** New Time ** Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests Hearing

The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on the implementation of Public Law 108-148 (The Healthy Forests Restoration Act).

Archived Webcast

If you are having trouble viewing this hearing, please try the following steps:

Clear your browser's cache - Guide to clearing browser cache
Close and re-open your browser
If the above two steps do not help, please try another browser. Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge have the highest level of compatibility with our player.

Witness Panel 1

Hon. Nina Rose Hatfield

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget

Department of the Interior
Read statement
Witness Panel 1

Hon. Nina Rose Hatfield
Statement of Nina Rose Hatfield

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget

U.S. Department of the Interior

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

U.S. Senate

Oversight Hearing on “Implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act”

July 19, 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (Interior) implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) [P.L.108-148] and our agencies’ activities to reduce hazardous fuels and improve forest and rangeland health on the public lands.

Four years ago, wildland fires swept across portions of the western United States, burning millions of acres. In southwestern Oregon, the Biscuit Fire burned almost 500,000 acres in 2002 and cost more than $150 million to suppress. In response to this and other large wildland fires, the President and the Congress acted in rapid succession in 2002 and 2003 to authorize Federal land management agencies to expedite action to reduce the amount of hazardous fuels on Federal lands, reduce the threat of wildland fire, and restore the health of our public forests and rangelands.

The land management agencies of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have moved aggressively to implement these new administrative and statutory authorities. These include streamlined authorities to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provided by HFRA and the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI). The BLM and the Forest Service use the stewardship contracting authority provided by the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Section 323 of Public Law 108-7) to reduce hazardous fuels while providing economic benefits to local communities. HFRA has encouraged local communities to work with Federal agencies to prepare Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP), and each of the Interior agencies is actively involved in assisting States and local governments. All these tools emphasize the importance of partnerships in reducing the risk of wildland fire.

Using all of our authorities in close coordination with State, local, and Tribal interests, Interior’s agencies have treated 7 million acres since Fiscal Year 2002, which includes approximately 5.9 million acres through the hazardous fuels reduction program and approximately 1.1 million acres of landscape restoration accomplished through other land management activities. For three consecutive years, Interior has exceeded program targets for both total acres treated and for treating acres within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). We have tripled the amount of WUI acres treated since FY 2001 – treating 543,000 acres in FY 2005 compared to 164,000 acres in FY 2001 – and increased the WUI share of total program acreage from 22 percent in FY 2001 to 44 percent planned for FY 2006.

A brief description of Interior agencies’ use of these new authorities follows.

Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI)

On August 22, 2002, the President announced his Healthy Forests Initiative. The HFI directed the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture, together with the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, to improve regulatory processes in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fires by restoring forest health.

In response, the agencies developed administrative procedures to expedite needed actions, including two new categorical exclusions (CX) under NEPA that allow the agencies to proceed with high-priority hazardous fuels treatments (prescribed fire and thinning) and rehabilitation of areas previously burned without further analysis if a collaboratively selected treatment meets specific criteria related to size, location, and method. The HFI also resulted in streamlined consultation procedures on threatened and endangered species with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and national Marine Fisheries Service for National Fire Plan projects.

Interior agencies have used the HFI categorical exclusions extensively because a hazardous fuels reduction project that meets the CX criteria can be implemented rapidly. This tool is especially valuable, for example, in treating areas of a WUI that could be rapidly thinned to reduce the risk of wildfire, or to accomplish on post-fire reseeding or erosion control measures before a rainy season begins. In FY 2004, Interior’s bureaus used the HFI tools to treat approximately 40,000 acres. In FY 2005, HFI tools were used to treat approximately 190,000 acres. This fiscal year, we plan to use these tools on over 1,000 treatments to reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 200,000 acres.

For example, in the Castle Rock area near Vale, Oregon, the BLM used the CX authority to implement treatments that both reduce existing fire hazard and improve forest health. This area contains one of the few remaining stands of old growth Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir left in the area. By 2003, large quantities of dead, woody debris had dramatically increased the stand’s susceptibility to disease and insect infestation, and significantly raised the potential for catastrophic stand replacement fire. The BLM sought input from local ranchers and the Paiute Indian Tribe in planning a fuels reduction program.

In the spring of 2004, the CX was approved and fuels reduction activities were implemented on-the-ground. A total of 850 acres of Ponderosa pine stands are being treated using a combination of under-story thinning, hand piling, and prescribed fire. In FY 2005, 200 acres of pine were treated. Approximately 350 acres of North Slope Douglas fir will be considered for fuels reduction activities in the near future. Early analysis suggests that commercial thinning in conjunction with fuels reduction activities would significantly reduce the existing fire hazard and improve forest health. Fuels reduction costs may be mitigated as a result of a stewardship contract.

Stewardship Contracting

Congress authorized the BLM and extended the Forest Service to use stewardship contracts, which are intended to provide economic benefits to local communities, to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest and rangeland health, in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Section 323 of Public Law 108-7).

BLM has progressively increased the use of stewardship contracting from 2 contracts on 300 acres in FY 2003, to 22 contracts on 6100 acres in FY 2004, and 58 contracts covering 15,700 acres in FY 2005. By the end of FY 2006, the BLM will have used stewardship contracting authority, cumulatively over three years, for over 100 projects to restore forest health and treat fuels on over 35,000 acres of public lands. These projects are located across all of the States that BLM manages in the west, including Alaska.

An example of a successful stewardship project is the 10-year Gerber Stewardship project which began in FY 2004 in south central Oregon. When completed, it will have treated 10,000 acres to improve forest and woodland health, improve rangeland health, reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI, improve wildlife and fisheries habitat, and riparian enhancements. It is now in its third year, with 1500 acres under contract, and has sold 750 MBF and 15,000 tons of biomass for energy development.

Another example is underway in Canon City, Colorado, where the BLM awarded two stewardship contracts to treat 300 acres per year. The contracts will reduce fuels in the WUI and foster forest health improvement and wildlife habitat enhancement. Additionally, the contracts will produce 3,000 tons of biomass and 235,000 board feet of saw timber, providing woody biomass to Aquila Power and logs to local sawmills. In 2004, the Aquila plant generated 730 megawatts of electricity using woody biomass, and may expand their use of biomass under a state law requiring a green energy portfolio of 10 percent by 2015. In FY 2006, the BLM is soliciting a longer-term stewardship contract for multi-year treatments. The saw timber and biomass by-products of this contract will help provide stability and long-term supplies of biomass for energy production.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA)

Through the HFRA, signed into law in December of 2003, Congress provided statutory authorities that complement or expand upon the HFI tools already in use by the agencies. Certain authorities in the HFRA are available to both the BLM and the Forest Service (Titles I and II), while other titles apply exclusively to the Forest Service.

Title I of HFRA authorizes the collaborative development and expedited environmental analysis of hazardous fuels reduction projects on public lands that are: (1) at risk of catastrophic wildland fire; and (2) meet one of the following four criteria. The projects are:

located in wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas;

identified as condition class 2 and 3 (at moderate to high risk of catastrophic fire) where there are at-risk municipal water supplies;

in watersheds that provide habitat for threatened and endangered species where catastrophic wildfire threatens the survival of the species and fuels treatments can reduce the risk of wildfire; and

where windthrow, insect infestation, or disease epidemics threaten forest or rangeland resources.

HFRA authorizes the agencies to streamline environmental assessments to fulfill NEPA requirements, complementing the categorical exclusion authority in HFI. In FY 2005, the BLM used HFRA authorities to treat approximately 9,968 acres in 52 treatments. In FY 2006, the BLM identified 66 HFRA projects covering 28,000 acres. For example:

In the area near La Pine, Oregon, the BLM used the HFRA Title I authority to plan a treatment of 7,000 acres to be implemented in FY 2006. The goals of this WUI project include fuels reduction, creation of defensible space, forest and rangeland health, and protection of a municipal watershed. The project will also yield biomass.

The BLM also has used the Title I authority to plan projects in non-WUI areas of Nevada and Utah. Near Winnemucca, NV, a 1,000-acre fuels reduction and rangeland health project will be implemented in FY 2006. Near Price, UT, Title I authority was used to plan a 500-acre WUI treatment to accomplish defensible space, fuels reduction, and ecosystem restoration.

The Department is committed to utilizing the tools Congress provided through the HFRA. To that end, we will continue to work to improve our performance in implementing the Act and to ensure oversight at both the field and headquarters levels.

Typically bureaus perform NEPA work one or more fiscal years prior to the fiscal year when the on-the-ground treatments are accomplished. Treatments done in fiscal years 2004-2006 often had their NEPA analysis performed before HFI or HFRA authorities were available. As those treatments are completed, the number of HFI/HFRA supported treatments is increasing as is the share of new NEPA work performed using these tools.

The growth in acres treated via HFI/HFRA tools has been dramatic, from over 40,000 acres in FY 2004 to approximately 200,000 acres in FY 2005, with an estimated 230,000 acres to be treated this fiscal year.

Evidencing our commitment to using these important authorities, in FY 2006 the agencies are using HFI/HFRA tools to meet their NEPA requirements on nearly 80 percent of all new fuels treatment projects.



Community Wildfire Protection Plans

A key provision in HFRA encourages local communities to work with Federal agencies to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). These plans build on community and resource protection activities carried out under the National Fire Plan, and assist local communities, as well as State, Federal, and Tribal cooperators, to clarify and refine priorities, roles and responsibilities in the protection of life, property, and critical infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface.

State and Federal land management agencies and local communities can use CWPPs to determine hazardous fuels treatments in the wildland-urban interface. As of March 1, 2006, nationwide 650 CWPPs covering 2,700 communities at risk have been completed and 600 are in preparation. To date in FY 2006, the BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have assisted in 55 separate WUI communities with mitigation, fire management, or risk assessment plans.

In Idaho, for example, all counties have completed CWPPs that include prioritized fuels treatments for all of Idaho’s priority wildland-urban interface areas.

Idaho County is an example of one county that revised their CWPP to ensure their highest hazard areas are included, and now has a plan that meets all the requirements of HFRA--such as WUI definitions or boundaries, prioritized fuels/community assistance project lists, and agreement by local government, local fire departments, and the State of Idaho on the contents of the plan. As a result, BLM is currently working with several other local and state entities to conduct fuels treatments in Elk City—one of Idaho’s highest priority communities.

The BLM is able to tier its hazardous fuels project planning to completed CWPP’s. One such example is in central Oregon where the combination of increased fuel and ignition sources have resulted in more acres burned in wildfires over the past five years than burned in the previous century. To address these issues and to identify treatment priorities, a multi-jurisdictional group of agencies, organizations, and individuals gathered to create a series of community wildfire protection plans.

As of September 2005, five community wildfire protection plans have been completed and three others are nearing completion, covering the majority of Crook, Northern Klamath, Jefferson and Deschutes Counties. Using a risk-assessment model, planning committee members identified top priorities to mitigate wildfire. These priorities include risk potential for a fire to occur; hazard potential for a wildfire to spread once ignited; values at risk, such as identification of key infrastructure and ecological and cultural values; structural vulnerability elements of a structure that affect the likelihood of it burning; and protection capability to prepare for, respond to and suppress wildfire. General recommendations included developing year round water sources, continuing to reduce fuels on private lands, improving defensible space, and developing or improving emergency evacuation routes.

One of the greatest concerns identified in the CWPPs is the fuels buildup on Federal lands adjacent to communities. Consequently, the Prineville District BLM and the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests will be working together to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire around the communities at risk. As part of the five-year plan, forests and rangelands in the WUI in central Oregon will receive a variety of treatments, including thinning, mowing, chipping, and burning. While not designed to eliminate fire, the goal of these treatments is to modify the vegetation to the point that ground fire is the norm, not the exception.

Title II of HFRA provides statutory authorization for the agencies to increase the utilization of biomass. Interior is currently expanding its capacity to encourage community-based enterprises that help achieve forest and rangeland health objectives. Fuels projects and post-fire recovery can produce significant amounts of small diameter woody materials (biomass is predominantly the by-product of hazardous fuels removal projects that reduce the risk of wildland fire and improve forest health). Many small communities have lost conventional sawmills and other utilization infrastructure. Better coordinated technical support, investment and incentives can enhance development of infrastructure and help commercialize new technologies that make profitable use of forest and rangeland resources made available through emergency salvage and recovery projects.

The strategy for increasing biomass utilization from BLM-managed lands draws on the authorities provided in the HFI, the National Fire Plan, HFRA, and stewardship contracting under the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Section 323 of Public Law 108-7). In FY 2004 (the first full fiscal year in which the BLM had this authority), the BLM offered nearly 30,000 tons of biomass, mostly through stewardship contracts that also benefited local communities. In FY 2005, 71,000 tons of wood by-products were offered through contracts by the BLM. The target for FY 2006 is to offer 60,000 tons of biomass through contracts or agreements. When treating areas for hazardous fuels reduction, the BLM’s goal for FY 2006 is to offer biomass in 10 percent of the BLM’s mechanical treatment projects in forests and woodlands, increasing to 50 percent by FY 2008.

In addition, the BLM has undertaken six biomass demonstration projects—in Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, and two projects in Oregon—in which local field offices are working with nearby communities to develop strategies for using biomass to generate energy.

In Emmett, Idaho, the BLM together with other Federal and State land management agencies and private interests is working to secure a sustainable supply for a new 19 megawatt biomass plant. By-products from hazardous fuels reduction efforts as well as rangeland and forest health projects on BLM managed lands in southeast Idaho will contribute to the supply for this plant. A co-generation lumber mill is also being developed to further take advantage of available biomass material. Also, the BLM continues to support opportunities for biomass utilization in central Idaho including Bennett Forest Industries’ establishment of a woody biofuels energy generation plant at the company’s new lumber mill in Grangeville, Idaho.

In the Prineville, Oregon demonstration project, with the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribes), the BLM and Forest Service in central Oregon agreed to offer 80,000 bone dry tons (8,000 acres) of woody biomass material annually. This long-term commitment to provide biomass to the mill at Warm Springs will provide a stable supply of biomass to enlarge the market for biomass energy. With the increased supply of renewable energy, the Tribes can market energy to power homes, or direct that energy to new businesses. Thus, woody debris that used to go up in smoke or clog landfills will now be converted to heat, light, and economic development. Based on this MOU, the Tribes are seeking a power purchase agreement and bank financing to develop a 15.5 megawatt cogeneration plant.

The Department of the Interior also has adopted a standard contract provision, for use by all Interior agencies, which allows for the removal of biomass as part of all forest and rangeland thinning projects or any other contracts that cut vegetation. To help increase the market for materials made of small wood and wood biomass, the agency has added a factor to their procurement solicitations to encourage the purchase of bio-based materials. In addition, Section 210 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes Federal grants for biomass use.

Tribal Forest Protection Act

The Tribal Forest Protection Act (Public Law 108-278) [TFPA] was passed in July 2004 in response to devastating wildfires that crossed from Federal lands onto Tribal lands. The TFPA provides a tool for Tribes to propose work and enter into contracts and agreements with the Forest Service or BLM to reduce threats on Federal lands adjacent to Indian trust land and Indian communities.

The TFPA focuses on BLM or Forest Service lands that 1) border or are adjacent to Tribal lands; and 2) pose a fire, disease, or other threat to the Indian trust land or community or are in need of restoration. An excellent example of Tribes partnering with the Federal agencies under the auspices of the TFPA includes a recently signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon and the BLM and US Forest Service.

As mentioned in our discussion of biomass utilization, under this MOU the BLM and Forest Service in central Oregon agreed to offer to the Tribes 80,000 bone dry tons (8,000 acres) of woody biomass material annually as the Tribes conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal lands adjacent to the Warm Springs reservation.

The MOU addresses the key components of HFRA and TFPA by focusing efforts on treating hazardous fuels and restoring the health of forests to minimize large catastrophic wildfires. This partnership recognizes that over the past decade, central Oregon and the inland West have experienced unnaturally large wildfires that have put many values at risk, including people’s lives and homes, sensitive or protected fish and wildlife habitat, culturally and Tribally significant resources, critical infrastructure, soil productivity, aesthetics, clean air and other valued components of forests and communities.

Challenges We Face

We thank the Congress for the authority provided through the HFRA. In addition, as note above, we utilize appropriate administrative authorities in planning and conducting certain fuels treatment and post-catastrophic event activities. Despite these ongoing efforts, challenges abound. Certain post-fire situations require a rapid, coordinated response in order to assure effectiveness of recovery and restoration efforts. Moreover, the environmental threats typically do not stop at ownership boundaries. Treatments limited to one side of a jurisdictional boundary may be less effective than actions coordinated within a broader ecosystem. Current authorities and procedures make coordinated decision making among Federal, State, and local land managers difficult. For example, the BLM missed an opportunity to coordinate salvage and restoration activities with an adjacent landowner in the area burned by the Timbered Rock Fire in 2002 in Oregon. The adjacent landowner moved ahead immediately with salvaging and replanting the burned area, and within one year salvaged and replanted all 9,000 acres of his burned lands. By comparison, because of the procedural requirements to salvage and re-plant on Federal lands, most of the BLM portion of the burned area is not yet fully treated. In such cases, coordination among Federal, State, and local land managers would increase the likelihood of effective restoration on a landscape or watershed basis.

Conclusion

We greatly appreciate the ongoing support that the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee have provided for our use of the authorities of HFI, stewardship contracting, and HFRA to reduce hazardous fuels and restore the health of the public lands. Using these authorities, the Interior agencies are expediting projects to treat hazardous fuels, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, restore healthy conditions to public forests and rangelands, and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildland fire to at-risk communities. We will continue to partner with other Federal agencies, as well as State, local, and Tribal governments, to accomplish additional fuels reduction and restoration projects.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Chief Dale Bosworth

U.S. Forest Service
Read statement
Witness Panel 1

Chief Dale Bosworth
Statement of

Dale Bosworth
Chief, U.S. Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture

Before the
United States Senate

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
Concerning
Healthy Forests Restoration Act Implementation

July 19, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Administration’s progress in implementing the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) which includes the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The Act is a significant piece of legislation that earned bipartisan support in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush on December 3, 2003. HFRA recognizes that timely implementation of fuels treatment and forest and rangeland restoration projects is critical if we are to reduce the risk from severe wildland fire to rural communities and critical ecological resources.

THE HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

The HFI includes both administrative reforms and HFRA authorities that give federal managers additional tools to expedite hazardous fuel treatments and ecological restoration projects on federal land. These tools are being used to implement a wide range of treatment activities.

Beginning in 2003, through the second quarter of this year, using all available authorities, the Forest Service has treated about 8.5 million acres, including treatment of 6 million acres for hazardous fuels reduction and nearly 2.5 million acres for landscape restoration accomplished through other land management activities. Of the total, about 5.5 million acres were treated in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). This represents about 65% of the total hazardous fuels treatments in that time period.

So far, in FY 2006 the agency has treated about 1.6 million acres of which 1.1 million acres are in WUI. For FY 2006 nearly $600 million have been allocated for activities that will enable the Forest Service to continue our efforts to prevent the risk of catastrophic wildfires and restore forest and rangeland health. A more complete accounting of accomplishments can be found in the Healthy Forests Report located on the internet at www.healthyforests.gov.

The Forest Service has utilized the administrative tools provided under the Healthy Forests Initiative, for example:

In FY 2005, HFI tools were used to treat approximately 100,000 acres. This fiscal year, we plan to use these tools for about 800 treatments to reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 208,000 acres.

Categorical exclusions (CEs) have been used to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and facilitate implementation of 669 hazardous fuels treatment projects from FY 2005 through the third quarter of FY 2006.   CEs may also be applicable to another 481 hazardous fuels treatment projects that remain in various planning stages.

The counterpart regulations concerning consultation on certain National Fire Plan (NFP) projects under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These regulations streamline Section 7 consultations on many projects. The Forest Service has entered into an Alternative Consultation Agreement with the Services. The Agreement called for development of a training and certification process for making determinations under Section 7 which has now been in place for two years. More than 830 Forest Service employees have been trained and are currently certified under that process, and over 100 NFP projects have used the Counterpart Regulations.

Another important and related action is the authority provided by Congress to extend the use of stewardship contracting by the Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7, division F, section 323). Beginning in FY 2003 through May of this year the Forest Service awarded 198 stewardship contracts. We anticipate another 20 contracts this year and around 80 next year. We have just awarded the first contract under the Tribal Forest Protection Act to the Mescalero Apache tribe and continue to receive proposals to treat agency lands adjacent to tribal lands.

PROGRESS MADE ON IMPLEMENTING HFRA

In the time since HFRA was enacted, the Forest Service has taken a number of actions to implement the various titles of the Act.

Title I – Hazardous Fuels Reduction on Federal Lands

The Administration is encouraged by implementation of Title I of HFRA. While Title I treatment acres currently represent a small percentage of the total, the number of new projects entering planning is increasing as managers develop experience using these tools. In FY 2005, the Forest Service used the authority under title I of HFRA to treat approximately 23,000 acres in 71 treatments. In preparation for FY 2006, the agency planned to use the authority under title I of HFRA to treat about 62,000 acres in 138 treatments. Following the widespread damage caused by Hurricane Katrina national forest managers in Mississippi determined that the best tool available for removing hazardous fuels and restoring the forests was the authority under Title I of HFRA. This massive undertaking which began in December, 2005 and is nearing completion has resulted in about 115,000 acres treated beyond what was initially planned for the year and over 300 million board feet of downed timber sold and removed.

Title I of HFRA authorizes the Secretary to streamline environmental assessments and environmental impact statements of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects to fulfill NEPA requirements. Key provisions of title I include the collaborative development and expedited environmental analysis of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects and a pre-decisional administrative review process. Title I focuses attention on several land types : federal land in wildland-urban interface areas that include areas within or adjacent to at-risk communities; certain federal lands with at-risk municipal water supplies; federal lands that contain threatened and endangered species or their habitats where fuels treatment will provide enhanced protection from wildfire; and federal land where windthrow or blowdown, ice storm damage, or insect or disease epidemics threaten an ecosystem component or forest or rangeland resources.

The Act encourages the development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) to identify and prioritize areas for fuels treatment and to recommend types and methods of treatments in and around the WUI. The Act requires the Secretary to give priority to Forest Service project proposals that provide protection of at-risk communities or that implement the CWPPs. A recent survey of all states to determine progress in developing CWPPs found that states are reporting 654 completed CWPPs covering almost 2,700 communities, and approximately 600 additional CWPPs progress. It is important to note that a one-to-one ratio of plans to communities is not required as a single CWPP may include multiple communities.

We have observed that this collaboration between communities and local Forest Service offices has resulted in some very innovative hazardous fuels reduction projects. The Hurricane Katrina recovery project is one example of cooperation between communities and the Forest Service. Another outstanding example is the White Mountain Stewardship Project involving the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the communities of Navaho, Apache and Coconino counties in Arizona. This project integrates elements of stewardship contracting, Title I project development and the biomass grant program under Title II Section 202.

The White Mountains Stewardship Contract was awarded in August 2004 as the first 10-year stewardship contract under section 323 of Public Law 108-7. This stewardship contract is designed to restore forest health, reduce the risk of fire to communities, reduce the cost of forest thinning to taxpayers, support local economies and encourage new wood product industries and uses for the thinned wood fiber. Forest Service collaboration with citizens and conservation groups has been critical and ongoing and originally resulted in 70,500 acres of NEPA analysis completed, using tools under HFRA title I, with only one objection filed and no lawsuits. A second HFRA EA was completed in May of this year with no objections received. This decision will add another 25,000 acres to the contract.

The 10-year guaranteed supply of wood fiber enables wood product businesses to invest in equipment designed specifically to treat and mill small diameter wood. Prior to the stewardship contract, forest restoration costs were as much as $1,100 per acre. That cost now ranges from $350 to $550 per acre.

Title II – Biomass

Title II provides authority to help overcome barriers to the production and use of woody biomass material produced on fuels reduction and forest restoration projects.

Section 201 amends the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 (Title III of P.L. 106-224) to provide for research on woody biomass production and treatment. Working with the Department of Energy, USDA added specific language to the 2004 Request for Funding Proposal (RFP) to conduct this research and two research proposals were funded at $1 million each. The two projects were designed to increase the utilization of woody biomass from the wildland urban interface throughout the Southeast.

Sec. 202 authorizes the chief, in consultation with the State and Private Forestry Marketing Unit at the Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory to carry out programs to accelerate adoption of biomass technologies and to create community-based enterprises through market activities. In FY2005, 20 grants were awarded for $4.4million. In FY 2006, 18 applications, totaling almost $4.2 million were selected. Applications came in from all parts of the country with a significant number coming in from the West because of the preponderance of national forest lands, as well as significant amounts of fire class condition 3 lands.

Six of the USDA Forest Products Laboratory grants have been awarded to White Mountain Stewardship Contract-based businesses over the last two years. These grants are a vital source of “seed-money” to purchase equipment and technologies to utilize and manufacture value-added products from small-diameter wood. There are 13 businesses harvesting and utilizing wood from the stewardship contract that support 450 full-time jobs in Arizona, and 318 of these new jobs are in the local area. These 13 businesses spent over $12 million for goods and services in the local White Mountain region in the first year.

Title III – Watershed Forestry Assistance

Title III authorizes the Forest Service to provide technical, financial and related assistance to state foresters or equivalent state officials or cooperative extension officials aimed at expanding their forest stewardship capacities and to address watershed issues on non-federal forested land and potentially forested land. Title III also directs the Secretary to provide technical, financial and related assistance to Indian tribes to expand tribal stewardship capabilities to address watershed issues.

The Forest Service, working with state forestry agency personnel and tribal members, has developed separate draft guidelines to implement the State and Tribal Watershed Forestry Assistance programs.

Title IV—Insect Infestations and Related Diseases

Title IV directs the Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey to establish an accelerated program to plan, conduct, and promote systematic information gathering on forest damaging insect pests, and the diseases associated with them; to assist land managers in the development of treatments and strategies to improve forest health; and to disseminate the results of such information. Title IV directs the Secretary to carry out the program in cooperation with scientists from colleges and universities, governmental agencies and private and industrial landowners.

The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior announced in the summer of 2004 the formation of a series of partnerships to help implement HFRA in the southern United States. Since then, two landscape-scale applied Title IV silvicultural assessments on the Ozark-St.Francis National Forest were developed to address infestations of the southern pine beetle and red oak borer, which threaten forest health in the region. Another applied silvicultural assessment for maintaining habitat diversity and reducing the risk of mortality from gypsy moth and oak decline is underway on the Daniel Boone National Forest. Another assessment on the effects of silvicultural treatments for gypsy moth control is taking place on the Monongahela and Wayne National Forests.   The Forest Service also has two assessments concerning hemlock woolly adelgid agency lands in western North Carolina and on the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania.

Title V – The Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP)

HFRP is a voluntary program established to restore and enhance forest ecosystems to: 1) promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species; 2) improve biodiversity; and 3) enhance carbon sequestration.

The program is authorized through 2008. Restoring and protecting forests contributes positively to the economy of our Nation, provides biodiversity of plant and animal populations, and improves environmental quality. HRFP includes a safe harbor provision for landowners who enroll and agree, for a specified period, to restore or improve their land for threatened or endangered species habitat. In exchange, they avoid future regulatory restrictions on the use of that land protected under the Endangered Species Act.

On May 18, 2006, Under Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey announced the availability of $2.3 million for the HFRP in selected forest ecosystems. In FY 2006, HFRP will focus on habitat recovery for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker in the Lower Ouachita River Flatwood region of Arkansas, the Canada lynx in the northern boreal forest of Maine, and the gopher tortoise in the longleaf pine ecosystem along the Gulf Coast in Mississippi. The work in the Lower Ouachita River area will also benefit the very rare Ivory-billed woodpecker. Signup for this program began June 19 and ended July 7, 2006.

Title VI – Forest Inventory/ Monitoring and Early Warning Systems

Title VI directs the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program to monitor forest stands on some National Forest System lands and private lands to improve detection of and response to environmental threats.

The Forest Service announced in October 2004 a national strategy to prevent and control the threat of invasive species and non-native plants on 193 million acres of the National Forest System and to guide research and technical and financial assistance. The strategy focuses on four key elements: preventing invasive species from entering the country; finding new infestations before they spread; containing and reducing existing infestations and restoring native habitats and ecosystems. The strategy is relying on "The Early Warning System for Forest Health Threats in the United States," developed as part of HFRA, which describes for the first time, in one place, the nation's system for identifying and responding to forest health threats, and includes web sites to obtain further information.

The Forest Service is proactively identifying potential threats and treating pathways of entry that may bring invasives to the United States. For example, we are conducting surveys of ports in the Russian Far East for activity and infestations of the Asian variety of gypsy moth in cooperation with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the nation of Russia. In 1992 alone, it cost USDA $32 million to eradicate an infestation of Asian gypsy moth in the United States, so our early detection efforts could save millions of dollars in eradication costs.

To facilitate the direction in Title VI, the Forest Service has established two threat assessment centers to evaluate, on a broad scale with our federal, state and local partners, the impacts of invasive species and diseases and other threats to the health of ecosystems. The Western Threat Assessment Center established in March 2005, in Prineville, Oregon, shares facilities with the Ochoco National Forest, and employs six permanent scientific and administrative staff and a visiting scientist. The Eastern Threat Assessment Center was established in October 20004 in Asheville, North Carolina. The center is housed with the Southern Forest Research Station and plans to employ five permanent staff and five visiting scientists.

The centers are developing user oriented technology and cutting edge research on invasive species. Additionally, the Centers have initiated a major cooperative venture with NASA's Stennis Space Center to identify promising remote sensing and geospatial technologies for early detection of environmental hazards and response or susceptibility of forests to multiple stresses. This technology will be incorporated within an early warning system that will use combinations of low and high-resolution imagery with information gathered in field samples to alert managers of developing threats.

OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF HFRA

The Administration is committed to using the authorities of the HFRA. We are encouraged by the innovative applications of the HFI and HFRA authorities which truly are helping to restore healthy forest and rangeland ecosystems. I also want to assure the American people that we are doing everything we can to efficiently reduce hazardous fuels, restore healthy forests and collaborate to protect communities. In June I ordered the agency to begin an expedited review of our use of the Healthy Forests tools which includes analyzing exiting data bases, interviewing our employees, partners and stakeholders, and making field visits to selected forests. We will use this information to identify what is working well and what is not, and use this knowledge to improve the overall performance and oversight of the HFI/HFRA authorities in the hazardous fuels reduction program.

We know there is much work ahead of us. For example, small diameter woody material makes up a considerable amount of hazardous fuels but is extremely costly to remove and currently has little commercial value. We will continue working with our partners exploring opportunities to improve utilization of this material and reduce the cost of removing these hazardous fuels. We will also continue working closely with community organizations to increase public understanding of the need to reduce hazardous fuels, and to increase public awareness that the removal of some merchantable trees is a financially responsible and ecologically appropriate part of that work. We know that in the end what is important is that we are leaving a healthier, more resilient forest on the landscape for future generations.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the HFI and HFRA authorities are proving to be very helpful in our efforts to make significant improvements to the health of this country’s forests and rangelands. I would say that we also have the need for similar tools to help us recover and restore areas after natural events which are catastrophic in nature such as wildfires, wind events, ice storms and insect and disease infestations. I have testified for the administration in strong support of H.R. 4200, which we believe provides the tools to allow us to expedite recovery and restoration of lands following catastrophic events.

I would be happy to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Rick DeIaco

Director of Forestry

Village of Ruidoso
Read statement
Witness Panel 2

Mr. Rick DeIaco
Statement of

Rick DeIaco

Director of Forestry, Village of Ruidoso

Lincoln County, New Mexico

Before the

United States Senate

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Concerning

Healthy Forest Restoration Act, USDA Forest Service and Communities

July 19, 2006

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the progress of the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) and specifically on the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) and its effects on Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) communities. This testimony will reflect the relationships and collaborations with the USDA Forest Service Region 3 and the Lincoln National Forest and will suggest common themes to opportunities and challenges throughout the Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies.

BACKGROUND

Ruidoso is located in south central New Mexico in the Sacramento Mountains at 7000 feet of elevation amidst vast stands of Ponderosa pine and mixed conifers.   The population is 8,700 permanent residents with thousands of second homes and a growing number of condominiums, hotels and convention center facilities. The area is dramatically beautiful and is surrounded by the Lincoln National Forest, Mescalero Apache Reservation and to a lesser degree other federal and state lands. Tourism and enjoyment of the natural environment is the main economic driver. A ski resort with 55 trails and elevations up to 12,000 feet draw skiers throughout the winter season.   Ruidoso is four-season seasonal community.

In 2000, Ruidoso was assessed by New Mexico State Forestry and the Forest Service for its risk to catastrophic wildfire. Ruidoso was rated the most at-risk community in New Mexico and the second most at-risk in the nation. The Village Council quickly got to work and added a forester to staff and followed with a Forestry Department. It’s the only municipal Forestry Department in the state and among other charges, implements a suite of ordinances mandating fuels management on all private lands. In addition, Ruidoso recycles to compost 100% of the forest debris collected. Forest contracting companies have increased from three in 2000 to twenty licensed companies in 2006. Fifty forest industry related jobs have been created in the past five years.

In November of 2000 the Ruidoso Wildland Urban Interface Group (WUI group) was formed and has met monthly for six years.   Members include the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico State Forestry, BLM, BIA, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Lincoln County, Village of Ruidoso, Village of Ruidoso Downs, NM State Land Office, South Central Mountain RC&D, River Association, and local contractors, companies and residents. The goals of the collaborative group are to develop and implement a forest health and wildfire protection plan for Ruidoso and surrounding Lincoln County. In addition it acts as a grant opportunity watershed and think tank to develop forest strategies and assist entrepreneurs in the forest industry. In 2004, the WUI group transformed this plan into the current Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) under HFRA guidelines.

HFRA AUTHORITY

With HFRA only in its third year, Ruidoso and the WUI group thank this committee for the opportunity to suggest and catch unintended consequences so early on in the process.   From a community point of view, having an authority that allows a plan to be developed locally is an enormous incentive. However, HFRA rolled out with the promise of new dollars in the form of grants and programs to be available to communities with CWPPs for projects on county, municipal and private lands. It appears only HFRA authority is available and use is limited to projects on Federal lands with alternative funding. Communities are waiting for grants and programs to precipitate for effective work on non-federal lands.

COLLABORATION

An emerging challenge within HFRA is “teaching old dogs new tricks”. It is difficult for some line officers to look at land management from the perspective of collaborative development of goals and objectives. Some line officers have mindsets that collaboration is more rhetoric than reality. A significant paradigm change faces agency administrators and line officers. The act requires real collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities. Effective collaboration requires skill sets not previously necessary within the agency, although many line officers naturally possess these skills. Community collaboration is where the rubber meets the road and we see it.

What is the status, in that regard, of the agency workforce? One might consider the “1/3” rule here as it might apply with any large organization dealing with significant change. That is, 1/3 of agency line officers possess the skills and will easily grasp the concepts of collaboration. They will in turn maximize HFRA’s powerful tools. Another 1/3 can be taught and 1/3 lack the necessary skill sets and will struggle endlessly. Ruidoso is experiencing the latter third in an ongoing project called Perk-Grindstone. Ruidoso remains at serious risk because of this decision making and unrealized opportunities. It becomes very evident at the local level when good collaboration occurs; line officers reject pervasive institutional thinking in tough situations and look for new ways to achieve results. There are some bright spots on the Lincoln in terms of line officers possessing the correct skill sets and Ruidoso hopes their efforts translate to reduced risk to catastrophic wildfire.

Examples of how strong collaborations benefit projects are found funded by the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in New Mexico. This Forest Service grant program has enjoyed continued support from Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and has turned out close to 80 projects in the past five years. A successful project in this program must show collaboration in project development with appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, local governments, and to the degree possible, commodity, scientific and environmental interests. It is kind of like Thanksgiving dinner with the relatives you don’t see too often and may not get along with so well. The rule is that no one gets any turkey unless everyone agrees to the size of the portion. It is consensus driven. When project development is well thought out and inclusive at the front end, there is little or no objection at the public comment phase.   I would encourage review of this program as a training framework for collaboration and multi-party monitoring.

I believe developing and funding a required HFRA program to train line officers how to collaborate with communities and understanding the entrepreneurial spirit would yield great benefit. Whether it is local capacity building or bidding as the general contractor on stewardship contracting projects, non-agency people are taking risks to engage the Forest Service. These risks are real and personal. Agency line officers do not always understand that it is OK for business to make money. Line officers would benefit from knowing how to be better partners, how to assess real world situations and to arrive at realistic cost-benefit conclusions. Training programs that include targeting District Rangers and Forest Supervisors could lead to better decisions and a more informed workforce. It then could follow that, latitude at the regional level and above be afforded to progressive thinking by line officers. The result would be effective treatments, better utilization of materials and safer communities. Additional benefits would include improved workforce capabilities and ultimate savings to the taxpayer.

The next consideration is to have the appropriate performance measures that speak to a desired outcome and include measurement strategies. A paper (included) with performance goals developed by community forestry groups and the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition was submitted to the Forest Service earlier this year and could serve as a starting point. These performance goals support the training I suggest is necessary to effectively move HFRA forward. The four performance goals are:

Increase collaboration between public land communities and federal agencies.

Build and maintain capacity in public lands communities.

Improve forest and watershed condition.

Reduce risk from catastrophic wildland fire.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Probably the most glaring disconnect within HFRA is the acres target issue. It’s the hard acres versus easy acres calculations, double counting of acres and not accounting for real value. This fuzzy calculus is especially limiting when utilization of small diameter material is possible and not considered best value. An example might be as follows:

            100 acres are thinned @ $600.00/ acre    = $60,000.00; then, a year or so     later the same 100 acres are burned @ $300.00/ acre           = $30,000.00

The dollars per acre reported get calculated as $90,000.00 / 200 acres for a reported cost of $450.00 per acre and 200 acres counted. Then it could happen that a utilizing contractor comes in with a cut and utilization bid (one time entry) of $750.00 per acre or $75,000.00 they lose the bid.

Acre count should occur only after initial tasking is completely done and the land is ready for long term maintenance burning. Given that utilization treatments have slope consideration; acres treated with full utilization in Ruidoso are ready for maintenance burn now. Condition classes are reduced immediately in those areas and we are not waiting years for prescribed burn windows to open. In addition, the general public sees a completed project.

The WUI group feels strongly that small diameter material removal and biomass utilization is a land management issue and not just an energy production issue. Ruidoso Municipal Schools are preparing to build a new middle school and are interested in incorporating biomass heating. I believe all public buildings in Ruidoso should consider this abundant resource. The long term source of this material would come from Forest Service lands.

Another down side of the acres target problem can appear when considering WUI acres. In Ruidoso, community protection received less priority than acre targets. Currently, only two of twenty-seven NEPA ready projects on the Lincoln are in the Ruidoso area. The WUI geography (map) was expanded to accommodate easy acre push and burn treatments northeast of the community to achieve acre targets. Treating acres on the northeast side of a community in southern New Mexico is mostly ineffective as the winds historically come from the southwest.

A 5,500 acre project called Perk-Grindstone was assessed as the number one Forest Service priority in 2000 when the WUI group started because it is located directly southwest of the community and its major potable water reservoir and treatment plant. This project remains hung up without a NEPA decision and remains unfunded. Line officers are compelled to meet acre targets at the expense of community protection. This is absolutely unacceptable! Village Council signed a resolution encouraging the Lincoln to move forward with Perk-Grindstone earlier this year. The Village collaborated with an environmental group that had objections and resolved issues pertaining to MSO PACS in the unit. We help were we can. Inaction on public lands is impeding Ruidoso’s ability to implement ordinances on private land. I get calls with angry residents asking why they should spend money treating their property when there is nothing done on the other side of the Forest Service fence, literally.

It appears the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a strategy to get the “best value” for work done might actually do the opposite given the existing performance measures. Transformation of the condition class (acre targets) as a performance measure is vastly outweighing other measures such as collaboration and utilization based on PART. This leads to the “easy acre”. Wildfire can burn 5000 “easy acres” and no one blinks. When wildfire burns 1000 acres and a community loses 29 homes, as Ruidoso did in 2002 with the Kokopelli fire, it is devastating. Where is the “best value”? Communities deserve a better system of accountability and line officers need realistic performance measures to make the right decision and achieve HFRA goals.

A more general issue affecting accountability is agency mobility. The normal rotation of personnel with the agency reduces commitment and accountability. The line officer (District Ranger) I started with in 2000 had been there for many years and was committed to the community. Decisions were made based on the best value for community safety. He retired in 2002. Since then I have seen personnel changes at: the district level – Ranger, FMO, AFMO, Range staff, Timber staff, Fuels specialists and below; the Forest level – Supervisor, Fire & Aviation staff, Timber staff; and even a new Regional Forester and some associated staff.    Communities understand this movement is inevitable to some degree but some way to maintain a legacy strategy would yield stability to collaborations and overall confidence in agency policy. Goal 1.4 in the above mentioned performance measures paper (attached) offers some ideas.

SUMMARY

Ruidoso is deeply concerned and frustrated that a commitment made five years ago remains unfulfilled. There are always plenty of excuses but the facts are that the condition class in Perk Grindstone that contributed to Ruidoso’s rating of second highest to catastrophic wildfire in the nation remains. We have all witnessed the devastation of the Cerro Grande fire in Los Alamos, New Mexico in 2001. Our citizens do not want to see Ruidoso follow a similar pattern of unrecognized risk and inaction on Forest Service land due to a lack of urgency.

Ruidoso is committed to doing its part with its citizens and takes responsibility for its own wildfire protection on private land. We have our own Community Forest Management Plan in place (www.ruidoso-nm.gov) and the WUI group has collaborated and developed our CWPP for additional public and private land. The Village and the WUI group stand ready to move forward with HFRA when funding programs become available. I respectfully submit the following recommendations:

Develop training programs and performance measures that emphasis collaboration and commitment to legacy strategies.

Make collaboratively designed projects the priority for planning (NEPA) and funding.

Identify strategic acres not on their low cost of treatment but on their ability to protect assets at risk. Those areas must be identified in collaboration with the local fire councils and public safety officials (CWPPs).

Stop double counting acres, even if the money comes from different line items. Double counting has the unintended consequences of prohibiting utilization and not getting the best value for the taxpayer dollar.

Don’t count the acre until the fuels treatment is complete. That is, until the acre is ready for maintenance burning. Currently the areas treated by the Forest Service by pile and burning have so many piles on them (lack of burn windows) that the fire risk has increased.

If HFRA will be used to treat strategic acres that: are defined by collaboration with communities; will allow for true accounting in terms of acres treated and unit costs; and will encourage reduction to fire risk class I; then it will be the useful tool the congress and the President intended.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. I would welcome any question you may have.

Rick DeIaco

Director of Forestry

Village of Ruidoso

313 Cree Meadows Drive

Ruidoso, NM 88345

(505) 257-5544

Attached:        RVCC Performance measures

                        Current WUI map

                        2001 WUI map

                        2001 Action Plan Matrix
Mr. Matthew Koehler

Executive Director

Wild West Institute

Download Testimony

Download Testimony

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Matthew Koehler
The Honorable Colleen Macleod

Commissioner

Union County, Oregon

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

The Honorable Colleen Macleod

testimony of

The Honorable Colleen MacLeod

Commissioner

Union County, Oregon

on behalf of

The National Association of Counties

before

The Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests

of

The Committee on Energy & Natural Resources

United States Senate

July 19, 2005

Good morning Chairman Craig and Senator Wyden. Thank you for the opportunity and the honor of testifying before you this morning.

My name is Colleen MacLeod. I am a County Commissioner from Union County in the Northeast corner of Oregon. I appear before you today on behalf of the National Association of Counties.

While every county is unique, I believe that our experiences using the tools of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) to improve forest health and protect our communities are typical of those of many of my fellow county officials across the country.

Union County is located in the Wallowa Whitman National Forest, which, along with the Umatilla and Malheur National Forest comprise what is known as the Iron Triangle.

Our county is mountainous, heavily forested and covers over a million three hundred thousand acres. Half of that land is in federal ownership. As you might well imagine, we, as a Board of Commissioners, devote a great deal of attention, time and funds to try to restore the natural resource balance in our region; a region that has suffered economic upheavals and declining forest health over the past several decades.

Mr. Chairman, as you may know, Union County is fortunate to be represented here in Washington by your colleagues on this Committee, Ranking Member Ron Wyden and Senator Gordon Smith, as well as by your counterpart in the other chamber, Chairman Greg Walden – all tireless advocates for our natural resource-based communities. Perhaps it is not entirely coincidental that we enjoy a terrific relationship with our local federal land managers.

Having said that, I must let you know that as I prepared for this hearing many of my fellow county officials from across the country have wanted me to emphasize the positive working relationships and collaboration that they also enjoy with their federal partners. For one excellent example of these partnerships, please see the attachments describing the collaboration between the New Mexico Association of Counties, the BLM and the New Mexico State Forestry Division. Mr. Chairman, as you know, NACo has not hesitated to be sharply critical of these agencies in the past, but in this case, Chief Bosworth and Director Clarke are getting the message out to their people on the front lines, and it is making a difference.

We in Union County are also fortunate in that we have retained some of the infrastructure essential for large forest health improvement projects. We still have three working mills able to process the trees that clog our forests and threaten our surrounding communities. Those mills have managed to survive, in spite of the fact they can not depend on the federal forests that surround us for their timber supply. They have managed to exist through that 180 degree turn, where the public lands that were originally designed to insure resources to our nation, have now deferred that responsibility back to a dwindling supply on private land.

We also have the advantage of having been early practitioners of the kind of collaboration this committee has endorsed in HFRA and other legislation in recent years. We have, by design and through necessity, built a consistently open and collaborative working relationship with our federal, state and local partners. It has been an effort to move forward and remedy what we perceive as an imbalance. Our efforts at creating a meaningful Union County Community Wildfire Plan have been more successful and useful due to our history of teamwork. We have historically been participants in efforts such as the Blue Mountain Demonstration Project and have had, since 2001 a local Forestry Restoration Board. That board tours project sites and collaborates on outcomes for planned USFS projects. Appointees to that board represent the county, federal and state forestry, tribes, fish and wildlife, marine fisheries, ranching, small woodlands, environmental and industry. It is not a flawless process, nor does it guarantee that its projects will not be appealed. It is, however, an open process that invites discussion before litigation and demands justification for litigation after the process.

The collaborative effort on our CWPP has been a model. We started early and we cast our participation nets very wide. The core planning team included members from federal and state agencies, local and tribal governments as well as representation from private landowners, industry, small rural fire protection districts and emergency service providers. The resulting document from this professional collaboration and the subsequent community meetings, is an in depth analysis of wildfire risk assessment. It was designed to reduce the potential for wildfires that threaten the people, the resources, structures and infrastructures that the people in my county value.

Our CWPP process was a methodical, data-based approach that combined the information and expertise of the planning agency members. Sixteen Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas were identified and their risk level was ranked based on such factors as population, level of development, topography, vegetation and weather patterns. The responsibility for implementing projects was determined by specific landowner or managing agency. Buy-in to hazard mitigation was obtained by comprehensive participation through the project identification process.

Although each WUI area has within in it, multiple uses and unique concerns, what became clear was that no one project could be implemented entirely within one agency or at one level of government. Due to our process of shared resources and combined knowledge we have had the ability to combine this disparate data and prepare and refine this comprehensive plan.

What do we do now that the planning is done? It is good to know what needs to be done. That is powerful knowledge. However, powerful knowledge requires equally powerful action. Planning without proper implementation is a wasted process.

On the private side, landowners in the affected areas are stepping up and cleaning house. Residents are creating defensible space by thinning overstocked stands, planting fire resistant vegetation, improving emergency access. They have been able to access over a half million in Fire Plan dollars and some of the commercial thinning has provided funding to reduce their costs and vulnerability.

On the public lands side, the risk reduction efforts have been much slower. Due to the usual circumstances, restoration and fire hazard reduction on public land is a process of running through sand. If the lawsuits don’t get you, the paperwork will.

There is little comfort and safety assurance to a landowner who has taken the necessary steps to fire proof his property, only to find the process of treating the federal land that surrounds him is either two years out in the planning process, or held up by litigation in the courts somewhere. It does no good to fire proof one room in your home if the rest of the house is a house fire waiting to happen.

However the tools you have given us are providing some light at the end of the tunnel. For instance, my colleague on the NACo Public Lands Committee, Commissioner Alan Thompson of Ravalli County, Montana, tells me that U.S. District Court recently ruled on a high-priority project from their local CWPP that had been appealed. After considering different alternatives in collaboration with local stakeholders – and adjusting proposals in light of concerns raised in the process, the Forest Service settled on an alternative that proposed harvesting a significant number of dead and dying trees both in the WUI around the little community of Sula and on the Bitterroot National Forest. In the course of the appeal which followed, Ravalli County intervened on the side of the Forest Service. After hearing arguments from the County and the Fire Chief of Sula, Judge Malloy ruled in favor of the Forest Service and the County. Commissioner Thompson says that without HFRA the time spent planning the projects and the appeals and litigation which seem inevitably to follow would be too long to remove the hazardous fuels which threaten our citizens and their property, not to mention the fish and wildlife that depend on the forest. The provisions of HFRA that streamline the appeals and litigation process are proving to be very valuable and we believe that they should be preserved and perhaps extended to other agency planning activities.

Similarly, in Union County, HFRA and HFI have been very helpful to us, but we still run into regulatory issues like Eastside Forest Screens and PACFISH or other Endangered Species Act issues that prevent us from doing needed treatment. While the ESA is not under the jurisdiction of this Committee, let me pause here to make an important point. We believe that the ESA, as it is currently implemented, is the greatest single barrier to improving forest health on the scale and at the pace that our dire forest conditions demand. Mr. Chairman, NACo believes that the Senate should move to update and improve the ESA before the 109^th Congress ends. Failure to do so is a tragic waste of an historic opportunity.

As you might expect, Mr. Chairman, funding also continues to be a problem. A number of counties report that they have completed their plans, but that priority projects are held up due to lack of funds to implement them.

My colleagues in California are coming to the conclusion that this is due in part to a disconnect between Forest Service project planning and the CWPP process. While the agencies have been wonderful partners, providing technical assistance to counties preparing CWPPs, too often these plans are considered “just” community plans, not integrated across the landscape, including federal, state and private ownerships. Consequently, County Supervisors in California feel that they may not be realizing the full benefit of HFRA. Part of the reason for this too may be that many CWPPs have included only projects that require grant funding, which limits the opportunity for a coordinated approach to fire risk reduction. Since CWPPs were designed to coordinate efforts to reduce fire risk across the landscape, it may be useful to direct federal field personnel to integrate their plans with those of the communities, and to consider landscape scale projects which may generate revenue while accomplishing hazardous fuel reduction outcomes. This will improve opportunities for community members to recommend a community-wide fuel reduction strategy, provide meaningful participation in federal projects and expedite implementation of federal and private projects.

Another potential solution which we in Oregon have aggressively pursued uses the synergy that exists between Title II and Title III of your landmark Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act. Many of our counties have been able to use Title III funds to support the CWPP process and then invest Title II resources to leverage project implementation.

Our colleagues in California’s Regional Council of Rural Counties have made a number of other useful observations and recommendations which NACo submits as an attachment to this testimony.

In closing I ask that you continue to take what ever steps necessary to remedy this timeframe for restoring forest health. We need to get on with things. The forest needs our help. The citizens of this nation need our help.

If you have not viewed the literal cauterization that happens to an overstocked forest after a major fire, I can tell you first hand that it is no longer protection, nor habitat for man, beast or vegetation.

I am one of those residents who look directly out my front window every day at an overstocked, unhealthy forest; a forest that suffers from lack of treatment mainly because it had the misfortune to be designated Wilderness. This is not designated Wilderness because it has sat untouched by human activity. It has actually been accessed and used extensively for years.

No, I am not one of those people who seem to be drawing derision for building new McMansions out where others deem they shouldn’t. My home and the homes of my neighbors have been in place along the base of that mountain for over 100 years. The humans, the resources and the wildlife in that forest have managed to co exist in a multi-use forest framework for decades. The hand thinning we have managed to get through the restoration process will be no match for even a small fire. I have furnished you a photo I took from my driveway of a fire over the ridge a couple of years ago. Residents of my county and all across the landscape of public lands should not have to live with this kind of preventable threat.

Thank you for listening and for your ongoing efforts.

ATTACHMENT A

July 14, 2006

Paul V. Beddoe, Ph.D.

Associate Legislative Director

Western Interstate Region ~ Public Lands

NACo ~ National Association of Counties

440 First Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Beddoe,

The New Mexico Association of Counties (NMAC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2003 to establish a framework for the organizations to work collaboratively on initiatives that mutually benefit each organization’s mission and objectives. This MOU provided a vehicle for improving the conditions under which counties and BLM can communicate and partner on resource and community issues of special concern to BLM and NMAC to include planning, fire management and restoration, economic development, recreation, tourism, cultural resources, oil and gas development, coal development, mapping and data sharing.

BLM selected Joyce Fierro, Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Partnerships, as a full-time liaison for BLM to work at the NMAC office. “Many of the issues BLM deals with involve and affect local communities,” said Linda S.C. Rundell, State Director of the BLM for New Mexico. “Our vision is to bring government closer to the people, so that the needs of public land users and their communities are better incorporated into our management of New Mexico’s 13.4 million acres of public lands.”

A Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program for Rural Communities was established in 2005 as part of the MOU, under the National Fire Plan, to assist communities throughout New Mexico in reducing their risk from wildland fire. The program was developed in response to a statewide needs assessment survey of County Managers. When the responses from all 33 counties were compiled, a clear picture of county level concern for their at-risk communities and the lack of sufficient funding to implement their priority risk reduction activities was indicated.

The grant program targets at-risk communities by offering seed money to help defray the costs of developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, implementing fuel reduction treatments and providing outreach and education to prevent wildland fires. Local Governments, tribal entities and non-profit organizations are eligible to receive funding through the program.

During the first grant cycle in 2005, twenty community-based risk reduction proposals were received requesting more than twice the funds available. NMAC convened an interdisciplinary, interagency selection panel to review and rank the proposals. Projects were funded in priority order until all available funds were expended. The program awarded 7 grants to develop 5 Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) covering 28 rural communities and 2 treatments for priority projects identified in existing CWPP’s. Recipients of this first round of grants were the Village of Cuba, Catron County, Cibola County, Socorro County, Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District, East Mountain Interagency Fire Protection Association, and the San Juan County Fire Department.

The second grant cycle was released in January 2006 and twenty-one proposals were received. Again the response was greater than the available funding. The program awarded 10 grants, covering 79 rural communities, to develop 3 CWPPs, 5 treatments for priority projects identified in existing CWPPs and 2 educational outreach projects. Recipients of the second round of grants were the Village of Angel Fire, Catron County, Glorieta Firewise Community, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy, Rio Arriba County, Santa Clara Pueblo, Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District (2), Socorro County, and the Timberon Development Council.

The success of the grant program has drawn attention from other state, federal and private entities in New Mexico. Many of these organizations have been collaborative partners of the projects including State Forestry, US Forestry, Soil & Water Conservation Districts, and multiple non-profits and environmental groups.

As a result of the NMAC/BLM MOU, the New Mexico State Forestry Division signed a similar Cooperative Agreement on June 23, 2006. “The only way our forests and watershed will regain their health is through strong, effective partnerships like the one we’re recognizing today,” said Blazer. “Our relationship with the Association of Counties will only help us improve communities around the state and help us effectively implement the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan.” This formalized an agreement for the two organizations to work jointly on projects and initiatives dealing with forest and watershed health, wildfire prevention, wildfire protection and many more cooperative activities. In addition, the agreement will improve communication and support among Forestry officials, the NMAC and counties for forested natural resources and community issues dealing with forested land or natural resources.

As part of the agreement, NMAC will be able to assist New Mexico State Forestry in disseminating forest and watershed health information to counties. The NMAC will serve as a liaison for multi-county forest and watershed health projects and will assist in the development of methods for coordinating administration and financing of forestry-related work.

NMAC will be meeting with the US District Forester on Monday, July 17^th, to discuss opportunities for collaboration similar to the partnerships with BLM and State Forestry. The US Forest service has been a collaborative partner on many of the grant projects awarded by NMAC.

New Mexico counties feel strongly that local governments must work with state and federal entities to implement quality land management. The agreements that are in place have not only provided resources and funding for wildfire projects, but have provided additional opportunities for data sharing, economic development, watershed management and new training programs related to wildfire and forest and watershed health.

If you need additional information on any of the agreements or on the Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program, please contact the NMAC Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Joy Esparsen, at (505) 820-8111 or via email at jesparsen@nmcounties.org. Thank you for the opportunity to share our success story with you!

Sincerely,

Gustavo “Gus” Cordóva

Executive Director

ATTACHMENT C

Community Wildfire Protection Plans in California

California communities are in the process of developing at least 69 Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). Of these 69 CWPPs, 35 are either completed or near completion. Many of these plans are county-wide plans and all have been developed through tremendous assistance from the federal agencies, including the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Unfortunately, these plans are frequently considered community plans, not integrated federal/private fire plans. Consequently, California is not been able to take full advantage yet of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA).

A review of California CWPPs by the California Fire Alliance, a cooperative membership of state and federal agencies, found adherence to the following principles would enhance the benefits received from CWPPs:

Designate a Generous WUI

The HFRA provides communities the opportunity to designate a locally appropriate definition and boundary for the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The default definition is ½ to 1½ miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, depending on slope, geographic features and condition class or an area that is adjacent to an evacuation route. The HFRA contains advantages for communities that designate larger WUIs by providing streamlined NEPA documentation for federal projects that are greater than 1½ miles from the community but still within the community designated WUI. A community designated WUI of only 1½ miles loses this advantage and few of California’s CWPPs designate a WUI beyond 1 ½ miles. Additionally, relatively few national forest or BLM lands are within 1½ miles of a community, limiting the incentives for inclusion of federal projects in CWPPs.

Include Projects outside the WUI

Another purpose of the HFRA is “to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape.” Just as with projects within a WUI, CWPPs provide opportunities for meaningful community participation in developing recommendations for private and federal projects outside the WUI. Although not as significant as within the WUI, NEPA is streamlined for federal projects that implement community recommendations in projects outside the WUI.

Include Revenue Generating Projects

The CWPP provision in the HFRA is designed to coordinate efforts to reduce fire risk across the landscape. Many California CWPPs have only included projects that require grant funding, which limits the opportunity for a coordinated approach to fire risk reduction. It also limits the opportunity for community members to recommend a community-wide fuel reduction strategy, provide meaningful participation in federal projects and expedite implementation of federal and private projects.

Recommend Treatment Types and Methods

The HFRA requires CWPPs to “recommend the types and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land that will protect 1 or more at-risk communities and essential infrastructure.” Treatment recommendations are part of the NEPA and CEQA processes. The greatest controversy frequently revolves around treatment recommendations. Providing recommendations for the type and method of treatment that the community will support focuses land owner attention on community acceptable land management practices.

Include Projects on Federal Lands

One of the purposes of the HFRA is “to reduce wildfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk federal land through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the HFRA provides for meaningful community participation in federal project planning through the opportunity to recommend projects on federal lands. Federal agencies benefit when implementing the community recommendations through a streamlined NEPA process, reducing planning time and expenses. BLM has encouraged its field offices to work with communities to adopt BLM projects by providing internal direction that requires projects be incorporated into a CWPP before allocating funding for the project in 2007. The Forest Service has not provided such direction to its field offices. To date, many California CWPPs consist of projects almost exclusively on private lands.
Mr. Jay Jensen

Executive Director

Council of Western State Foresters

Read statement

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Jay Jensen

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Oversight Hearing

Healthy Forests Restoration Act Implementation

Council of Western State Foresters

July 19, 2006

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jay Jensen and I am the Executive Director of the Council of Western State Foresters. I welcome the opportunity to testify before you today. The Council of Western State Foresters is comprised of the seventeen directors of the State and six Territorial Island forestry agencies of the West. The mission of the CWSF is to promote science-based forest management that serves the values of society and ensures the health and sustainability of western forests.

The Council has been keenly interested in the development and implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, and continues to strongly support many provisions in that policy. In particular, State Foresters recognize the importance of managing forestland across ownership boundaries, and HFRA provides critical tools for accomplishing this work. Additionally, and the primary subject of my testimony today, HFRA formalized the role of communities in fire management. Community Wildfire Protection Planning charges communities with becoming active partners in their own protection from wildfire, and presents an unprecedented opportunity for engagement at the local level.

CWPP Summary & Background

Title I of HFRA focuses primarily on fuels reduction on federal lands, and provides for the development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) for communities at risk of wildfire. Drafting CWPPs in collaboration with state, local fire and local government officials, communities identify prominent sources of fire risk, summarize structural ignitability concerns, and prioritize areas for fuels reduction treatment. The main purpose of CWPPs is for localities to improve their wildfire mitigation capacity while working with government agencies to coordinate efforts to identify high fire risk areas and prioritize areas for mitigation, suppression, and emergency preparedness management on both federal and non-federal lands. States have a legislatively-mandated and key role to play in the formulation of CWPPs, acting as long-term, landscape-scale coordinators and outside experts.

To assist communities in the development of their CWPPs, an official CWPP handbook was developed in March, 2004 by a collaborative work group consisting of the National Association of State Foresters, the Society of American Foresters, the Western Governors’ Association, the National Association of Counties and the Communities Committee of the 7^th American Forest Congress. This handbook helps to highlight the common ingredients necessary for successful CWPPs. Related, the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) issued a Field Guidance on Communities at Risk (June 2003), establishing a common definition for communities at risk and a process model for the prioritization of communities. These two guiding documents provide communities with powerful, easy-to-understand information that empowers them to take wildfire protection into their own hands.

It is also worth noting that CWPPs derive their collaborative direction from the nationally agreed upon blueprint for dealing with wildfire, the 10-year Strategy (2001), [A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy], and its companion document, the Implementation Plan (2002). Under direction from Congress, the Western Governors’ Association in consultation with numerous stakeholders established a collaborative framework under the 10-year Strategy and Implementation Plan for decision-making and priority setting. It is clear that Congress has played a central role in empowering communities, and continued Congressional support for CWPP development and implementation is essential.

Goal number four in the 10-Year Strategy is to “promote community assistance”, with an emphasis on building community capacity and developing stronger incentives for community-level fire mitigation work. Current efforts to update the 10-year Implementation Plan are underway, and through this process stakeholders have clearly voiced support for CWPPs as an effective tool for empowering communities to function as partners in their own protection from fire. Further, we have found that when solutions are developed collaboratively and close to the local level, controversy and conflict are reduced. By identifying priority acres in need of treatment through this process, many believe that CWPPs contribute to a reduction in appeals and litigation of land management projects, thus expediting the reduction of fuel loadings, one of the main tenants of the HFRA and HFI.

CWPP Implementation: Successes

As of the spring of 2006, more than 300 CWPPs that meet HFRA standards were completed in the West, providing community protection for more than 2,000 communities at risk. Nationally, an estimated 650 CWPPs have been completed and approved with an additional 600 currently in progress. Several states have also completed community fire plans that don’t yet meet HFRA requirements, thereby offering additional protection that is not reflected in the data. A state-by-state breakdown of the western CWPP efforts has been catalogued in a March 2006 report by the CWSF, included in the appendix as a reference.

States have used a diversity of CWPP methods and community-at-risk definitions, adapting the tools to fit their individual state laws and wildfire situations. Because states have undertaken differing methodologies by necessity, numerical comparisons between states do not tell an accurate tale of CWPP development. Likewise, when looking at the CWSF report, the number of CWPPs completed in each state should not be calculated as a percentage of the total number of communities at risk in the state to indicate a level of protection. Many CWPPs cover more than one community, and many states have utilized such different definitions of “communities” that calculating percentages would be uninformative and potentially misleading.

The West is clearly moving toward increased community protection through the CWPP process. Identifying local concerns and prioritizing protection activities not only serves to attract agency attention to fire management needs, but the very process of CWPP development tends to increase community capacity and foster a heightened awareness of local fire risk and responsibility. Furthermore, as federal, local, and emergency personnel collaborate on a CWPP, they form lasting relationships that extend beyond the immediate task.

With continued progress in local collaborative efforts, we expect to see reductions in conflict, appeals and litigation. We strongly encourage all decision-makers to maintain their long-term commitment to CWPP development and implementation as we believe local level decision-making will go a long way toward solving our catastrophic wildfire problem.

CWPP Implementation: Challenges and Recommendations

CWPP Project Translation

We do not know of any definitive data available on how many federal land projects identified under a CWPP have been translated into HFRA or other wildfire mitigation projects. We suspect that the actual numbers are low for reasons discussed in this testimony. However, we do know that the federal agencies are planning and in some instances have provided direction to the field to prioritize CWPP identified projects in fuels work. This will guarantee more CWPP projects getting translated into projects, and ensure that our limited funding is going to the highest priority treatments. We suspect that one reason why CWPP projects are not reaching the ground in meaningful numbers is because federal line officers already have a number of NEPA-ready projects on the books, ready to be implemented. Because of the lengthy process and resource commitment needed to develop NEPA projects (2-4 years at times), line officers are understandably reluctant to adjust their priorities until their investment in the NEPA-ready projects get off the ground. We believe that as these NEPA-ready projects begin to be implemented, we will see the emergence of new CWPP-driven HFRA projects.

Guidance

This transition to CWPP-driven HFRA projects would be greatly enhanced by national level clarification of existing agency direction around integration of CWPP projects with HFRA authorities. Emphasis should be placed on the involvement of multi-agency groups working together to implement these projects. In many places, stakeholders have long requested guidance on collaboration, and “characteristics of successful collaboration” are forthcoming in the revised 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. This information should be distributed to field offices with detailed instructions for implementation.

Expectations

Virtually all states report a common expectation in their communities: a completed CWPP will automatically lead to a stream of federal funding. This expectation is troubling for several reasons. First, it is inaccurate; HFRA and associated policy language urges federal agency planners to prioritize work recommended in CWPPs, but does not require them to conduct all of the projects suggested by communities. Second, when communities expect funding to follow their plans, they tend to write plans that cannot be implemented without outside support. Communities may invest in the analysis and process, but are too often unable to implement their ideas without federal agency involvement. Third, as agencies seek to build lasting trust with local entities through the collaborative process, they may be undermined when communities realize their expectations for federal funding will likely not be met. Finally, the rationale for a CWPP is meant to enhance individual responsibility, and not create a dependency on government.

Investment

While there is no dedicated line item in the federal budget to support the development of CWPPs, some communities and state forestry agencies have found other funding sources to bolster their efforts. Most prominently, the State Fire Assistance (SFA) program, part of the USDA Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry budget, directs federal funds to State agencies for work on community assistance and fire mitigation. These competitive cost-share funds are leveraged by communities for CWPP creation and implementation. In the West, it is now a requirement under the SFA that proposed projects be tied to a CWPP in order to be competitive. Without reliable federal funding to support communities’ CWPP planning and implementation, there is a very real risk that the most vulnerable, low capacity communities will also become the least protected from fire. The Council believes the demand for State Fire Assistance greatly outstrips current availability of SFA funding for CWPP development and implementation and that increases in SFA or other dedicated funding can be put to demonstrated good use.

Funding for collaborative fuels reduction work in some parts of the west also comes through the Secure Rural Schools Act. In particular, Titles II and III offer a funding stream for both collaborative processes and hazardous fuels reduction work on federal and private lands. Reauthorization and funding of the Act with continued flexibility for counties to undertake resource stewardship projects is a significant complement to HFRA authorities.

Once a CWPP has been created, funding needs intensify. Hazardous fuel work is very expensive, easily on the scale of $1000/acre, and sometimes topping $2000/acre when mechanical means are utilized. Funding shortages can push land managers to use prescribed burning and/or look toward more remote areas as cheaper alternatives that enable them to report higher acreage accomplishments. Many states report a chronic shortage of crews and equipment to implement projects that are ready. Other states suggest that the scale of the problem is so large that multi-agency, inter-disciplinary teams should be assembled to craft landscape scale projects across ownership boundaries. The simple story is that if we want more fuels reduction work in high-priority areas, additional investments will be necessary.

Performance Measures

Another way to increase the number of CWPP–consistent projects being implemented is to establish performance measures that reward the agencies for linking project planning with CWPP recommendations when those ideas are consistent with existing land management plans. The Council encourages the development of CWPP–relevant performance measures. Currently, such efforts are underway in the update to the 10-year Implementation Plan and will go a long way toward fostering CWPPs in prioritization decisions.

Appeals and Litigation

We strongly support the HFRA objection process as a replacement for the lengthy appeals process that remains applicable to many non-HFRA projects. This issue is particularly important for the USFS, which is the only federal agency that deals with wildfire to have their appeals process codified in law. This rigidity reduces the agency’s flexibility and lengthens their response time, thus delaying projects. Modification or outright repeal of the Appeals Reform Act is one option for dramatically reducing the impact of litigation on project timeliness.

A number of our state members and their federal partners continue to report time delays due to project-level appeals and litigation. In one instructive example, the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana was developed through a collaborative CWPP process. Project implementation was delayed because two local environmental groups decided to seek alternatives after agreement had been reached on a CWPP project. This example underscores how important it is to achieve appeal and litigation reform, particularly in relation to wildfire mitigation projects. Systemic reform might prevent this story from replaying in other communities.

In many instances, litigation is also the result of a lack of definitive science on controversial fire management problems. In particular, research that demonstrates the necessity and effectiveness of fuels reduction work to reduce fire risk broadly across the landscape is needed. Too often we hear that creating a small buffer around a home is all that is needed to protect life and property. The values associated with a functioning watershed, the critical habitat for an endangered species, and critical power and energy lines needed to keep hospitals, schools and our economy churning, do not stop 100 feet from homes and critical infrastructure. Scientific evidence about reducing landscape scale fire risk would greatly enhance our ability to succeed in many of these lawsuits. We therefore recommend continued support for research programs, such as the Joint Fire Science Program, that directly address these ongoing fire management controversies.

Concluding Remarks

All states have at least begun the process of creating CWPPs, although rates of completion vary considerably. Across the West, as of March 2006, 334 CWPPs have been completed and approved in accordance with HFRA guidelines. These, and countless other community-based wildfire planning documents, when implemented, will serve to protect our communities at-risk. That is why it is vital that CWPP-identified projects get translated into agency priorities. As communities and states begin to share success stories and lessons learned, progress will strengthen and accelerate. Already, templates and field guidance have been developed by a number of non-profit, government, and research entities to facilitate the process of community input into wildfire mitigation projects. Although it has been two full field seasons since the passage of the HFRA, we believe that we will soon see a faster ramp up of HFRA projects, more reflective of HFRA expectations.

As this process begins to gather momentum, it will be vital to keep a focus on developing and revising CWPPs, and getting those projects translated onto the ground. Many who have been involved in CWPP development are quick to note that in many cases the process is itself a success. Collaboration around wildfire mitigation among local landowners, local governments, federal land management agencies and the states is creating lasting relationships that are invaluable for information sharing and community capacity building. Throughout the West, there is enthusiasm for improving collaborative efforts, protecting communities, and developing strong wildfire mitigation planning processes. These are the necessary ingredients to get the desired results of more acres treated on the ground.

Last, although our testimony has focused on CWPPs and their relation to Title I of the HFRA, it is also worth noting that the HFRA includes several important titles in addition to Title I. The biomass provisions of Title II, the Watershed Forestry Assistance Program in Title III (for both private and tribal lands), and Title IV addressing insect infestations and disease provide key program elements designed to improve research, increase wood utilization, and address forest management concerns on a landscape scale in order to sustain and restore the health of forested watersheds. State Foresters from the CWSF and across the country have worked with the USDA Forest Service to develop implementation guidelines for the Watershed Forestry Assistance Program in Title III, and we hope to see this program receive funding for full implementation on both private and tribal lands. Among other goals, its purposes are closely tied to those of Title I, by improving landowner and public understanding of the connection between forest management and watershed health, it enables application of landscape scale approaches to forest rehabilitation and restoration.

Thank you very much for having me today, and I welcome your questions.

Hearings and Business Meetings

New Time Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests Hearing

Archived Webcast

Witness Panel 1

Hon. Nina Rose Hatfield

Chief Dale Bosworth

Witness Panel 2

Mr. Rick DeIaco

Mr. Matthew Koehler

The Honorable Colleen Macleod

Mr. Jay Jensen