Fire Fighting
System aircraft, the assets are typically on a 48-hour initial
capability call up. The aircraft's proximity to the fire is not the
limiting factor, nor can it alone accelerate the initial response time.
Commercially available assets typically respond in 24 hours, or less,
and faster if on an exclusive use contract. Hence, it is prudent to
call commercial first in accordance with the Economy Act. Altering the
Economy Act to more quickly access DoD assets does nothing to improve
their response time.
The key to the viability of a commercially available aerial fire
fighting capability is long term, exclusive use contracts with the US
Forest Service. In particular, multiple DC-10 ``air bombers'' will
significantly supplement ANY current aerial fire fighting fixed wing
re-fleeting plan. The technology is tested, certified, field proven,
immediately available, and as important, the cheapest option of fixed
wing platforms given the amount of retardant typically dropped on a
wild fire. DC-10s, when realistically evaluated, will effectively and
efficiently do the job and save taxpayer dollars.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments for the
record of the proceedings of the field hearing of the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources. I am available to provide additional
information on this subject as we work together to provide the most
effective and efficient resources for aerial fire fighting support.
Note: Attachments provided with this statement have been retained in
committee files.
______
Statement of Cindy Domenico, Chair, Boulder County Board of County
Commissioners
Boulder County expresses our sincere gratitude for your
coordination of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Field
Hearing on Wildfire and Forest Health, which will be held this week in
Colorado. This forum will provide an important opportunity to discuss
the forest health issues that persist across the West and the recent
wildfire issues we have experienced here in Colorado. Your continued
attention to wildfire and forest health issues at the federal level has
been instrumental in advancing understanding of the complexities
involved with these issues and the search for long-term solutions in
Colorado. Within this context, we would like to take the opportunity to
provide some recommendations for policies and programs that will
further support your efforts.
In 2010 when the Fourmile Canyon Fire burned 6,191 acres and
destroyed 168 homes in Boulder County, it was recorded as the most
destructive fire in Colorado history in terms of homes lost. Since that
time, several fires have taken an even greater toll on Colorado
residents and our environment. We are very grateful for your role,
Senator Udall, in requesting the Fourmile Canyon Fire Assessment Study,
which provided Boulder County with scientific findings from the fire
that have influenced our efforts around wildfire mitigation. Now, with
the experience of additional large-scale fires in the wildland urban
interface this year, we are beginning to understand that many of the
contributing factors to the Fourmile Canyon Fire similarly contributed
to the severity of other fires. Weaving together the evidence from
these fires and identifying best practices that will truly improve the
outcomes for residents and the environment is the next challenging step
that we face.
To that end, Boulder County strongly supports efforts at the
federal, state and local level that will reduce expanded growth and
development in the wildland urban interface. Below, we respectfully
convey our recommendations for policy and funding that will better
facilitate implementation of such efforts.
Where development does occur in Boulder County and across Colorado,
we support strong policies and programs to ensure that residents create
and maintain adequate defensible space and a safe home ignition zone.
Local governments in Colorado have the ability to enact many of these
policies on our own, but we will need the support of the state and
federal government in order to identify and implement effective
programs to achieve these goals.
Further, increased federal investments in reducing wildfire risk
will also be necessary to lessen the severity and impacts of wildfire
in the West. Programs such as the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program and other funding designated for public lands
restoration and fuels reduction work--specifically in the wildland
urban interface--will improve the overall condition of our forests,
potentially saving homes, lives and reducing negative impacts to the
environment (such as water quality). Increased funding for programs
such as FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants which allow for wildfire
mitigation on private lands is also critical in addressing the need for
mitigation on privately owned lands, which property owners often are
unable or unwilling to complete on their own.
In addition, there is a significant need for federal funding to
support local Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). Enormous
time and effort has gone into developing plans at the local level
across the country--but with few resources to implement them. As a
result, CWPPs have failed to reach their full potential and have not
been integrated into existing programs. Boulder County's CWPP
identifies numerous recommendations to engage and support private
homeowners in fuels reduction and to increase wildfire mitigation
projects across public and private lands. The County has invested
significantly in implementing those components of the plan that don't
require partnership with other public land entities, but full
implementation is stalled due to inadequate support of state and
federal funding.
In closing, we greatly appreciate your strong commitment to
wildfire and forest health issues and your continued support for
improving the conditions of our western forests. We look forward to
identifying cost-effective, viable policy and funding solutions
together that will improve the health of our forests and reduce the
risks of wildfire in our communities.