[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 27 (Tuesday, March 12, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E326-E328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




ON INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 12, 2002

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill to 
improve the way the federal government is working to reduce the risk of 
wildfire damage in the most vulnerable communities of Colorado and 
other states.
  The bill is cosponsored by my colleague from Colorado, Representative 
Joel Hefley and my close colleague from New Mexico, Representative Tom 
Udall. We have worked closely in its development and I greatly 
appreciate their support.
  The bill deals with the fuel-reduction program that is a key part of 
the National Fire plan. Under that program, the land-managing agencies 
remove brush and other material that can fuel high-intensity fires 
through techniques such as burning (``prescribed fires''), mechanical 
thinning, vegetation control (such as defensible space around homes and 
buildings) or timber removal.
  I have supported that program, but have had some questions about the 
way the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the other 
land-managing agencies have been implementing it. So, I joined a number 
of our colleagues in the House and Senate in asking the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) to review the steps the agencies have taken so 
far to see if improvements should be made.
  GAO has now completed that review and submitted a report that 
includes a number of recommendations. This bill would require that 
those recommendations be adopted. I am attaching a fact sheet that 
outlines the main provisions of the bill, as well as the ``Results in 
Brief'' portion of the GAO report.
  The GAO highlighted the need for two things--more and better 
interagency coordination, and better focus on identifying and 
responding to the highest-risk communities in the wildland/urban 
interface area.
  Improvements in these matters are important nationally, but they are 
particularly important for Colorado and other western states. That is 
because Colorado, like other Western states, has been experiencing ever 
more growth and development in and near forested areas. We are seeing 
more people, structures and investments placed at risk.
  It is this increasing risk to people and property--increasing because 
of growth as well as because of the unnatural forest conditions that we 
have created in many forests in Colorado through decades of fire 
suppression policies--that led to my interest in focusing on questions 
of wildlife management. And two particular things then lead me to take 
action.
  First, I took a tour of an area west of Boulder, Colorado, called 
Winiger Ridge. It is near an area where there was a major forest fire 
in 1989. Following that fire, a number of citizens, along with the 
Forest Service and Boulder County officials, got together to find a way 
to reduce the danger of a repetition of such a dangerous blaze. That 
group's efforts ultimately lead to the identification of conditions 
that lead to wildfire risks and the recommendation that some steps be 
taken to reduce that risk. The Winiger Ridge area was chosen as a 
location to explore some of these techniques--which involve some 
mechanical thinning and some controlled burning. When I toured this 
area and learned of the issues and the proposed strategy, I was struck 
by the condition of the forest--a condition of dense stands of small 
diameter trees--and, more importantly, I was very concerned about the 
homes and families that reside within this area. These homes and 
families are literally in the path of a possible major fire that could 
be devastating.
  It was important to identify this Winiger Ridge area because soon 
after my tour of it, another fire arose there in the summer of 2000, 
called the Walker Ranch fire. That fire threatened a number of mountain 
homes just west of Boulder. However, no structure was

[[Page E327]]

damaged because treatment with prescribed fire and vegetative thinning 
resulted in conditions that led the fire to drop to the ground and be 
more easily controlled. Had this not been done in previous years, the 
fire could have been much more devastating.
  That fire, and other devastating fires in Colorado and throughout the 
west, was the second event that strongly affected my thinking about 
this subject. I was interested in what I might do to address the 
problem and to try to lessen the dangers to our communities in ways 
that still recognized the need for sound management of forest lands and 
proper protection for their most sensitive areas.
  An early opportunity came when the House took up the appropriations 
bill for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2001. Reviewing the bill as 
it came to the floor, Representative Hefley and I were struck by the 
fact that the Appropriations Committee was proposing to reduce the 
funding for the wildland fire management account by some $4 million. In 
response, we offered an amendment to restore that funding that was 
approved by the House by a solid vote of 364 to 55.
  Then, after consulting a number of experts, I developed and 
introduced a bill intended to focus directly on our situation here in 
Colorado. It was cosponsored by Representative Helfly and by 
Representative Tancredo and DeGette as well. To put it in its simplest 
terms, our bill was intended to promote and facilitate efforts like the 
Winiger Ridge project, and thus help reduce the risk of a repeat of 
this past fire season, in the parts of Colorado that are at greatest 
risk of such disasters. That bill was not enacted itself, but its main 
principles were included in the fuel-reduction part of the National 
Fire Plan. And I have continued to work to make sure that this 
important fuel-reduction work was done the right way and in the right 
places.
  Since then, I have strongly supported the appropriation of funds for 
this purpose--but I have been concerned Congress has not done enough to 
spell out appropriate guidelines for their use, such as staying away 
from wilderness and roadless areas and ensuring that the projects are 
carefully targeted to protect the people who are at greatest risk from 
wildfires.
  We need to be very careful not to overcompensate for past 
shortcomings in working to reduce fuels. Fire is a natural part of our 
forests and eliminating fire from the landscape--as we tried to do for 
many years--was a big part of what produced the situation we now have. 
But the risks to people, property and the environment from creating 
this unnatural condition should not be used to justify a wholesale 
return to nearly-unrestricted timber cutting, as some seem to what.
  We need instead to have a careful, appropriate program of fuel 
reduction that is based on good science and focused where it is most 
needed--on the at-risk communities in the wildland/urban interface. The 
purpose of this bill is to help make that a reality.

   Fact Sheet on Bill To Improve Implementation of National Fire Plan

       The scale and intensity of forest fires in 2000 made that 
     fire season one of the worst in 50 years. In response, the 
     Agriculture and Interior Departments revised fire-management 
     policies and congress approved increases in funding 
     accompanied by policy directives. This combination of 
     policies and directives is known as the National Fire Plan.
       A major part of the plan is reduction of hazardous fuels, 
     in order to lessen the intensity of future fires. The primary 
     agencies doing this work on federal and tribal lands are the 
     Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National 
     Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs. Methods used include burning 
     (``prescribed fires''), mechanical thinning, vegetation 
     control (defensible space), and timber cutting.
       The fire plan calls for giving priority to fuel-reduction 
     projects that will reduce the risk to communities in the 
     ``wildland/urban interface'' (where development borders or 
     intermingles with forested areas).


                               GAO REPORT

       GAO reviewed the implementation of the fuel-reduction part 
     of the National Fire Plan and reported the results in 
     January, 2002 with several recommendations for improvements. 
     This bill is based on that GAO report.


                                THE BILL

       Purpose.--The purpose of the bill is to improve 
     implementation of the fuel-reduction aspects of the National 
     Fire Plan in the wildland/urban interface.
       What the Bill Does.--The bill would:
       Require Interior and Agriculture Departments to establish 
     an interagency council to coordinate fire plan 
     implementation, as recommended by GAO.
       Require the coordinating council to develop consistent 
     criteria to identify communities in the wildland/urban 
     interface at most risk from fire, as recommended by GAO. The 
     council would have 180 days to do this.
       Require development of a comprehensive long-term strategy 
     for implementing the National Fire Plan, with quantifiable 
     annual and long-term performance measures to assess progress 
     in reducing risks to most vulnerable communities.
       Require the coordinating council to collect data needed to 
     enable Interior and Agriculture Departments to determine best 
     ways to use removed fuel materials, as recommended by GAO.
       Require the coordinating council to consult with State, 
     local, and tribal officials and provide for public comments.
       Require that fuel-reduction work give priority to 
     communities in the wildland/urban interface most at risk.
       Require a progress report from Interior and Agriculture 
     Departments no later than one year after enactment.


                            Results in Brief

       Our work has shown that a single focal point is critical 
     for efforts--such as reducing severe wildland fires and the 
     vegetation that fuels them--that involve many federal 
     agencies as well as state and local governments, the private 
     sector, and private individuals. However, over a year after 
     the Congress substantially increased funds to reduce 
     hazardous fuels, the federal effort still lacks clearly 
     defined and effective leadership. Rather than a single focal 
     point, authority and responsibility remain fragmented among 
     Interior, the Forest Service, and the states. In a December 
     2001 report for the Department of the Interior, the National 
     Academy of Public Administration recommended that, to provide 
     the required leadership, the Secretaries of the Interior and 
     of Agriculture should establish an interagency national 
     council to implement the Federal Wildland Fire Management 
     Policy as well as hazardous fuels reduction and other key 
     elements of the National Fire Plan, such as fire suppression.
       A sound framework to ensure that funds appropriated to 
     reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient, effective, 
     and timely manner is needed. Such a framework is grounded in 
     federal wildland fire management policies, the National Fire 
     Plan, and Congressional direction. This framework includes, 
     among other things, (1) consistent criteria to identify and 
     prioritize wildland-urban interface communities within the 
     vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from severe 
     wildlands fires; (2) clearly defined and outcome-oriented 
     goals and objectives, as well as quantifiable long-term and 
     annual performance measures, to assess progress in reducing 
     the risks of severe wildland fires in wildland-urban 
     interface areas as well as in other areas; (3) a 
     comprehensive long-term strategy that incorporates the 
     criteria, goals, objectives, and measures; and (4) yearly 
     performance plans and reports. However, just as leadership 
     for reducing hazardous fuels is fragmented among Interior, 
     the Forest Service, and the states, so too is implementation 
     of a performance accountability framework. As a result, (1) 
     high-risk communities have not been identified and 
     prioritized, (2) multiple strategies have been developed with 
     different goals and objectives, (3) quantifiable indicators 
     of performance have not been developed to measure progress in 
     reducing risks, and (4) annual plans and reports that have 
     been developed do not describe what will be accomplished with 
     the appropriated funds. Therefore, it is not possible to 
     determine if the $796 million appropriated for hazardous 
     fuels reduction in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 is targeted to 
     the communities and other areas at highest risk of severe 
     wildland fires.
       Federal land management agencies do not have adequate data 
     for making informed decisions and measuring the agencies' 
     progress in reducing hazardous fuels. These processes require 
     accurate, complete, and comparable data. The infusion of 
     hundreds of millions of dollars of new money for hazardous 
     fuels reduction activities for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and 
     the expectation of sustained similar funding for these 
     activities in future fiscal years accentuate the need for 
     accurate, complete, and comparable data. However, the five 
     federal land management agencies have not initiated the 
     research needed to better identify and prioritize wildland-
     urban interface communities within the vicinity of federal 
     lands that are at high risk from wildland fire. Moreover, the 
     agencies are not collecting the data required to determine if 
     changes are needed to expedite the project-planning process. 
     They are also not collecting the data needed to measure the 
     effectiveness of efforts to dispose of the large amount of 
     brush, small trees, and other vegetation that must be removed 
     to reduce the risk of severe wildland fire.
       We agree with the National Academy of Public Administration 
     that an interagency national council is needed to provide the 
     strategic direction, leadership, coordination, conflict 
     resolution, and oversight and evaluation necessary to ensure 
     that funds appropriated to implement the hazardous fuels 
     reduction, as well as other elements of the National Fire 
     Plan, are spent in an efficient, effective, and timely 
     manner. However, even though the September 2000 National Fire 
     Plan--prepared at the request of the President of the United 
     States--directed them to establish a similar Cabinet-level 
     coordinating team, the Secretaries of the Interior and of 
     Agriculture have not done so. Therefore, we suggest that the 
     Congress consider directing the Secretaries to immediately 
     establish the council. In addition, we suggest that the 
     Congress consider directing the Secretaries to consolidate 
     under the council the current fragmented implementation of a 
     sound performance accountability framework. We also recommend 
     that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture gather

[[Page E328]]

     the data to make more informed decisions and to measure the 
     agencies' progress in reducing hazardous fuels. The 
     departments of Agriculture and the Interior generally agreed 
     with our recommendations. However, they were concerned that 
     we had not given them enough credit for several actions taken 
     or underway related to enhancing interagency leadership; 
     establishing a framework to ensure that funds appropriated to 
     reduce hazardous fuels are spent in an efficient, effective, 
     and timely manner; and undertaking adequate research and data 
     collection efforts. Where appropriate, we have included 
     reference to these activities.

     

                          ____________________