>X-POP3-Rcpt: szorr@peseta
plans that will be based on this information, we predict an
ecosystem management approach that uses the best scientific and
technical knowledge to achieve a desired future condition. I
want to be as certain as possible that the long-term actions
taken to resolve current forest health problems do not result
in a different set of forest health problems some decades in
the future.
Specific Actions to Address Forest Health Problems
As I mentioned earlier, most of the West's forest health
problems seem to be clearly related to the disruption of
historic fire cycles and timber harvest practices of the period
1900-1990. We have a reasonable idea what can be done to alter
these conditions based on the knowledge we gained from our
ecosystem management test projects and from our ongoing
ecosystem assessments.
The most basic is to compensate for the lack of short-interval,
recurring ground fires. This can be achieved in several ways:
1. Identify landscapes that are currently susceptible to
high energy burns rather than individual stands as the first
priority for treatment to reduce fire danger and to enhance
forest health. All land ownerships should be considered.
2. Seek to create a mosaic of stand conditions using
prescribed fire, thinning, timber harvest, or mechanical
reduction of fuel loading to produce conditions within the
normal range of variation for the ecosystems involved.
3. Favor fire adapted species while conducting
silvicultural activities to maintain stocking densities and
species composition more resistant to insect attacks, less
prone to crown fires, and able to withstand low energy ground
fires at prescribed intervals.
4. Increase public education and involvement programs in
cooperation with local and State agencies, concerning the
interaction of fire exclusion, insect and disease problems and
wildfire risks presented by the current forest conditions
described earlier.
5. In urban/wildland interface areas, work with local and
State agencies and the home building industry regarding access
to developments adjoining public lands to increase the
understanding of fire safety precautions necessary in building
and property maintenance for those who live there.
6. Continue to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency and State agencies to provide the flexibility to use
prescribed fire in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Current
regulations or smoke emission limitations on prescribed burning
do not acknowledge the role of prescribed burning in reducing
wildfire intensity - i.e., there is a trade-off between some
smoke at frequent intervals or much more smoke from wildfires.
7. Within existing resources, revisit the current budget
priorities for pre-suppression and fire suppression activities
in terms of meeting fuel reduction and forest health needs.
I am happy to report that we have established a special team
that is comprehensively evaluating ways to accelerate needed
actions to improve forest health. This is reflected in the
attached letter from Assistant Secretary Lyons. They are
currently reviewing options on specific actions that could be
taken. I need to state clearly that the agency's wildland
firefighting personnel and equipment are stretched beyond the
limit to simultaneously protect life, property, and natural
resources. As a result, in some areas, protection of natural
resources is not being adequately addressed.
Summary
We are faced with a serious forest health and wildfire problem
in the Intermountain West particularly on the historic
5-to-30 year fire interval sites. The question is not whether
these areas will burn, but only a question of when. The human
and monetary cost of continued management inaction in these
areas is and will remain high for forest resources and private
property in the adjacent urban/wildland interface.
Priorities concerning areas to be treated should be set on the
basis of protecting human life and property, economic
efficiency, environmental effects, resources available, insect
and disease risk, and capacity of industry of processing woody
material removed from treated sites. Obviously, some areas
should be left alone. Controversial areas for treatment will
likely be by-passed in the initial thrust areas selected for
treatment. However, these areas should be considered for
treatment as fire allows and experience accumulates.
We have the basic knowledge to begin treatment of the forest
health problem in the short-term by restoring high risk sites
to some semblance of their historic condition. This can be
approached through a combination of salvage logging, reducing
fuels through mechanical means, prescribed fire, and thinning
of densely stocked stands. These techniques should be applied
in high risk areas as soon as the required environmental
analyses are completed and public participation has occurred.
Where there are threatened and endangered species, additional
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service may be necessary. There is
however, a distinct possibility that response will be delayed
by appeals and lawsuits. We will do our best to assure full
compliance with the laws and with involving the public on
actions being considered.
I need to remind everyone that the solution may require the
re-allocation of existing funding to begin treating forest
health problems. I am confident that in many areas it makes
sense to take preventative measures now, rather than suffer
losses and incur greater fire and pest damage at a later, but
almost certain, time.
The solutions described also contains some risks. Despite our
best efforts, some prescribed fires will escape and burn more
acres, and more intensely than we had planned, and may,
thereby, threaten life and property. The risks may be
relatively small when compared to recurrent high intensity
wildfire.
I am certain that critics will question the validity of new
approaches on the basis that forestry practices of the past
contributed to this situation. And, they will question any
management effort that includes cutting trees as a solution to
a forest management problem.
Yet, we cannot, in my opinion, simply step back and wait for
"nature" to take its course. I do not believe that what has
happened this fire season is acceptable as a solution to the
problem. These fires at this scale and intensity, are too hot,
destructive, dangerous, and too ecologically, economically,
aesthetically, and socially damaging to be tolerable. We have
learned much about fire science since the 1950's. It is time
to begin to apply what we have learned with a new vision of
what we want from our forests and our forest managers.
This completes my testimony. We would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0