[Senate Report 108-252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 469
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-252
======================================================================
SOUTHWEST FOREST HEALTH AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
_______
March 29, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Domenici, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2696]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the Act (H.R. 2696) to establish Institutes to
demonstrate and promote the use of adaptive ecosystem
management to reduce the risk of wildfires, and restore the
health of fire-adapted forest and woodland ecosystems of the
interior West, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the Act do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
The purpose of H.R. 2696 is to establish institutes to
demonstrate and promote the use of adaptive ecosystem
management and collaborative processes to reduce the risk of
wildfires, and restore the health of fire-adapted forest and
woodland ecosystems in the interior West.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
Research shows a trend towards large, severe, and frequent
wildfires in the dry forests and woodland ecosystems of the
interior West. This trend is a symptom of unhealthy forests,
and there is a significant focus on conducting hazardous fuel
reduction treatments to reduce the risk of severe wildfire and
to restore the health of these forests. However, the science
behind these treatments is limited and still evolving, and it
is not always readily available to and utilized by land
managers. As a result, many forest fuel reduction treatments
fail to restore these unhealthy forests and effectively reduce
the risk of unnatural wildfire.
The quality of treatments must be improved to accomplish
long-term fire risk reduction and restore forest health.
Treatments should start with solid science and proceed with
adaptive ecosystem management. They also should be developed to
meet the practical needs of managers. To do so, more financial
resources, collaboration, and outreach is necessary. H.R. 2969
would facilitate these efforts.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 2696 was introduced on July 10, 2003, by
Representatives Renzi, Hawarth, Kolbe, McInnis, Pearce, and
Trancredo. Congressman Udall is a cosponsor. The Committee on
Resources reported the bill with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute by unanimous consent on November 21, 2003. On
February 24, 2004, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
2696 as amended, by a voice vote. A companion measure, S. 32,
was introduced by Senators Kyl, Allard, Bingaman, Campbell, and
Domenici on January 7, 2003. Senators Jeffords and McCain are
co-sponsors. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held
a hearing on S. 32 on February 27, 2003. S. Hrg. 108-10. The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 2696
favorably reported without an amendment on March 10, 2004.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an
open business session on March 10, 2004, by a unanimous voice
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R.
2696.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 provides the short title.
Section 2 sets forth findings, and is self-explanatory.
Section 3 provides purposes of the measure. Section 3
incorporates changes requested by the Administration and House
members to emphasize the need to synthesize and adopt
scientific findings from conventional research, to facilitate
the transfer of interdisciplinary knowledge, and for the
institutes to collaborate with the federal agencies and assist
federal and non-federal land managers in providing information
to the public.
Section 4 defines terms used in the legislation. Section 4
incorporates changes requested by the Administration and House
members, including: more complete definitions of ``adaptive
ecosystem management'' and ``restoration'', and definitions for
``subdominant trees'', ``overstocked stands'', ``resilience''
and ``dry forest and woodland ecosystem''. Dry forest and
woodland ecosystems include dry forests dominated by Ponderosa
Pine and associated woodland types include interior Ponderosa
Pine, Pinyon-Juniper, Arizona Cypress, and interior Douglas-fir
(commonly referred to as low elevation dry mixed conifer).
Section 5 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to establish
three institutes to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem
management to reduce the risk of wildlife and restore the
health of dry forests and woodland ecosystems in the interior
West. The institutes are to be located at Northern Arizona
University in Flagstaff, Arizona; at New Mexico Highlands
University in Las Vegas, New Mexico; and in the State of
Colorado. This section establishes the duties and
qualifications of the institutes, requires annual work plans,
and authorizes the establishment of additional institutes in
the future. Section 5 incorporates changes requested by the
Administration, including a list of specific duties of the
institutes.
Section 6 requires the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior to provide
financial and technical assistance to the institutes to carry
out the duties of the institutes, to the extent that funds are
appropriated. The Secretary is directed to encourage Federal
agencies to use, on a cooperative basis, the information and
expertise provided by the institutes. The Secretary is
authorized to accept funds from other Federal agencies, and
support and encourage educational opportunities. Additionally,
the Secretaries are authorized to promulgate regulations to
carry out the legislation.
Section 7 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to complete a
detailed evaluation of each institute five years after the date
of enactment of this legislation and every 5 years thereafter.
If the Secretary determines that an institute does not qualify
for further Federal assistance, then no further funding shall
be provided to the institute until such time as the
qualifications of the institute are reestablished to the
satisfaction of the Secretaries. Section 7 incorporates changes
requested by the Administration and House members, including a
description of the specific activities to be evaluated.
Section 8 authorizes $15,000,000 per year for
implementation of the Act and incorporates the Administration's
suggestion that no funds authorized under the Act may be used
to construct facilities.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of the costs of this measure has
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2696, the
Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Doulgas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2696--Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004
Summary: H.R. 2696 would authorize the appropriation of $15
million a year for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish
and provide assistance to three research institutes. Those
institutes would develop strategies to reduce the risk of
wildfires and enhance the health of forests in certain western
states. CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would
cost $2 million in 2004 and $86 million over the 2004-2009
period, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts. H.R.
2696 would not affect direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 2696 contains no governmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this
estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 2696 will be enacted in fiscal
year 2004 and that authorized amounts will be appropriated each
year as specified in the legislation. Estimates of outlays are
based on historical spending patterns for similar activities.
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2696 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level....................................... 15 15 15 15 15 15
Estimated Outlays......................................... 2 10 20 21 18 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2696
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. The act would authorize the appropriation
of federal funds to establish and fund research institutes that
could be located at state universities in Arizona, New Mexico,
and Colorado. Participation by these states would be voluntary.
Previous CBO estimate: On September 30, 2003, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2696 as ordered reported
by the House Committee on Resources on September 24, 2003. The
two versions of this legislation are identical. Differences in
our estimates of outlays reflect a change in the assumed
enactment date.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Selena Caldera.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out H.R. 2696.
The bill is not a regulator measure in the sense of
imposing Government-established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of H.R. 2696.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
On March 11, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting
forth executive views on H.R. 2696. These reports had not been
received at the time the report on H.R. 2696 was filed. When
the report becomes available, the Chairman will request that
they be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of
the Senate. The testimony provided by the Department of
Agriculture at the Subcommittee hearing on S. 32 follows:
Statement of Jim Reaves, Director, Vegetation Management & Protection
Research, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Jim Reaves,
Director, Vegetation Management & Protection Research. With me
today is David Cleaves, National Program Leader for Fire
Systems Research. I would like to present the Administration's
views on S. 32--the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire
Prevention Act of 2003 and S. 278--the Mount Naomi Wilderness
Boundary Adjustment Act.
S. 32--The Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003
S. 32 would establish three institutes in the interior West
that would promote the use of adaptive ecosystem management to
reduce the risk of wildfires and improve the health of forest
and woodland ecosystems. We support the intent of S. 32 to
institutionalize research on adaptive management processes and
ensure that sound scientific research products reach, and are
utilized by, land managers in the field. We have some concerns
regarding how the bill is currently drafted and would like to
work with the sponsors on modifications to the bill. We commend
Senator Kyl and the other sponsors of this bill for recognizing
the importance of research needs in this area.
A trend that has become increasingly apparent during the
last few years is that wildland fires, especially in the West,
are becoming larger and burning hotter. These fires are
increasingly more difficult to control and cause much more
environmental damage. During the 2002 fire season nearly 73,000
fires burned 7.2 million ares and damaged or destroyed 3,000
structures. While most of this fire damage was in the West, the
potential for significant property losses and resource impacts
from wildland fire and degradation of forest health occurs in
many other areas of the country. The issues and problems of
fire and fuel management are truly national in scope.
In addition to the direct damage caused by wildfires,
harmful non-indigenous plant species such as cheatgrass invade
burned over areas, predispose them to even greater fire risk,
and threaten healthy ecosystems and biological diversity.
Forests where fire has been excluded are also at increased risk
from insect and disease infestations; and can experience
significant shifts in composition away from the most desirable
tree species for wood products or wildfire.
We agree with S. 32 that meeting these challenges
effectively and efficiently requires a solid foundation in
scientific knowledge and the ability to rapidly convert new
scientific insights into technology and tools. We also agree
that more research attention should be given to fire and forest
health, not only in the interior West, but also throughout the
U.S.
current fire research
Congress recognized the need for scientific information and
tools to support fuel and fire management programs and
established the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) in 1998. The
JFSP is a partnership of six federal wildland management and
research organizations represented by a 10-member Governing
Board that oversees and manages the program. Since its
inception the JFSP has partnered with 45 universities and
funded 178 research projects in 43 states, Puerto Rico, and the
District of Columbia.
Beginning in 2001, additional research funds were made
available through the National Fire Plan. National Fire Plan
research, led by 78 research teams in the Forest Service
regional research stations addresses firefighting, fuels
management, restoration and rehabilitation, and community
preparedness to directly support the goals of the Ten-Year
Comprehensive Fire Strategy. The NFP-funded research teams
support research in all 50 states, including 329 cooperative
studies with 56 universities, non-government organizations, and
private sector partners across the country. In addition to
university partnerships, both the JFSP and the NFP are working
with State and local agencies, not-for-profit groups such as
Tall Timbers Research Station and The Nature Conservancy, as
well as several for-profit companies. More than one third of
the NFP funding in the first two years of the program has been
invested with universities and other partners.
Research conducted under both the JFSP and the NFP
addresses national and regional priorities and receives
national level oversight to ensure coordination and
applicability of products. Funds are allocated competitively
with the involvement of fire managers and other users in the
determination of needs and the selection of projects.
Accountability is assured through annual progress and
accomplishment reports. The strength of the two programs is
their ability to design their research with the help of
managers in the agencies and to deliver research results and
tools through established training programs and other
mechanisms.
S. 32 focuses on the problem of fire research in a portion
of the interior West. However, wildland fire risks and forest
health concerns are national in scale and growing in size and
complexity. We agree that many problems need to be addressed on
a regional basis. We also believe that the scarcity of funding
for fire research relative to the problem demands a national
perspective and national oversight. In particular, the measure
appears to create an expectation that affected agencies will be
required to provide allocations to the centers without regard
to overall budgetary constraints, and lead to a further
diluting of scarce fire research funding. Oversight and
coordination are necessary to assure that critical diversity of
scientific talent and critical funding masses be directed at
problems for protection of all regions and minimize disruptions
to other ongoing research endeavors.
recommendations
We think S. 32 should not only address the problem of fire
in the interior West, but also address this issue nationwide.
This approach would enhance existing collaborative efforts to
investigate and develop management tools that would enable
public and private land managers to manage fires and prevent
the spread of invasive species throughout the Nation.
Some changes we recommend for S. 32 include:
Clarify the definition of adaptive
management and the scope of work of the centers
relating to forest and rangeland ecosystems research;
Ensure that research comports with criteria
related to quality, relevance and performance;
Participate in meeting national needs on
complex problems and permit the Departments latitude in
the identification of the optimal locations for the
establishment of the centers created under this bill;
Provide federal research and land manager
oversight of the program, including setting of
priorities and direction, to lead to selection of
projects and products that are awarded on a merit-based
competitive, and peer reviewed process;
Ensure accountability through ongoing
monitoring and periodic evaluation of funded
activities;
Build on existing fire research and
technology transfer capacity to avoid unnecessary
duplication of efforts and resources;
Improve coordination of existing federal,
state, university, and private research capacity, and
establish non-federal cost-share requirements; and
Utilize and improve existing authorities for
centers of excellence such as Cooperative Ecosystem
Studies Unit program and the granting programs of the
Cooperative States Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee as it further
considers S. 32.
S. 278--Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act
The Department supports S. 278, a bill that would adjust
the boundary of the Mount Naomi Wilderness in the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest in Utah. We believe the boundary adjustment
will create a higher level of wilderness value by improving the
area's solitude, scenery, and pristine qualities. We supported
similar legislation that was considered during the 107th
Congress.
The boundary adjustment would exclude approximately 31
acres of land currently part of the Mount Naomi Wilderness and,
subject to with valid existing rights, would add 31 acres to
the wilderness area. The bill also requires the Secretary to
manage the 31 additional acres pursuant to the Utah Wilderness
Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-428).
This adjustment would allow for the alignment of the
Bonneville Shoreline trail, which is a multi-county
recreational trail. The trail is designed predominately for
heavy non-motorized use, which does not conform to use a
wilderness trail. The boundary adjustment would also eliminate
the need for a power line easement within the wilderness area,
which is also a non-conforming use.
This concludes my statement and we look forward to working
with the Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the Act H.R. 2696 as
ordered reported.