    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     H.R. 5744, CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2012; H.R. 5960,
    DEPLETING RISK FROM INSECT INFESTATION, SOIL EROSION, AND CATASTROPHIC
    FIRE ACT OF 2012; AND H.R. 6089, HEALTHY FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2012

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS

                                AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                             Friday, July 20, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-121

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    75-278 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Dale E. Kildee, MI
    John J. Duncan, Jr., TN              Peter A. DeFazio, OR
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Rush D. Holt, NJ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    John Fleming, LA                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Mike Coffman, CO                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Dan Boren, OK
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Jeff Denham, CA                          CNMI
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Martin Heinrich, NM
    David Rivera, FL                     Ben Ray Lujan, NM
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Betty Sutton, OH
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Niki Tsongas, MA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 John Garamendi, CA
    Kristi L. Noem, SD                   Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Steve Southerland II, FL             Paul Tonko, NY
    Bill Flores, TX                      Vacancy
    Andy Harris, MD
    Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
    Jon Runyan, NJ
    Bill Johnson, OH
    Mark Amodei, NV

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                   Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
                    David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Dale E. Kildee, MI
    John J. Duncan, Jr., TN              Peter A. DeFazio, OR
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Rush D. Holt, NJ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Martin Heinrich, NM
    Mike Coffman, CO                     Betty Sutton, OH
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Niki Tsongas, MA
    David Rivera, FL                     John Garamendi, CA
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Vacancy
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
    Kristi L. Noem, SD
    Mark Amodei, NV
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Friday, July 20, 2012............................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Colorado, Prepared statement of...................    68
        Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     3
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744..........................     5
        Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
          Commonwealth of Massachusetts..............................    45
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5960..........................    47
        Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress
          from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands......     3
        Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Colorado, Oral statement on H.R. 6089.............     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Cook, David, Pulbic Land Rancher and NCBA Federal Lands Vice
          Chair, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands
          Council & Cattle Growers Association.......................    50
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744..........................    52
        Gibbs, Hon. Dan, Commissioner, Summit County, Colorado.......    19
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744, H.R. 5960 and H.R. 6089.    21
        Jankovsky, Hon. Tom, Commissioner, Garfield County, Colorado.    31
            Prepared statement on H.R. 6089..........................    32
        Kashdan, Hank, Legislative Director, National Association of
          Forest Service Retirees....................................    33
            Prepared statement on H.R. 6089..........................    35
        Roberson, Ed, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
          Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
          Interior...................................................    14
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744, H.R. 5960 and H.R. 6089.    15
        Romm, Joseph, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center For American
          Progress Action Fund.......................................    24
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744, H.R. 5960 and H.R. 6089.    25
        Shamley, John Doyel, Natural Resource Coordinator, Apache
          County, Arizona, and CEO, Veritas Research Consulting......    48
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744..........................    50
        Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S.
          Department of Agriculture..................................     8
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5744, H.R. 5960 and H.R. 6089.    10

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5744, TO ADDRESS THE FOREST
    HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT THREAT PRESENTED BY
    THE RISK OF WILDFIRE, INCLUDING CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE, ON
    NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGED BY THE
    BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BY REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF
    AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO EXPEDITE
    FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECTS RELATING TO HAZARDOUS FUELS
    REDUCTION, FOREST HEALTH, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR
    OTHER PURPOSES. ``CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF
    2012''; H.R. 5960, TO AMEND THE HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT
    OF 2003 TO IMPROVE THE RESPONSE TO INSECT INFESTATIONS AND
    RELATED DISEASES AND TO CHANGE THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE
    HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM, TO CODIFY THE STEWARDSHIP END
    RESULT CONTRACTING AND GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITIES, AND TO AMEND
    THE EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM TO IMPROVE POST FIRE
    REHABILITATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``DEPLETING RISK FROM
    INSECT INFESTATION, SOIL EROSION, AND CATASTROPHIC FIRE ACT OF
    2012''; AND H.R. 6089, TO ADDRESS THE BARK BEETLE EPIDEMIC,
    DROUGHT, DETERIORATING FOREST HEALTH CONDITIONS, AND HIGH RISK
    OF WILDFIRES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND LAND UNDER THE
    JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED
    STATES BY EXPANDING AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED IN THE HEALTHY
    FOREST RESTORATION ACT OF 2003 TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MEASURES
    FOR HIGH-RISK AREAS IDENTIFIED BY SUCH STATES, TO MAKE
    PERMANENT FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
    AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT GOOD-NEIGHBOR COOPERATION WITH STATES TO
    REDUCE WILDFIRE RISKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``HEALTHY FOREST
    MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2012.''
                                  ----------

                             Friday, July 20, 2012

                         U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m., in
    Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, Tipton, Noem,
    Holt and Markey.
        Also present: Representatives Sablan, Gosar, and Gardner.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Bishop. This hearing will come to order. The Chairman
    notes the presence of a quorum that is here on the Subcommittee
    on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands meeting here today
    to hear testimony on three bills that are within our
    jurisdiction and deal with the significant issue of our
    national forests and public lands on how to prevent
    catastrophic wildfires from happening in the future since we
    are not doing a very good job with our present methods of
    stopping them in the present time.
        Under the rules of this Committee, the remarks are limited
    to the Ranking Member and the Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
    to include any other Members' opening statement in the record
    if they are submitted to the clerk by the end of today. And
    hearing no objections.
        I also ask unanimous consent for any Member who wishes to
    join us on the dais to participate in our meeting today. And
    once again, without hearing any dissent, that will be the case.
        I realize that we are in a cramped situation as far as time
    is concerned, that some of you have flights that you need to
    make this morning. I also recognize that we have brought people
    in from across the country, so I appreciate them coming to the
    hearing. So therefore, my opening statement I am just going to
    submit for the record. We can move forward.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]

               Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

        Today we are hearing three bills that aim to bring much-needed
    solutions to a slow-moving train wreck that has overtaken our public
    lands.
        Decades of failed polices and hands-off management of our forests
    have left the majority of these lands in an unnatural, and unhealthy
    state. What was once a valuable asset that provided raw material for a
    growing and prosperous nation, clean water, recreation and numerous
    other benefits has deteriorated into an extreme liability to western
    communities and the environment.
        It is time for a paradigm shift in restoring our landscape so that
    national forests can once again meet the purposes for which they were
    established. For decades we've witnessed the problem and have known the
    solution. While some try to convolute and distract from the debate for
    their radical agendas, the solution is simple--we need to remove the
    volume of fuels that these forests are adding to themselves at a rate
    of 30% each year. The Native Americans used fire, modern man used
    forest management; the federal government removed both and now nature
    is in the process of replacing them with its own scorched earth policy.
        This is the fourth hearing this subcommittee has held on this issue
    within the last year, and the response has been the same--we need to
    get back to the business of managing our lands.
        Some like to argue that the problem is funding. Obviously the
    hardworking and dedicated land managers on the ground are not going to
    implement forest management for free. Yet funding does nothing to undo
    the Gordian knot of regulation, conflicting mandates, and obstruction
    that former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth self-diagnosed as
    ``analysis paralysis.''
        Again, this is not a new issue, and not a new solution. We need to
    thin the trees. We do not need more ``experiments'' or more ``pilots''
    to tell us what the problem is. We simply need to provide land managers
    the direction, flexibility, and encouragement to work with affected
    communities and stakeholders and get back into the forest.
        I'm encouraged that two of our colleagues from areas that have been
    tragic victims of these conditions have worked on legislation to do
    just that, and restore management to the landscape. I thank Mr. Tipton
    and Mr. Gosar for their hard work, as well as Ranking Member Markey for
    his recognition of the need for a more active approach to our forest
    resources than has occurred under current mismanagement of the federal
    estate. I thank our witnesses for joining us and look forward to their
    testimony.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Does Ranking Member Sablan have an opening
    comment?

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, A
         DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

        Mr. Sablan. Well, I just wanted to say good morning and
    thank everyone for joining us today, and welcome our witnesses
    also, especially those who have been wildland firefighters. We
    respect and thank you for your dedication.
        Mr. Chairman, to be brief, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        All right. We will start with our first group of witnesses
    who will talk. And we will talk about the first three bills
    that are here, and it will be the sponsors of that. So,
    Representative Gosar, I notice that you are here. We recognize
    you first to talk about H.R. 5744. Mr. Markey, if he appears,
    would then talk about H.R. 5960. And then, Mr. Tipton, if you
    would go through H.R. 6089. Once again, you have 5 minutes.
        Representative Gosar, go for it.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. Well, first thank you, Chairman Bishop, for
    holding today's hearing and for cosponsoring the bill, the
    Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012, or H.R. 5744.
        First, my thoughts and prayers continue to go out to our
    constituents who have suffered from catastrophic wildfires. I
    would also like to express my appreciation to all the men and
    women working to protect the lives and property of our
    neighbors.
        I have a slideshow on the screen now to show some of the
    devastating impacts of these fires. The district I represent,
    Arizona's First Congressional District, is one of the largest
    congressional districts in the country, encompassing 8 of
    Arizona's 13 rural counties. It contains over 37 million acres
    of land administered by the Federal Government, including over
    9 million acres of the United States Forest Service. That
    acreage includes most of the Coconino, Apache-Sitgreaves, the
    Prescott, Tonto and Kaibab National Forests.
        Last year our communities were victims to some of the
    largest forest fires in recorded history. The Wallow Fire grew
    to over 800 square miles over just a few weeks, charring in its
    wake some of the most treasured parts of our Ponderosa pine
    country. The Horseshoe fire, the Murphy Complex, the Stanley
    fire and the Monument fire blackened another 200,000 acres.
    This year's fire season has not been much better. Over 900
    fires have charred nearly 6,000 square miles in Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah, and
    over 50,000 of those acres are in Arizona alone.
        It is clear that the process of planning, studying,
    consulting, litigating, appealing and collaborating are failing
    us in our forests. The frequency of fires and the magnitude of
    the acreage burned have increased markedly since 1990. The five
    largest wildfires in my State's history, the Rodeo in 2002, the
    Cave Creek in 2005, the Willow in 2004, and the Aspen in 2003,
    and now the Wallow Fire, have all occurred in the last 10
    years. Prior to 1990, the largest fire was the Carrizo fire in
    1970, which burned just 57,000 acres.
        Our ecosystems are suffocating. Where we once had 10 to 25
    trees per acre, we now have hundreds. Roughly 80 million acres
    of forests across the West are overgrown and ripe for
    catastrophic wildfire, according to the Landfire multiagency
    database. Our forests have been mismanaged for a long time, and
    it is way past due to change our strategy. The current Federal
    system continues to prioritize fighting fires. Although we need
    to suppress fires, it is never going to go away, but we must
    shift priority toward a proactive management. We simply cannot
    afford to do otherwise.
        Catastrophic wildfires are difficult to control and cost
    the Federal Government millions of dollars in immediate fire
    response and many millions more in restoration and
    rehabilitation. The Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, a
    State and Federal Government partnership, estimates the costs
    are 2 to 30 times the reported suppression costs. Last year the
    Forest Service spent a record total of $48 million on burned
    area recovery work; $25 million has already been spent to
    prepare for the immediate aftermath of this year's wildfires,
    putting the U.S. Forest Service on track for another possible
    record year of spending on burned area recovery efforts.
        So what is standing in the way of the proactive and
    fiscally sustainable forest management? Bureaucratic red tape
    is preventing us from participating in the stewardship of our
    public lands, and the extortion tactics of some of the
    environmental groups which have devastated the timber industry
    and placed local ranchers' economic livelihood at risk.
        That is why I introduced the Catastrophic Wildfire
    Prevention Act of 2012. My bill authorizes the Forest Service
    and the Department of the Interior to implement wildfire
    prevention projects, including timber harvest and livestock
    grazing in at-risk forests, along with threatened and
    endangered species habitat, to focus on surface, ladder and
    canopy fuels reduction activities. In other words, it
    streamlines a review process, improves local coordination,
    eliminates duplication, and sets firm timeframes to bring more
    accountability to the process.
        Forest thinning works. In eastern Arizona the areas that
    were treated as part of the White Mountain Stewardship Project,
    a contract designed to thin Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
    and White Mountain Apache tribal lands, the areas managed
    locally by the Apache Tribe in the State of Arizona were
    properly cleared. Today there are still healthy trees with
    burned underbrush. On lands that were untouched by thinning
    practices, the majority of the U.S. Forest Service-administered
    land in the State, fires left only scorched earth behind.
        We simply need to make ecological restoration easier. This
    commonsense approach has garnered strong bipartisan support.
    This legislation has 32 cosponsors from 23 different States.
    Additionally, Utah Senator Mike Lee has introduced companion
    legislation in the Senate. Many of these supporters represent
    States or congressional districts with large swaths of National
    Forest land or Bureau of Land Management-administrated land;
    not Massachusetts. In short, they are people directly in harm's
    way, not safely tucked in a concrete jungle.
        Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for your leadership on this
    issue. And I look forward to the further Committee action on my
    bill and other proposals that will restore the environment,
    improve public safety, and save the taxpayers' dollars, and put
    the people back to work.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Gosar.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative
                     in Congress from the State of Arizona

        I thank Chairman Bishop for holding today's hearing and for
    cosponsoring my bill, the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012
    (H.R. 5744).
        First, my thoughts and prayers continue to go out to our
    constituents who have suffered from catastrophic wildfire. I would also
    like to express my appreciation to all of the men and women working to
    protect the lives and property of our neighbors. I have a slideshow, on
    the screen now, to show some of the devastating impacts these fires.
        The district I represent--Arizona's First Congressional District--
    is one of the largest Congressional districts in the county,
    encompassing eight of Arizona's thirteen rural counties. It contains
    over thirty-seven million acres of land administered by the federal
    government, including over nine million acres of United States Forest
    Service lands. That acreage includes much of Coconino, Apache-
    Sitgreaves, Prescott, Tonto and Kaibab National Forests
        Last year, our communities were victims to some of the largest
    forest fires in recorded history. The Wallow Fire grew to over 800
    square miles, over just a few short weeks, charring in its wake some of
    the most treasured parts of our Ponderosa Pine country. The Horseshoe
    Fire, the Murphy Complex, the Stanley Fire and the Monument Fire
    blackened another 200,000+ acres. This year's fire season has not been
    any better. Over 900 fires have charred nearly 6,000 square miles in
    Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah.
    Over 50,000 of those acres are in Arizona alone.
        It is clear that the process of planning, studying, consulting,
    litigating, appealing, and collaborating are failing us and our
    forests. The frequency of fires, and the magnitude of the acreage
    burned, has increased markedly since 1990. The five largest wildfires
    in my state's history, Rodeo in 2002, Cave Creek in 2005, Willow in
    2004, Aspen in 2003, and now the Wallow Fire have all occurred in the
    last ten years. Prior to 1990, the largest fire was the Carrizo fire in
    1970 which burned just 57,000 acres.
        Our ecosystems are suffocating. Where we once had 10 to 25 trees
    per acre, we now have hundreds. Roughly 80 million acres of forests
    across the West are overgrown and ripe for catastrophic wildfire,
    according to the Landfire multiagency database. Our forests have been
    mismanaged for a long time and it is way past due to change our
    strategy.
        The current federal system continues to prioritize fighting fires.
    Although the need to suppress fires is never going to go away, we must
    shift priority towards pro-active management.
        We simply cannot afford to do otherwise. Catastrophic wildfires are
    difficult to control and cost the federal government millions of
    dollars in immediate fire response and many millions more in
    restoration and rehabilitation. The Western Forestry Leadership
    Coalition, a state and federal government partnership, estimates the
    costs are 2 to 30 times the reported suppression costs. Last year, the
    Forest Service spent a record total of $48 million on burned-area
    recovery work. $25 million has already been spent to prepare for the
    immediate aftermath of this year's wildfires, putting the U.S. Forest
    Service on track for another possible record year of spending on
    burned-area recovery efforts.
        So what is standing in the way of pro-active and fiscally
    sustainable forest management? Bureaucratic red tape, preventing us
    from participating in the stewardship of our public lands and the
    extortion tactics of some environmental groups, which have devastated
    the timber industry and placed local ranchers' economic livelihood at
    risk.
        That is why I introduced the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act
    of 2012. My bill authorizes the Forest Service and Department of the
    Interior to implement wildfire prevention projects, including timber
    harvests and livestock grazing, in at-risk forests and threatened and
    endangered species habitat that focus on surface, ladder and canopy
    fuels reduction activities. In other words: it streamlines the review
    process, improves local coordination eliminates duplication, and sets
    firm time frames to bring more accountability to the process.
        Forest thinning works! In Eastern Arizona, the areas that were
    treated as part of the White Mountain Stewardship Project, a contract
    designed to thin Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and White Mountain
    Apache Tribal lands, and the areas managed locally by the Apache Tribe
    and the State of Arizona were properly cleared. Today there are still
    healthy trees with burned underbrush. In the lands that were untouched
    by thinning practices, the majority of the U.S. Forest Service
    administered land in the state, fire has left only scorched earth
    behind. We simply need to make ecological restoration easier.
        This common sense approach has garnered strong bipartisan support.
    This legislation has thirty-two cosponsors from twenty-three different
    states. Additionally, Utah Senator Mike Lee has introduced companion
    legislation in the Senate. Many of these supporters represent states or
    Congressional Districts with large swaths of National Forest System or
    Bureau of Land Management administered land--not Massachusetts. In
    short, they are the people directly in harm's way, not safely tucked in
    a concrete jungle.
        Thank you Chairman Bishop for your leadership on this issue. I look
    forward to further committee action on my bill and others proposals
    that will restore the environment, improve public safety, save the
    taxpayer dollars, and put people back to work.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. We will let Ranking Member Markey speak on his
    particular bill.
        Mr. Tipton, if I can turn to you now for H.R. 6089.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for including my
    legislation, H.R. 6089, the Healthy Forest Management Act of
    2012, in today's hearing, and for your support of this bill.
        I would also like to thank my fellow members of the
    Colorado delegation, Congressman Coffman, Congressman Lamborn
    and Congressman Gardner, as well as Congressman Greg Walden and
    Congressman Gosar, for the valuable contribution to this
    effort.
        The bark beetle epidemic, rampant drought and deteriorating
    forest conditions have increased the propensity for devastating
    wildfires of the kind already seen in Colorado and throughout
    the Western United States this season. While the outbreak has
    affected State and private lands, the damage is oftentimes more
    heavily concentrated in Federal lands where a lack of active
    forest management has allowed the epidemic to spread to
    catastrophic levels. Of the 6.6 million acres infested in
    Colorado, almost 4 million are on Federal lands.
        Federal efforts to responsibly manage our forests and
    prevent conditions for fires that have ravaged Colorado and
    other Western States have been hampered by an unwieldy
    regulatory framework that systemically prevents progress toward
    healthy forests. H.R. 6089, the Healthy Forest Management Act
    of 2012, gives greater control to those States and communities
    most directly affected by these conditions, and provides a
    pathway for comprehensive landscape-level planning and a local
    emphasis.
        This legislation builds on the bipartisan Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act of 2003, empowering States, counties and tribes
    to be more active in addressing these emergency circumstances.
    We can proactively manage our forests; reduce further
    destruction from wildfires; safeguard water supplies, species,
    habitat; and provide a healthy natural environment. Utilizing
    the tools in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which have
    proven to be effective, the Healthy Forest Management Act can
    help reduce the cost imposed on taxpayers due to litigation,
    expedite emergency mitigation procedures, and restore our
    forests before they go up in flames when the costs are far
    greater.
        H.R. 6089 prioritizes conservation and will help reduce the
    investment required of taxpayers by making public-private
    partnerships more feasible. This bill is a result of more than
    a year of Committee work; meetings with the Forest Service,
    Bureau of Land Management and other agencies; meeting with
    county and State officials and with constituents; as well as
    congressional hearings on forest management. Everyone that we
    talked to agreed that more needs to be done to be able to
    manage our Federal forests, and this legislation is the
    outgrowth of that stakeholder engagement. This is further borne
    out by the groundswell of support that we have received for
    this legislation from Coloradans; local, State and national
    groups; and from organizations on both sides of the political
    spectrum since the bill was introduced this last week.
        The Healthy Forest Management Act empowers Governors to be
    able to work with county commissioners and tribes to be able to
    identify the most problematic areas, the spots that pose the
    most imminent risk of fueling a wildlife, and then take action
    to be able to manage the risk by removing hazardous fuels like
    beetle-killed timber. This bill allows those who are most
    directly impacted by wildfires to take proactive measures to be
    able to address the problems and mitigate the root causes of
    catastrophic wildfire.
        This bill isn't a talker, it is a doer. For this reason the
    Healthy Forest Management Act has received the support of the
    Colorado Timber Association, CLUB 20, the Colorado Association
    of Conservation Districts. Commissioners from Routt, Montrose,
    Gunnison, Archuleta, Moffat, Dolores, Jefferson and Larimer
    Counties have also given their endorsements. So have the Boone
    and Crockett Club, and the Farm Bureau Federal Forest Resource
    Coalition, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National
    Association of Counties, National Association of Forest Service
    Retirees, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National
    Association of Conservation Districts, Public Lands Council,
    Safari Club International and the Society for Range Management.
        I would like to urge my colleagues to join us in the strong
    coalition of support for a commonsense bill that takes action
    to be able to fix the problem and seriously address the
    critical state of the Western forests.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Tipton.
        Now, Bryson, I am going to call an audible here. We have
    several witnesses who traveled great distances, and I am aware
    of your travel plans going back home, so I am going to get you
    finished in time. Some of the witnesses are addressing all
    three bills, and some only one bill. So I am going to make sure
    that we get to those who want to address all three bills at the
    same time.
        So let me invite up Mary Wagner, who is from the Forest
    Service; Ed Roberson, who is from BLM and the Department of the
    Interior, who will be addressing all three bills.
        Can I also invite--and this is where I am going to make the
    change here--Commissioner Gibbs from Summit County in Colorado,
    Joseph Romm from the Center for American Progress. You are all
    speaking on all three bills, so if I can invite you up.
        Then also let me invite Hank Kashdan from the National
    Association of Forest Service Retirees, and Tom Jankovsky, the
    Commissioner from Garfield County in Colorado.
        Actually, if you guys could come up here and be the first
    panel, I would appreciate that. I was excited for a while when
    I saw Garfield and Summit Counties, and then I realized this is
    Garfield and Summit County in Colorado, not in Utah.
    Disappointment reigned again.
        All right. If I could ask you--am I missing anyone there?
    If I could ask you once again if you would address, the first
    four witnesses, all three bills, and then the last two
    witnesses, the Commissioner and Mr. Kashdan from the Retirees,
    if you would then talk about H.R. 6089. And once again, since
    we are on a short time limit to try and make sure that everyone
    gets their available time, you have 5 minutes. You know the
    drill. Most of you have been here before. We have your written
    testimony. It will appear as written in the record. This is an
    oral testimony, so only hit the highlights. Make sure it comes
    within the 5 minutes.
        When the green light is on in front of you, that means you
    are free to go. When the yellow light hits, you have less than
    that a minute to sum up. And I will apologize to you now that
    when it hits 5 minutes, I am going to cut you off even if it is
    in mid-sentence. I want to get all the testimony in so that it
    can be heard and we can get through these issues and so people
    can meet their deadlines. So I appreciate that.
        OK. I think everyone is now situated and settled. We
    realize you are happy to be here, and you are going to thank
    us. Don't do that. Just go right to your message. You got 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Wagner, we will start with you, please.

      STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE,
                UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am
    going to offer just a few remarks this morning and note that
    more detail is in the written testimony that has been
    submitted.
        Drought, invasive species, loss of open space, severe
    wildfires, devastating outbreaks of insects and disease, all
    these stresses and disturbances are affecting America's forests
    on an unprecedented scale: 65 to 82 million acres are in need
    of restoration on national forests alone; 65 million acres are
    at high or a very high risk of large wildfires. Increasing the
    pace of restoration of the Nation's forest is critically needed
    to address the health of our forest ecosystems, watersheds and
    communities.
        In Fiscal Year 2011, we accomplished 3.7 million acres of
    restoration. In Fiscal Year 2012, we are on track to accomplish
    about 4 million acres. We have made strides in our efforts to
    increase the pace of restoration, working with community
    organizations, environmental groups, forest industry, local
    government and communities, States, tribes and other Federal
    agencies. We have demonstrated that forest thinning and
    hazardous fuels treatments reduce the impact of fire. But
    clearly we have more to do.
        I want to offer my appreciation to members of this
    Subcommittee and other Members of Congress for your interest
    and action on this issue. And I also want to express my
    condolences to families in communities impacted by wildfires to
    date. This is the reason this work needs our very best.
        Before I address the three bills, I want to tell you about
    some of the work we are implementing to increase restoration.
    In many cases new authorities and tools from Congress has made
    this work possible. We have invested in restoration projects
    with partners through the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program. These projects have demonstrated that
    collaboration among stakeholders can facilitate large
    landscape-scale restoration. The landscape strategies developed
    by these collaborative efforts alone exceed 16 million acres in
    their footprint, and the strategic placement of fuels and
    mechanical treatments will help build more resilient
    landscapes.
        States are featured partners in many of these CFLR
    projects. Under the 2008 farm bill, State forest action plans
    were required, and they delineate priority areas for forest
    restoration. We have partnered with the States and coordinated
    across boundaries for many of these State action plans and are
    in the process of implementing them.
        We have implemented the bark beetle strategy, focusing
    priority treatment areas to ensure human health and safety and
    to reduce hazardous fuels conditions. We have used tools
    available to the agency, such as stewardship contracts and Good
    Neighbor authority, to develop more holistic treatments that
    accomplish multiple research objectives, many times working
    across jurisdictional boundaries.
        With the passage of the 2012 Interior appropriations bill,
    Congress provided resources and authorization to implement
    integrated resource restoration for three pilot regions in the
    interior West of the United States. IRR is going to bring
    resources necessary for maintaining and restoring ecosystems
    under one budget line item, giving us a lot of flexibility to
    do the necessary work on the land.
        We have worked hard on improving NEPA efficiency for
    restoration. A couple of examples; we are close to issuing two
    new categorical exclusions for soil and water restoration
    activities, and we are increasing the use of landscape-scale
    NEPA, larger acreage covered in one analysis. Two examples of
    that are Arizona's Four Forest Initiative, where the NEPA
    document that is covering the restoration plan for that acreage
    is 750,000 acres. Recently in the Black Hills, they have issued
    an adaptive environmental impact statement covering over
    250,000 acres of mountain pine beetle at-risk or impacted
    landscape.
        And last, we are working as a partner on the all lands
    cohesive strategy. Congress, through the Flame Act, asked the
    agencies to put together a strategy that would focus on
    restoring and maintaining fire-adapted landscapes, including
    communities, and optimizing coordinated response to wildfire.
    And we are working with a host of local municipal, State, other
    Federal agency players to respond to that strategy.
        A critical part of all these efforts is building public
    support for forest restoration and management activities. While
    the Department opposes H.R. 5744 and H.R. 6089 as drafted,
    there are elements of the bills that we support, and we would
    like to work with the Subcommittee and sponsors in developing
    bill language that meets forest restoration objectives. And
    while we support H.R. 5960, we would like to have further
    discussion on some of the elements. We do support expanding
    Good Neighbor authority and reauthorizing stewardship
    contracting authority.
        As wildland fires have impacted lands across the West, we
    recognize the interest, the urgency and the willingness of many
    Members of Congress to provide tools for the Forest Service and
    other Federal agencies to apply restoration principles. We look
    forward to working with you on this issue. Thanks.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Ms. Wagner, and thank you for
    watching the clock so diligently. I appreciate that. I saw you
    speed up.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]

          Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, Forest Service,
     United States Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 5744, H.R. 5960, and
                                   H.R. 6089

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    regarding these bills. This is a difficult time for all of us. Wildland
    fires have disrupted lives and impacted lands across the West, and
    there is great interest, urgency and willingness to help provide tools
    for the Forest Service to apply restoration principles. We appreciate
    this interest and want to work with you to provide the best possible
    approaches to address these issues. Unfortunately, because of the short
    notice for this hearing, we have not had an opportunity to thoroughly
    analyze the bills before us, and thus, our testimony today will be
    general in nature. We will continue to work with Congress and others
    that have advanced proposals, such as in the bills we are discussing
    today as well as the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill.
        We recognize our collective ability to sustain the nation's forests
    and provide ecosystem services is increasingly at risk. Drought,
    invasive species, loss of open space, uncharacteristically severe
    wildfires, uncharacteristically severe outbreaks of insects and
    disease--all these stresses and disturbances are affecting America's
    forests on an unprecedented scale, with 60-80 million acres at risk.
        Before I address the three bills, let me tell you about some of the
    initiatives we are implementing to increase restoration.
        The Forest Service has initiated an Accelerated Restoration program
    to restore the functions and processes characteristic of healthy,
    resilient ecosystems on as many acres as possible. Our goal is to
    sustain and restore ecosystems that can deliver all the benefits that
    Americans want and need. The Forest Service recognizes that increasing
    the pace and scale of restoration and active management of the National
    Forests is critically needed to address threats to the resiliency of
    our forests and watersheds and the health and safety of America's
    forest-dependent communities.
        The Forest Service also recognizes the need for a strong forest
    industry to help accomplish forest restoration work. A vibrant industry
    can provide both the resources and the know-how to undertake mechanical
    treatments and other restoration activities. Forest industry also
    lowers the cost of restoration to the taxpayer by providing markets for
    forest products.
        The Forest Service is committed to increasing the current total of
    acres being mechanically treated by 20% over the next three years. This
    increase would allow the Forest Service to increase the number of acres
    and watersheds restored across the system, while supporting jobs and
    increasing the amount of forest products sold. A critical part of this
    effort is building public support for forest restoration and management
    activities. To this end, the Forest Service continues to emphasize the
    importance of collaboration among diverse stakeholders in developing
    restoration projects on national forest lands. Such collaboration not
    only results in better projects, but it also reduces the risks of
    litigation.
        An additional benefit of this restoration work is job creation. For
    example, through implementation of the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program (including the use of stewardship contracts), the
    proponents of projects on national forest lands anticipate creating or
    maintaining 1,550 jobs. The benefits of maintaining a robust forest
    industry flows not only to local communities but also to the Forest
    Service itself as the agency relies on local forest contractors and
    mills to provide the work force to undertake a variety of restoration
    activities. A study by Cassandra Moseley and Max Nielson-Pincus,
    Institute for Sustainable Development, has shown that every one million
    dollars spent on activities such as stream restoration or road
    decommissioning generates from 12 to 28 jobs. In addition, restoring
    the health and resilience of our forests generates important amenity
    values. Healthy, resilient forests and grasslands are magnets for
    outdoor recreation, with more than 170 million visits per year to the
    National Forest System. That in turn leads to jobs and economic
    opportunity.
        The Forest Service continues to work toward restoring more land to
    accomplish restoration objectives, maintain a robust forest industry,
    and in turn create jobs. We are striving to efficiently implement
    existing programs and policies, as well as pursuing a number of new
    policies and initiatives to increase the pace of forest restoration and
    conservation through collaboration and management of the national
    forests. The aim of these efforts is to move beyond the conflicts which
    have characterized forest policy in the past and toward a shared vision
    that allows forest industry, environmentalists, local communities, and
    other stakeholders to work collaboratively toward healthier forests and
    watersheds, safer communities and more vibrant local economies.
        Within the framework of the overall restoration program, the Forest
    Service is focused on the role of active forest management--including
    hazardous fuels reduction, reforestation, stream restoration, road
    decommissioning, forest thinning and harvesting, prescribed fire, and a
    range of other practices--as important tools to accomplish needed
    restoration work. The following are a series of actions that will allow
    the Agency to further restoration and management on the national
    forests:
    Investing in restoration projects with partners through the
            Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP).
        In fiscal year 2012, the Forest Service received the full $40
    million authorized by the CFLR Act. The Secretary funded 10 new
    projects, in addition to the continued funding for 10 projects selected
    in 2010. Three additional high priority collaborative projects were
    also funded from other appropriated FS funding. These 23 projects have
    demonstrated that collaboration among stakeholders can facilitate
    large, landscape scale restoration, thereby improving forest health,
    reducing wildfire risk, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, and
    increasing timber and biomass production from our national forests.
        The U.S. Forest Service reduced fire threats on more than 123,000
    acres of land under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    Program nationwide in fiscal year 2011 as part of a larger effort to
    improve the health and resiliency of national forests.
        In its second year of funding, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program also contributed $21 million to local economies
    through treatments that included prescribed burns and fuels thinning,
    producing 121 million board feet of lumber and 267,000 tons of woody
    biomass for bio-energy production on ten projects around the country.
        On three National Forests throughout Colorado, CFLR projects have
    reduced fire threats over 14,000 acres using mechanical thinning and
    prescribed fire. The Deschutes has reduced 29,000 tons of woody biomass
    and made available 8 million board feet of lumber.
        The CFLR project in California on the Sierra National Forest has
    reduced hazardous fuels on 8,000 acres of Wildland Urban Interface
    lands while at the same time yielding nearly 8 million board feet of
    lumber. The Four Forest Restoration Project in Arizona has improved
    forest vegetation, restored habitat on 111,000 acres and begun major
    rehabilitation work on areas affected by the Wallow and Schultz fires.
    National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy)
        The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME)
    Act of 2009 charged the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
    create a cohesive wildfire management strategy. Federal Land Managers
    responded by working through the Wildland Fire Leadership Council to
    direct the development of the Cohesive Strategy. The nation's wildland
    fire problems do not stop at administrative boundaries; the Cohesive
    Strategy is a collaborative process with active involvement of all
    levels of government and non-governmental organizations, as well as the
    public, to seek national, all-lands solutions to wildland fire
    management issues. It is being built both from the top down and from
    the bottom up, and is science based. The Cohesive Strategy addresses
    the nation's wildfire problems by focusing on three key areas: 1)
    Restore and Maintain Landscapes, 2) Fire Adapted Communities, and 3)
    Response to Fire.
        The Cohesive Strategy is now moving into Phase III, which includes
    a trade-off analysis of national risk. We expect to garner a better
    understanding of how the Forest Service can play a larger role in
    restoring and maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems and landscapes within
    an all-lands context. This understanding should help focus and support
    efforts I've already described under the umbrella of Accelerated
    Restoration and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    Programs.
    The Forest Service Bark Beetle Strategy.
        Bark beetles have impacted nearly 18 million acres of NFS lands.
    The Bark Beetle Strategy, developed in 2011, focuses management efforts
    on priority treatment areas to ensure human health and safety and to
    reduce hazardous fuel conditions. In FY 2011, a total of approximately
    16,822 acres were treated to reduce safety hazards to forest visitors,
    50,145 were reforested, and 236,962 acres were thinned to improve
    resilience producing approximately 303.3 million board feet of timber
    sold, 153,801 green tons of biomass, and resulting in removal of hazard
    trees along 978 miles of road.
    Use of Stewardship Contracting.
        This tool allows the Forest Service to acquire needed restoration
    services. Reauthorizing this authority and expanding the use of this
    tool is crucial to our ability to collaboratively restore landscapes at
    a reduced cost to the government by offsetting the value of the
    services received with the value of forest products removed pursuant to
    a single contract or agreement. In Fiscal Year 2011, 19% of all timber
    volume sold was under a stewardship contract and funded activities such
    as watershed and wildlife habitat improvement projects, trails
    projects, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels reduction. 208
    contracts were awarded in 2011, treating 189,000 acres of hazardous
    fuels.
    Improved efficiency of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
            process for restoration.
        A robust, comprehensive and efficient Forest Planning/NEPA program
    is needed to accomplish the hundreds of thousands of acres of natural
    resource projects we do across the country each year. We continuously
    strive to save time and money in this program while meeting our
    statutory and regulatory obligations. In addition to the recently
    promulgated Forest Planning rule, the Agency has also initiated a NEPA
    learning networks project to learn from and share the lessons of
    successful implementation of efficient NEPA analyses. The goal of this
    effort is to ensure that the Agency's NEPA compliance is as efficient,
    cost-effective, and up-to-date as possible. Specifically we are looking
    at expanding the use of focused environmental assessment (EAs),
    iterative environmental impact statement (EISs) documentation,
    expanding categories of actions that may be excluded from documentation
    in an EA or an EIS, and applying an adaptive management framework to
    NEPA. Our landscape-scale NEPA projects will also increase
    efficiencies. For example, our Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project on
    the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota is implementing a
    landscape-scale adaptive approach for treating future pine beetle
    outbreaks. We are also implementing the Four Forest Restoration
    Initiative project in the Southwest which is a very large, four forest
    landscape-scale restoration project.
    The Good Neighbor Authority
        The Good Neighbor Authority was first authorized in 2000,
    responding to increased concern regarding densely stocked stands at
    risk from insect and wildland fires. The law authorized the U.S. Forest
    Service to permit the Colorado State Forest Service to conduct certain
    watershed restoration activities on National Forest Service land when
    conducting similar activities on adjacent state or private land. In
    2004 Utah and BLM received Good Neighbor authority. Federal and state
    officials who have used Good Neighbor authority cited project
    efficiencies and enhanced federal-state cooperation as its key
    benefits. The Department would like to see this authority expanded and
    reauthorized.
    The Bills
        Our preliminary review of the three bills today before the
    Committee will be discussed next.
        While the Department opposes H.R. 5744 and H.R. 6089 as drafted,
    there are elements that we support and we would like to continue to
    work with the Subcommittee in developing bill language that will meet
    our forest restoration objectives. The Administration can support H.R.
    5960 but would like to have further discussion on some of its elements.
    We support the reauthorization of Good Neighbor and Stewardship
    Contracting Authority.
        H.R. 5744, the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012, was
    introduced to address the forest health, public safety, and wildlife
    habitat threat presented by the risk of wildfire, including
    catastrophic wildfire, on National Forest System lands and public lands
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management by requiring the Secretary of
    Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to expedite forest
    management projects relating to hazardous fuels reduction, forest
    health, forest and watershed restoration, and threatened and endangered
    species habitat protection. The Administration agrees with the intent
    of the bill. However, we have significant concerns with some of the
    provisions and would like to further analyze and discuss several
    aspects, including provisions that modify the public comment and
    environmental analysis under National Forest Policy Act (NEPA), grazing
    utilization standard waivers, and timeframes for public petitions. In
    particular, we oppose the NEPA provisions in the bill because we do not
    believe 30 days will allow for adequate environmental review of most
    projects. It is also important to apply utilization standards for
    livestock grazing to wildfire prevention projects so that soil and
    vegetative cover is maintained.
        H.R. 5960, the Depleting Risk from Insect Infestation, Soil
    Erosion, and Catastrophic Fire Act of 2012, was introduced to amend the
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) to improve the response
    to insect infestations and related diseases and to make the Stewardship
    Contracting authority permanent and to extend Good Neighbor authority
    to western states. The bill authorizes the Secretary, in consultation
    with the Governor, to designate in each State one or more sub-
    watersheds that are experiencing an insect or disease epidemic, and to
    carry out priority projects to reduce the risk or extent of, or
    increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation. The projects
    may be carried out under the HFRA provisions, including those providing
    for expedited environmental analysis, pre-decisional review, and
    judicial review. We agree that it would be helpful to make tree
    mortality due to insect or disease eligible treatment using the HFRA
    provisions, but would like to further analyze and discuss several
    aspects including timeframes for eligible projects, proactive
    approaches, and large and old-growth tree retention. We support the
    extension of stewardship contracting. However, we would like to see
    stewardship contracting authority made permanent. The Department
    supports extending Good Neighbor Authority, but would like to further
    analyze differences between H.R. 5960 and current authority in
    Colorado, where we have had significant success.
        H.R. 6089, the Healthy Forest Management Act of 2012, was
    introduced to address the bark beetle epidemic, drought, deteriorating
    forest health conditions, and high risk of wildfire on National Forest
    System land and land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
    Management by expanding authorities established in the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act of 2003, to make permanent Forest Service and Bureau of
    Land Management authority to carry out Good Neighbor authority with
    States, and to extend the Stewardship Contracting Authority. The Forest
    Service supports reauthorization of the Stewardship Contracting
    Authority and Good Neighbor authority. We do not support provisions in
    the bill that authorize the Governors to designate high risk areas on
    National Forest System lands and to provide for development of
    emergency fuels reduction projects in the areas. We would like to
    discuss further several topics, including projects in inventoried
    roadless areas, timeframes, and the criteria for projects.
        In summary, the Forest Service would like to thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on these pieces of legislation. We continue an
    increased pace of restoration and job creation on our National Forest
    System lands. As wildland fires have impacted lands across the West, we
    recognize the interest, urgency and willingness of many Members of
    Congress to provide tools for the Forest Service to apply restoration
    principles. Be assured that our resources are directed at the
    suppression of these fires as well as efforts to provide emergency
    stabilization of burned lands, and fuels reduction projects.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Roberson from the Department of the
    Interior, same drill.

        STATEMENT OF ED ROBERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RENEWABLE
        RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S.
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Roberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
    for inviting me and the Bureau of Land Management to testify
    this morning. The Department of the Interior and our cohesive
    wildland fire strategy, management strategy, is working toward
    maintaining resistant landscapes, creating fire-adapted
    communities, and managing wildfire response in a complex
    environment.
        An agency of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of
    Land Management, is committed to sustaining the health,
    diversity and productivity of the forest and woodlands, which
    together comprise 58 million acres of the public lands which we
    manage for the American people.
        The mounting effects of insect infestation, disease
    outbreaks, prolonged drought, climate change, invasions of
    harmful nonnative species, and the accumulation of fuels
    generate increased risk of catastrophic losses, including risk
    to life and property that may result from wildfire.
        The BLM works with its partners across landownership to
    protect lives and property, wildfire habitat and other
    resources from wildfire. Toward this goal the BLM last year
    treated 400,000 acres for hazardous fuel.
        Guiding all of the BLM's management actions, including
    forestry and fuels management, is the agency's land-use
    planning process. The BLM uses an open public land-use planning
    process to include public input and to analyze the effects of
    proposed actions. We value this process and the information it
    provides for us.
        Two of the tools that we have used effectively in our fuels
    management program are stewardship contracting and the Good
    Neighbor authority. To date the BLM has successfully used
    stewardship contracting in over 100,000 acres, reducing
    hazardous fuels, restoring habitat, protecting communities from
    wildland fire. The BLM has used the Good Neighbor authority in
    Colorado to partner with the State and gain some efficiencies
    in achieving restoration goals there.
        With regard to Congressman Gosar's bill, H.R. 5744, it
    requires the BLM to implement authorized wildfire prevention
    projects, which are defined to include timber harvest and
    livestock grazing, under a reduced level of public comment and
    environmental analysis. The bill would allow timber harvesting
    in wilderness study areas and would impose strict timelines for
    public review and analysis. It deems a project as NEPA
    compliant if timelines are not met.
        The bill also requires fire and fuel research prior to
    Endangered Species Act listings, critical habitat
    determinations and recovery plans. The Department is committed
    to using hazardous fuels reduction treatments to maintain
    resilient landscapes and protect life and property from
    wildfire. However, we do not believe that H.R. 5744 will help
    achieve the goal of mitigating the risk of wildfire damage.
        The bill will curtail the use of some of BLM's most
    valuable assessments and analysis. The bill's strict timelines
    for public review and environmental analysis, coupled with the
    fact that the legislation deems the project NEPA compliant if
    we don't meet the timeline, would not enable sufficient
    analysis. Therefore, the Department opposes the bill's
    wilderness study area provision and the provisions that change
    ESA.
        With regard to H.R. 5960, Congressman Markey's bill, it
    amends the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to provide for
    enhanced restoration work and research, and it authorizes
    stewardship contracting and Good Neighbor authority. BLM
    supports the authorization stewardship contracting and the
    expansion of Good Neighbor authority in this legislation. These
    authorities will enable BLM to better achieve land and forest
    health goals in cooperation with our partners. The Department
    supports H.R. 5960 and would appreciate the opportunity to work
    with the sponsor and the Committee on certain technical
    improvements. We defer to the Forest Service on those portions
    of the bill that relate solely to the national forests.
        With regard to H.R. 6089, Congressman Tipton's bill, it
    authorizes a State Governor or a secretary to designate areas
    of public lands as high risk of current and future damage. For
    areas designated as high risk, the bill requires BLM to
    implement projects in those areas under a reduced environmental
    analysis. The bill also extends stewardship contracting in Good
    Neighbor authority.
        The Department opposes H.R. 6089, the definition of high-
    risk areas outside of the normal planning process, particularly
    by Governors without consultation with other Federal land
    managers; prevents public involvement, environmental analysis
    and making those designations. And further, the timeframes for
    designating these areas and implementing proposed projects is
    not sufficient for our analysis of those decisions.
        Under the bill the Secretary----
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Roberson, please. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Roberson follows:]

     Statement of Ed Roberson, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
     Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
        on H.R. 5744, Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act; H.R. 5960,
    Depleting Risk from Insect Infestation, Soil Erosion, and Catastrophic
            Fire Act; and H.R. 6089, Healthy Forests Management Act

    Introduction
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 5744, the
    Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act; H.R. 5960, the Depleting Risk
    from Insect Infestation, Soil Erosion, and Catastrophic Fire Act; and
    H.R. 6089, the Healthy Forests Management Act. All of these bills
    attempt to reduce the risk of catastrophic damages resulting from
    wildland fire by defining new forest and fuels treatments policies on
    public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and on
    National Forest System lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The
    Department of the Interior supports the goals of enhancing restoration
    for public forests and rangelands and mitigating the risks of wildland
    fire by working more effectively with our partners, and therefore
    supports H.R. 5960. However, the BLM cannot support measures that
    expedite restoration treatments, as well as commercial grazing and
    timber harvest, at the expense of the environmental review and public
    involvement in federal actions. As such, the Department opposes H.R.
    5744 and H.R. 6089.
    Background
        The BLM is committed to sustaining the health, diversity, and
    productivity of forests and woodlands, which together comprise 58
    million acres of public lands managed by the BLM. The mounting effects
    of insect infestations, disease outbreaks, prolonged drought, climate
    change, invasions of harmful non-native species, and the accumulation
    of fuels generate increased risks of catastrophic losses, including
    risks to life and property that may result from wildfire. These
    increasing pressures, coupled with increasing demands for uses of the
    public lands, may also result in the loss of natural and cultural
    resources, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of recreational
    opportunities on the public lands.
        Guiding all of the BLM's management actions--including forestry and
    fuels management--is the agency's land use planning process. This is an
    open, public process in which the agency's proposals for managing
    particular resources are made known to the public in advance of taking
    action. The BLM's plans are reviewed and analyzed by members of the
    public and stakeholders, including state, tribal, and local agencies,
    and the BLM must address all comments on agency proposals and make its
    responses available to the public.
        Similarly, the BLM is committed to providing the full environmental
    review, including analysis of alternatives, and public involvement
    opportunities required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    for all agency proposals for BLM-managed lands. NEPA emphasizes public
    involvement to give all Americans a role in protecting our environment.
    America's economic health and prosperity are inexorably linked to the
    productive and sustainable use of our natural resources. The NEPA
    process remains a vital tool as we work to protect our Nation's
    environment and revitalize our economy.
    Fire
        The Department, through the Office of Wildland Fire, coordinates
    fire prevention, mitigation, and response both within the Department
    and with external federal and non-federal partners. The National
    Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is an unprecedented
    collaborative planning and risk analysis that builds on successes of
    the past while incorporating a new collaborative approach to restoring
    and maintaining resilient landscapes, creating fire adapted
    communities, and managing wildfire response in a complex environment.
    The Department's approach to hazardous fuels reduction is integrated
    and coordinated across vegetation types, types of insect infestation
    and disease, and land ownership. The Department employs an integrated,
    multi-agency approach to wildland fire management, and looks forward to
    working with the Committee to ensure the objectives of legislation are
    achieved in an integrated manner.
    Forest Restoration
        The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) provides an
    authority for hazardous fuels treatments and other forest and rangeland
    restoration treatments. In 2011, the BLM conducted over 400,000 acres
    of restoration and hazardous fuels reduction treatments, including
    thinning, salvage, and prescribed burns. The mountain pine beetle
    epidemic is estimated by the BLM to affect forests on up to 1.3 million
    acres of BLM-managed public lands, changing the character and
    increasing the complexity of the restoration treatments that the BLM
    applies. The BLM takes seriously its responsibilities for protecting
    people, property, and resources from wildland fire, and uses a
    proactive approach to treat hazardous fuels.
        Because the factors that cause increasing hazardous fuel loads
    cross jurisdictional boundaries, the BLM has increasingly adopted a
    landscape approach to resource conservation and hazardous fuel
    treatment. The BLM routinely works with partner agencies,
    organizations, and landowners to engage in land and watershed
    restoration and hazardous fuels reduction activities on federal, state,
    and private lands.
    Stewardship Contracting
        Stewardship contracting authority, established for the BLM in the
    FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act, allows the BLM to award contracts
    for fuels treatment and removal, for a period of up to ten years, and
    to use the value of timber or other forest products removed as an
    offset against the cost of services received. The BLM has enjoyed many
    successes in using stewardship contracting authority, accomplishing
    goals for hazardous fuels reduction, habitat restoration, jobs and
    revenue growth for local communities, and protection of local
    communities from wildland fire. From 2005 through 2011, the BLM offered
    411 stewardship contracts on 101,238 acres of BLM-managed lands. The
    BLM's future strategy for stewardship projects includes increasing the
    size and duration of these projects.
    Good Neighbor Authority
        Currently, the BLM is authorized through a pilot authority to enter
    into Good Neighbor agreements and contracts with the Colorado State
    Forestry Division to perform watershed restoration and protection
    services on BLM lands in the State of Colorado when similar and
    complementary work is being performed on adjacent state lands. This
    authority has been extended until September 30, 2013. All Good Neighbor
    projects must comply with applicable environmental laws and
    regulations, including the appropriate level of environmental review
    under NEPA, and must be consistent with the applicable land use plans.
    BLM field units are encouraged to use the Good Neighbor Authority as a
    tool to achieve resource work identified through the regular land use
    planning processes.
    H.R. 5744
        H.R. 5744 requires the implementation of authorized wildfire
    prevention projects in forests and in threatened and endangered species
    habitat, and defines livestock grazing and timber harvesting and
    thinning as appropriate project tools to reduce fuel loads. The bill
    provides for a reduced period of public comment and environmental
    analysis for such projects, and establishes expedited administrative
    and judicial review. In addition, the bill requires research on the
    effects of a potential Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing on fuel
    loads, forage and timber. The Department of the Interior opposes H.R.
    5744, because it limits public involvement in the land use planning and
    environmental analysis processes and because of the modifications it
    makes to the ESA.
    Analysis
        The goal of H.R. 5744 is to mitigate the risk of catastrophic
    damages from wildfire. However, the Department does not believe that
    H.R. 5744 will help achieve the mitigation efforts as the bill does not
    reflect BLM's most current methods for conducting assessments and
    determining management practices. It curtails the BLM's ability to use
    its public land use planning process to inform decision-making. The BLM
    uses science-based tools for assessing conditions, establishing
    utilization standards, and analyzing alternatives, and values both its
    ability to conduct science-based analyses and the input it receives
    from the public on the agency's proposed actions for managing
    particular resources. Further, the scope of the bill is unclear--
    language throughout is limited to forest systems, although the bill
    appears intended to apply to woodlands and rangelands as well.
        H.R. 5744 allows fuels reduction projects, including timber
    harvest, in Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The BLM opposes this
    provision. The BLM has developed a non-impairment criterion to meet the
    requirements in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that
    WSAs not have their suitability for wilderness designation impaired.
    H.R. 5744, if enacted, could result in the loss of suitability for
    wilderness designation in WSAs that the BLM has managed for non-
    impairment since FLPMA was enacted.
        The bill imposes strict deadlines for public review and
    environmental analysis and ``deems'' a project NEPA compliant if the
    agency does not meet the deadlines. The bill restricts environmental
    analysis for projects including livestock grazing and timber harvest
    that are authorized under the bill to Environmental Assessments,
    limiting the BLM's ability to perform analyses and use them to inform
    its decisions. The 30-day deadline for public comment, 60-day deadline
    for response to public petitions for designation, and 60-day deadline
    for project decisions is insufficient for full public participation,
    complete environmental analysis, and would not permit the examination
    of and response to all comments received during the public comment
    period.
        For authorized wildfire prevention projects the bill deems an
    Environmental Assessment (EA) for a livestock grazing project to be
    sufficient for at least 10 years, while an EA for a timber harvest
    project is deemed sufficient for at least 20 years. These time frames
    limit the BLM's ability to determine the appropriate scope of their
    NEPA analyses and would undermine the integrity of those analyses.
    These time frames also may be interpreted to restrict the BLM's ability
    to be responsive to changes in resource conditions and significant new
    circumstances and information, as required by FLPMA and NEPA. The bill
    also eliminates the alternatives analysis, which lies at the heart of
    NEPA and is beneficial in informing agency decisions. The BLM gains
    important information about public and stakeholder perspectives and
    performs important analyses during its NEPA process. The BLM opposes
    provisions limiting public participation through the land use planning
    and NEPA analysis processes.
        The Department strongly believes that forest health and related
    management practices are consistent with threatened and endangered
    species conservation. The Department is committed to working with land
    managers to ensure robust forest health management practices are in
    place. The Department has a longstanding position of acknowledging the
    importance of forest health management practices on species
    conservation, such as actions that limit forest fuel loads. However,
    the requirements in H.R. 5744 (Sec. 7) for additional research and
    assessments for ESA listings, critical habitat determinations, and
    recovery plans are unnecessary and would create an undue burden, and
    therefore the Department opposes this provision.
    H.R. 5960
        H.R. 5960 amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) to
    provide for enhanced restoration work in priority watersheds and
    enhanced authority to perform cooperative restoration projects on
    public lands managed by the BLM and on National Forest System lands
    managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The bill adds mountain pine beetle
    infestations as areas eligible for applied silvicultural assessments
    under HFRA; directs the Secretary of Agriculture to designate insect
    and disease treatment and research pilot areas; and changes the funding
    source for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. The bill authorizes
    stewardship contracting; establishes the Good Neighbor Authority; and
    modifies the Emergency Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
        The majority of the bill's provisions apply to lands and programs
    managed by the U.S. Forest Service; the Department of the Interior
    defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on provisions that apply
    exclusively to lands and programs under its management. As to
    provisions that impact public lands under its management, the
    Department of the Interior supports H.R. 5960 as outlined below. The
    BLM would also appreciate the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
    the committee on certain technical improvements to the bill.
    Analysis
        H.R. 5960 amends HFRA to add the mountain pine beetle to HFRA's
    list of insect infestations eligible for treatments and to add a new
    section (Sec. 405) authorizing the designation of insect and disease
    treatment and research pilot program areas. This beetle is one of
    several insect species of concern to BLM's forest management program;
    however, this section of the legislation is currently written to apply
    only to National Forests. The BLM would welcome the opportunity to work
    with the sponsor on technical changes that would include BLM-managed
    lands in the identification of pilot priority treatment areas.
        H.R. 5960 permanently authorizes stewardship contracting to achieve
    land management goals. The BLM supports stewardship contracting
    authority, as it provides the BLM with needed flexibility to work with
    contractors to achieve the agency's land and forest health goals, and
    saves taxpayer resources because the value of forest products removed
    are used to offset the cost of the management action. However, the BLM
    would like to work with the sponsor on clarifying language to ensure
    the BLM is included in the intended authorities, that the Secretary of
    the Interior, as well as the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
    enter into contracts, and to address the full breadth of work included
    in the treatment types listed.
        Finally, H.R. 5960 expands the Good Neighbor Authority, enabling
    the use of contracts and agreements between the Secretary of the
    Interior or Secretary of Agriculture and state Governors to perform
    authorized restoration work on federal land where similar work is being
    performed on adjacent state land. Building on successful implementation
    in Colorado, where the BLM's pilot authority enabled managers to
    achieve efficiencies, savings, and enhanced treatment effectiveness,
    H.R. 5960 authorizes the BLM to use this cross-boundary management tool
    on BLM-managed lands throughout the west. The authority provided by the
    bill is discretionary; each BLM office could determine on a case-by-
    case basis whether or not the Good Neighbor authority is a desirable
    option. All Good Neighbor projects would be undertaken in conformance
    with land use plans and comply with NEPA, if applicable. The BLM
    supports this authority and would like to work with the sponsor and the
    committee on technical improvements to restoration language.
    H.R. 6089
        H.R. 6089 declares the bark beetle epidemic, drought, and
    deteriorating forest health conditions on National Forest System lands
    and public lands to be an ``imminent threat'' and empowers the
    Governors of states, in addition to the Secretaries of Agriculture and
    of the Interior, to designate ``high-risk'' areas on these federal
    lands, and to propose and require the appropriate Secretary to
    implement emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects (defined to
    include non-clearcut timber harvests) within designated ``high-risk''
    areas. The bill applies several HFRA authorities--reduced environmental
    analysis, special administrative review, and reduced judicial review--
    to the emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects as defined in H.R.
    5960. The bill expands Good Neighbor Authority and Stewardship
    Contracting Authority. The Department of the Interior supports Good
    Neighbor Authority and Stewardship Contracting, and is committed to
    protecting lives, public land resources, and property from wildland
    fire. However, the Department opposes H.R. 6089 because it restricts
    opportunities for public review and environmental analysis, and because
    it enables state Governors to direct federal resource management
    actions on federal lands.
    Analysis
        The bill's definition and designation of ``high-risk'' areas is
    exceedingly broad. With no limitations on the size, location, or
    present condition of such designations, the bill provides nearly
    unlimited authority for state Governors or the Secretary to establish a
    new designation without review, analysis, or public input. The bill
    requires Governors to consult with county governments and affected
    Indian tribes, but does not require consultation with the land-managing
    agency. Additionally, the inclusion of a future risk of insect
    infestation or disease (in addition to deteriorating forest health
    conditions) as a criteria for ``high-risk'' area designation makes the
    designation meaningless, as virtually all public lands with forests or
    vegetation are potentially at future risk of insect infestation or
    disease. The BLM opposes allowing state Governors (or the Secretaries)
    to designate management treatments outside of the land use planning
    process--which provides for public notification, public involvement,
    the input of stakeholders, consideration of sound science, and the
    analysis of alternative management options to inform federal agency
    land and resource management decisions.
        The bill requires that initial ``high-risk'' areas be designated
    within 60 days of enactment of the Act. This short time frame would not
    provide the BLM sufficient time to analyze the effects of designations
    or consider input from the public, including ranchers, recreationists,
    and property owners. All of these uses would potentially be affected by
    the designation of an area as ``high-risk,'' yet the bill's strict
    deadlines limit opportunities for those who use public lands to make
    their concerns known. The bill provides that ``high-risk'' areas will
    be designated for 20 years. This long time period fails to provide
    opportunities to adjust course during the 20 year period to respond to
    new circumstances or information, emerging threats, or to unanticipated
    impacts or changes in resource conditions. For example, the current
    mountain pine beetle outbreak had not even been detected 20 years ago.
        Of serious concern, the bill requires the Secretaries to implement
    within 60 days projects proposed by a state Governor (or Secretary) for
    ``high-risk'' public lands. Requiring immediate implementation of
    projects, without consideration or analysis of impacts or public input,
    prevents an open, public process and precludes environmental analysis.
    The authority provided to Governors in this provision presents
    additional concerns, essentially shifting the authority for resource
    management decisions and activities on federal lands to individual
    state Governors. By merely designating an area of the public lands as
    ``high-risk'', under H.R. 6089, an individual state Governor can
    require BLM to manage federal lands and resources to meet the
    Governor's objectives, without regard to national objectives,
    interests, or a fair return to the American people. Under the bill,
    such required projects would place a serious burden on available agency
    funding and resources, impacting the BLM's ability to implement other
    BLM priorities, which include conventional and renewable energy
    development, leasing and permitting activities, and existing priority
    restoration work.
        Finally, the bill excludes designated Wilderness and National
    Monuments from designation as ``high-risk'' areas. However, many other
    BLM lands include resources protected by federal law, including
    National Conservation Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails,
    National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Study Areas. State
    Governors choosing to designate such areas as high risk areas would
    limit the BLM's ability to comply with its obligations to protect such
    resources under federal law. For example, under federal law (P.L. 105-
    83), the BLM has particular obligations to preserve and protect forest
    in the Headwaters Forest Reserve in California. State designation of
    this area as a ``high-risk'' area would decrease the BLM's ability to
    manage for resources protected by federal law.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify about H.R. 5744, H.R.
    5960, and H.R. 6089. I would be glad to answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Commissioner Gibbs, 5 minutes. And I am going
    to impose that deadline very strictly. Let's go.

            STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN GIBBS, COMMISSIONER,
                        SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO

        Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, and all the members of the Committee. My name is Dan
    Gibbs. I am a county commissioner from Summit County, Colorado,
    former State senator, as well as a wildland firefighter.
        Summit County is experiencing major forest health concerns.
    Over the last 10 years, I have witnessed the transformation of
    our forests in the county resulting in 146,000 acres of dead
    trees, which were killed by the mountain pine beetle epidemic.
    As a result we now have a major challenge to respond to these
    conditions.
        I appreciate that Congress enacted the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act, known as HFRA, which has helped expedite the
    Forest Restoration Act; however, there is much more that can be
    done. As can be seen from the Hayman fire that destroyed 133
    homes and cost $40 million in suppression costs in 2002 and
    many like it, the cost of suppressed fires vastly exceeds the
    cost to treat forests.
        In Summit County, over 80 percent of which is national
    forestland, 146,000 acres of dead trees that are near
    communities need to be thinned. The challenge is finding the
    resources for projects and work within existing legal and
    regulatory systems. In Summit County we have treated 3,800
    acres in the wildland-urban interface. Currently under HFRA an
    additional 13,200 acres of treatment projects have been
    approved for future work; however, we still have tens of
    thousands of acres that need urgent treatment within the
    wildland-urban interface. As a result Summit County has had to
    find additional resources.
        In 2008, Summit County voters passed a measure which
    authorizes a property tax levy for wildfire protection and the
    removal of bark beetle-killed trees, which could generate up to
    500,000 per year. In 2012, the county was able to apply
    $300,000 from this funding source for 12 projects on 140 acres
    on private land within the wildland-urban interface.
        In addition, the Colorado Forest Restoration Act, a bill
    which I passed, established a grant program that made available
    $1 million annually from State revenue for local fire
    mitigation and watershed protection. These funds are available
    for needs statewide, and grant applications far exceed the
    needs. The town of Dillon located within Summit County was a
    recipient of some of these grants that were used to treat
    forested areas along Straight Creek, a major drinking water
    supply for the town. The town was rightly concerned that a fire
    in this area would greatly impact its watershed. These grant
    funds were used to treat just 64 acres.
        So along with HFRA, the county's tax levy and a statewide
    grant program, we have been able to get needed projects done.
    But again, we still have thousands of acres to address in areas
    like Straight Creek and near homes. That is why we are
    interested in what additional assistance Congress can provide,
    and the bills that are before this Committee today have
    provisions that would help in this regard.
        Generally speaking, the projects I have mentioned would be
    enhanced by these provisions. Let me highlight these concepts.
    First, we need more funding, plain and simple. The task of
    removing hazard and fire-prone trees is daunting, and State and
    local communities can only make a dent in this effort. I
    understand that the bills you are considering in this Committee
    are not primarily about funding, but urge you to make this a
    priority.
        Second, designating the areas in our national forests that
    are impacted by insect and disease would allow the Forest
    Service to focus attention on resources in this area. We would
    welcome designated areas as emergency or critical needs in
    applying the streamlined HFRA provisions to these areas, and
    appreciate being consulted in the designation process.
        Third, we strongly support the Good Neighbor authority,
    which allows State foresters to perform essential treatment
    work on Federal lands, and urge Congress to reauthorize this
    program, and make it permanent and extend it to all States.
        Fourth, we support permanently authorizing stewardship
    contracting. The stewardship contracting mechanism helps make
    the projects more economical for entities to bid on them,
    especially in partnerships with private contractors. These
    provisions would provide tangible and important assistance to
    reduce the emergency threat of large-scale wildfires and help
    promote a healthier, more sustainable forest. We need the
    assistance of these policies to augment our State and local
    efforts.
        In conclusion, we have undertaken vigorous efforts to
    mitigate the threat with limited resources through a number of
    unique collaborations between State and local government,
    private industry and landowners. Still we are not able to
    address the infestation accurately without further assistance.
    We urge the bill sponsors to come up with a single bill that
    includes these concepts through negotiated compromise,
    resulting in a bill that could garner wide support and get
    passed and signed into law. The dire condition of our forests,
    the threat to our communities and resources, especially water,
    and the extreme drain on the Federal Treasury due to
    suppressing ever-increasing wildfires demands that Congress
    come together for our Nation's well-being.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbs follows:]

              Statement of The Honorable Dan Gibbs, Commissioner,
                            Summit County, Colorado

        Thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the
    committee. It is a great honor to come before you today. My name is Dan
    Gibbs, I'm a County Commissioner from Summit County Colorado.
        This Committee has had the benefit of hearing from the U.S. Forest
    Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to paint the larger
    picture regarding the condition of our forests and the corresponding
    fire threats arising from those conditions.
        As a former Colorado state legislator who sponsored many state
    forest health and fire response legislation--many of which were adopted
    into law--and as a current Summit County Commissioner--a county that is
    experiencing major forest health concerns--as well as a certified
    wildland fire fighter, I wanted to focus my remarks on the local and
    state concerns related to forest health and how Congress can help.
        Over the last ten years, I've witnessed a transformation of our
    forest in the county that I live in and represent as well as the
    counties that I represented while serving as a Colorado State Senator.
    In Grand County, which is just north of Summit County and which gives
    rise to the headwaters of the Colorado River--a source of water and
    life for major cities and many western states--most of the lodgepole
    pine trees are dead. In Summit County alone, we have 146,000 acres of
    dead trees and about half of all of the pine trees are dead. These
    trees were killed by the mountain pine beetle epidemic that has been
    raging through Colorado and Wyoming forests.
        As a result, we now have a major challenge to respond to these
    conditions and help the communities in places like Summit County and
    throughout the west address forest health and increased fire threats.
        I appreciate that Congress has provided some assistance--primarily
    through the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) in
    2003. This law, which came as a response to major fires that occurred
    throughout the west in 2002 including the Hayman Fire in Colorado,
    which burned 138,000 acres, destroyed 133 homes, and resulted in $40
    million in suppression costs, has helped expedite forest restoration
    efforts. However, there is much more that can be done.
        As can be seen from the Hayman Fire example--and many like it--the
    costs to suppress fires vastly outpaces the costs to treat forests to
    make them less prone to major fires. Although the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act has been helpful in this regard, we need to expand upon
    it so that we can perform more treatment work and thus reduce the costs
    associated with suppression.
        That is why I appreciate the legislation that is the subject of
    today's hearing. Before I turn to these bills, I want to take this
    opportunity to provide the local perspective on addressing these forest
    health issues and the challenges and obligations we face in light of
    limited federal resources and authorities.
        In Summit County, which is composed of over 80% national forest
    land, the portions of 146,000 acres of dead trees that are near
    communities need to be thinned or removed, or they will continue to
    present fire risks and threats to people when they eventually fall
    down. Some of this threat exists near homes and other important assets,
    such as watersheds and power lines. The challenge is in finding the
    resources to develop projects to thin and remove these trees, and to
    work within the existing legal and regulatory systems before we can go
    in and do the work.
        As I mentioned, Summit County has benefitted from HFRA. In working
    with the U.S. Forest Service, we have treated 3,800 acres of dead trees
    in the wildland/urban interface. These projects did not occur until
    2007, four years after its passage, but we were pleased that they were
    conducted. Currently, under HFRA, we have an additional 13,200 acres of
    treatment projects approved for future work under HFRA. However, we
    still have tens of thousands of acres that need urgent treatment in the
    wildland/urban interface. In short, although HFRA has helped a great
    deal, our needs in Summit County alone vastly outpace the assistance
    that this law provides.
        As a result, Summit County has had to take matters into its own
    hands and find ways to secure additional assistance.
        As an example, in 2008, Summit County voters passed a measure,
    called 1-A, which authorizes a property tax levy for wildfire
    protection and the removal of bark beetle-killed trees, among other
    purposes, which could generate up to $500,000 per year. In 2010, the
    County was able to apply $300,000 from this funding source for 12
    forest treatment projects on about 140 acres of private land in the
    wildland/urban interface. And to be able to treat these acres, we
    collected nearly 50% of private contributions. As you tell by these
    dollar amounts required to treat just 140 acres, the costs to do this
    needed work are significant.
        In addition, as state legislator, I sponsored and passed the
    Colorado Forest Restoration Act that established grant program that
    made available $1 million annually from state revenue for local forest
    treatment projects, wildfire mitigation and watershed protection. These
    grants required a local match of 40% with state funding at 60%. These
    funds are available for needs statewide, and grant applications far
    exceed the needs.
        Summit County, and individual communities in the County, was the
    recipient of some of these grants. One of these grants, for the Town of
    Dillon, was used to treat the forested area along Straight Creek, a
    major drinking water supply for the town. The town was rightly
    concerned that a fire in this area would greatly impact its watershed,
    much like the Hayman Fire impacted a watershed for Denver water users.
    These grant funds were used to treat 64 acres.
        To make this project a success, there were many partners that
    played an important role including Denver Water, Xcel Energy, The
    Greenlands Reserve, Colorado the Town of Dillon, the U.S. Forest
    Service, the Department of Transportation and much of the ground work
    was contracted using the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, an organization
    whose mission is to engage youth in the outdoors, inspiring them to use
    their strengths and potential to lead healthy, productive lives.
        So, along with HFRA, the County's tax levy, and the statewide grant
    program, we have been able to get needed projects done. But, again, we
    still have tens of thousands of acres to address in areas like Straight
    Creek and near homes.
        That is why we in Summit County and forested regions throughout
    Colorado are interested in what more assistance Congress can provide--
    not only in terms of funding for the development of treatment projects,
    but also to improve of the process to approve projects. And the bills
    that are before the Committee today have provisions that would help in
    this regard and in fact some of the concepts within them we have been
    promoting for many years here in Colorado.
        Generally speaking, the projects that I have mentioned would be
    enhanced by these concepts, and in fact would help focus attention on
    the areas of the forest that are our highest priorities for treatment
    work and would help stretch scarce resources.
        Let me highlight these concepts, again, concepts that appear in
    various forms in the separate bills that you are considering today.
        First, we need more funding. Plain and simple. The task for
    removing hazardous and fire-prone trees is daunting and the state and
    local communities can only make a dent in this effort given the funding
    limitations they have to operate within. I understand that the bills
    you are considering in the Committee are not primarily about funding,
    but urge you to make this a priority. The more funding we can provide
    to the agencies to perform and implement treatments, the less we have
    to spend at the backend when the trees go up in flames or blow down on
    to trails, campgrounds and power lines.
        Second, although we have benefitted by the HFRA provisions here in
    Summit County and especially applying HFRA to areas in our County that
    are within the wildland/urban interface, designating areas on our
    national forests that are impacted by insects, disease and poor forest
    health conditions would allow the Forest Service to focus attention and
    resources in these areas. In other words, we would welcome the concept
    of designating areas as ``emergency'' or ``critical needs'' and
    applying the streamlined HFRA provisions to these areas would help be
    of great benefit and help authorize projects where they are most needed
    and effective. We appreciate being consulted on the designation of
    these areas, but they are essentially the areas that are hardest hit
    and are where if treatments are not performed in an expedited manner,
    we run the risk of serious damage from wildfire.
        Third, although we in Summit County have not had the benefit of a
    program called the ``Good Neighbor Authority,'' which allows state
    foresters to perform essential treatment work on federal lands when
    similar work is being performed on non-federal lands, we believe that
    this program has a lot of merit and can help make the treatments on no-
    federal land be that much more effective. We are aware that some of the
    counties that surround Summit County have done some projects under the
    Good Neighbor program and they have been worthwhile. So, we urge
    Congress to reauthorize this program, make it permanent and extend it
    to all states.
        Fourth, we would support permanently reauthorizing ``stewardship
    contracting.'' As the trees and other woody biomass that needs to be
    removed to reduce fire threats and improve the health of our forests
    typically are not valuable for other economic uses, the stewardship
    contracting mechanism has allowed many projects so go forward on a
    good-for-services basis. This means the projects are economical and
    make sense for entities to bid on them, especially in partnership with
    the private contractors. In essence, these are good example of public/
    private partnerships, and thereby can stretch limited resources and get
    more projects underway and completed.
        These provisions would provide tangible and important assistance to
    reduce the emergency threat of large-scale wildfires and help promote a
    healthier, more sustainable forest. We in Colorado, like many other
    western states, are doing our part at the state and local level to
    help. But we need the assistance of this bill to augment these efforts
    and make them effective.
    CONCLUSION
        Colorado has been doing our part in this crisis, and we stand ready
    to do more. We have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat
    with limited resources through a number of unique collaborations
    between state and local government and private industry. Still, we are
    not able to address the infestation adequately without further help
    that we are hoping Congress can provide. We recognize that some of the
    provisions in the various bills before you today may draw opposition
    from various interests. We would hope that you work through these and
    eventually pass a package that will garner wide support and will be in
    keeping with the general concepts that I have highlighted.
        NOTE: Photographs submitted for the record have been retained in
    the Committee's official files.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Romm, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

            STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ROMM, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW,
                CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND

        Dr. Romm. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you
    for inviting me to testify. I am a physicist, former Acting
    Assistant Secretary of Energy, and climate expert who runs the
    blog Climate Progress.
        Four score and 7 years ago, our grandfathers and
    grandmothers were enjoying life in the ``Roaring '20s.'' Now,
    imagine that you are in Congress back then, and imagine that
    the Nation's leading scientists are warning that human activity
    and years of bad land management practices have left our
    topsoil vulnerable to the forces of the wind, and that the next
    time a major drought hits, much of our farmland will turn to
    dust, dust in the wind. You would take action.
        Over the past two decades, the Nation's leading scientists
    have issued stronger and stronger warnings that human activity,
    burning fossil fuels and deforestation will lead to longer and
    stronger droughts that dry out topsoil and timber, creating the
    conditions ripe for multiple multi-decade Dust Bowls and
    wildfires. In fact, we are already topping Dust Bowl
    temperatures in many places, and the Earth has warmed only
    about 1 degree Fahrenheit since the 1930s Dust Bowl. Yet we are
    poised to warm some 10 degrees Fahrenheit this century alone if
    we stay on our current path of unrestricted carbon pollution
    emissions. I repeat, several studies now project the world may
    warm 10 degrees Fahrenheit this century if we don't act, and
    that is the average warming of the globe. Much of our country
    would see far higher temperatures. The recent heat wave would
    be considered a pleasantly cool summer.
        Another study looked at mid-century warming of just 2
    degrees Fahrenheit. It found that wildfire damage in many of
    your home States--Utah, Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota, Nevada
    and Washington--would double, triple, even quadruple from
    current levels. Imagine how big the government would have to be
    to deal with the rampant wildfires and with the Dust Bowl
    choking the breadbasket of the world; a lot bigger government
    than today for sure.
        So, of course, this great deliberative body is debating
    various bills to avoid this catastrophe by slashing carbon
    pollution, except it isn't. We are here discussing bills aimed
    at fuels treatment, a euphemism for cutting down trees and
    controlled burns. Ignoring carbon pollution and focusing solely
    on fuels treatment to address the epidemic of bark beetles, the
    epidemic of drought, the epidemic of wildfires is like
    rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, or, more precisely, it
    is like burning some of the deck chairs and removing some of
    the umbrellas on the Titanic; same outcome, more time wasted.
        As I explained in the journal Nature last year, what we are
    discussing here today is the single most important question
    facing the Nation: Can we prevent the extreme drought and
    wildfires ravaging the country today from becoming the new
    normal? But the real question, and I am addressing myself to
    the members of the majority now, is how you want to be
    remembered. Do you want to be remembered as a Herbert Hoover,
    who sat by and did nothing in the face of obvious calamity, or
    as an Abraham Lincoln, who took every measure to save the
    Union?
        Lincoln said at Gettysburg, the world will little note nor
    long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
    they did here. That, of course, wasn't true of his speech. But
    after testifying to Congress nearly a dozen times since 1995,
    when I was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy, I am
    quite convinced that nobody remembers what we say here, and, in
    the case of these bills, everyone will forget what you did
    here.
        Are you Neville Chamberlain, or would you be Winston
    Churchill, who worked tirelessly to warn and prepare Britain
    for what was coming, and told the House of Commons in 1936 the
    era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing, and
    baffling expedience, of delays is coming to its close. In its
    place, we are entering a period of consequences.
        The consequences are here now, just as climate scientists
    predicted. If we fail to take action, many scientists predict
    ruin for large parts of this country, ruin for large parts of
    your districts, ruin that lasts 50 generations. Americans have
    fought for generations to defend government of the people, by
    the people and for the people. In the hour of crisis, we need
    that government to do its job. Now is that hour.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Romm follows:]

      Statement of Joseph Romm, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center For American
         Progress Action Fund, on H.R. 5744, H.R. 5960, and H.R. 6089.

        Thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of
    the Committee. I am delighted to appear before you today to discuss the
    single most important issue facing the nation--whether or not we can we
    prevent the extreme drought and wildfires ravaging the country today
    from becoming the normal weather for the nation.
        My name is Dr. Joseph Romm. I am a Senior Fellow at the Center for
    American Progress Action Fund, a tax exempt organization dedicated to
    improving the lives of Americans by transforming progressive values and
    ideas into policy. I am also the Founder and Editor of Climate
    Progress, CAPAF's acclaimed climate and energy blog. I earned a Ph.D.
    in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
        From 1993 to 1995, I was special assistant for policy and planning
    to the Deputy Secretary of Energy. I served as Principal Deputy
    Assistant Secretary and then Acting Assistant Secretary at DOE's Office
    of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from 1995 to 1998. I have
    written 7 books and dozens of articles on global warming and climate
    solutions, including Hell and High Water and ``The Next Dust Bowl,''
    published in the journal Nature in October 2011, from which some of
    this testimony is derived and where references may be found. I first
    testified in front of the House of Representatives on energy issues in
    1995.
        My testimony will provide analysis and data and analysis to support
    3 key points:
            1.  Climate scientists have long predicted that drought and
            wildfires would become more frequent and more intense because
            of human-generated carbon pollution that leads to climate
            change.
            2.  The current droughts and wildfires we are now seeing--and
            the bark beetle infestation that may have exacerbated some of
            the fires--have clearly been made far more likely and far worse
            by climate change according to many climatologists.
            3.  If we stay anywhere near our current carbon pollution path,
            much of the Midwest and Great Plains will be subject to near-
            permanent and irreversible conditions worse than the 1930s Dust
            Bowl by shortly after midcentury. Large parts of the south
            would be uninhabitable by 2100.
        Wildfires are most frequent and most intense during extended
    droughts and heat waves, which creates kindling in the form of very dry
    trees and grasses. A basic prediction of climate science is that many
    parts of the world will experience longer and deeper droughts and heat
    waves, thanks to the synergistic effects of drying earth, warming
    atmosphere and melting glaciers. Precipitation patterns are expected to
    shift, expanding the size of the dry subtropics, which would make much
    of the southwest more arid.
        Warming causes more evaporation of surface and subsurface moisture.
    Where it is dry, the sun's energy goes into baking soils. That's why
    the United States set so many temperature records during the 1930s Dust
    Bowl. And it's why, in the summer of 2011, drought-stricken Texas and
    Oklahoma experienced the hottest summer temperatures ever recorded for
    a state, beating the previous record holder, 1934 Oklahoma, by more
    than 1+ Fahrenheit.
        Also, many regions were predicted to see experience earlier
    snowmelt, so less water is stored on mountaintops for the summer dry
    season. These factors increasingly add to natural variability, such as
    the El Nino-La Nina cycle, greatly intensifying seasonal or decade-long
    droughts.
        Some refer to the confluence of these processes as desertification,
    but these areas will not have the high biodiversity that characterizes
    many deserts. ``Dust-Bowlification'' is perhaps a more accurate and
    vivid term, particularly since many Americans still believe climate
    change will only affect far-away places in far-distant times. Prolonged
    drought will have dramatic international impacts, but it is surprising
    to many to see it hitting the American heartland so hard so soon.
        The coming droughts ought to be a major driver--if not the major
    driver--of federal policy. Yet few policymakers and journalists are
    focusing on the looming Dust-Bowlification and its potentially
    devastating impact on food security and our economy. That's partly
    understandable, since much of the key research post-dates the 2007
    Fourth Assessment by Nobel Laureate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change (IPCC). Raising public awareness of, and scientific focus on,
    the likelihood of severe impacts is the first step in prompting action.
        This concern isn't new. As far back as 1990, scientists at NASA's
    Goddard Institute of Space Studies warned that severe to extreme
    drought in the United States, then happening every 20 years, could
    become an every-other-year phenomenon by mid-century. Climatologist
    Jonathan Overpeck detailed the risks in a 2005 talk, pointing to the
    emerging evidence that temperature and annual precipitation were headed
    in opposite directions over many regions. He and raised the question of
    whether we are at the ``dawn of the super-interglacial drought.
        Events have begun to bear these worries out. More than two decades
    ago scientists forecasted snowpack reduction, earlier snowmelt, and
    reduction of dry season river flow in the American. Now there is
    measurable data demonstrating their occurrence. In much of the northern
    Rocky, Sierra Nevada, and Cascade Mountain ranges, the peak of the
    annual stream runoff is as much as 3 or 4 weeks earlier than it was a
    half century ago. Heat and drought have also made these areas more
    hospitable to invasive, such as the bark beetle, increase tree/forest/
    fauna/vegetation die-offs and wildfire risk. Climatologists studying a
    huge 3-million-acre die-off of vegetation in the Southwest in 2002-2003
    warned that it ``may be a harbinger'' of things to come.
        The wildfire season is now a month longer. As the New York Times
    reported, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified before the
    U.S. Senate last year that:
            ``Throughout the country, we're seeing longer fire seasons, and
            we're seeing snowpacks that, on average, are disappearing a
            little earlier every spring,'' he said, as well as devastating
            droughts. As a result, fire seasons have lengthened by more
            than 30 days, on average. ``Our scientists believe this is due
            to a change in climate,'' said Tidwell.
        The paleoclimate record dating back to the medieval period reveals
    droughts lasting many decades. But the extreme droughts the United
    States faces this century will be far hotter than the worst of those:
    The driest decade of the worst drought in the past 1,200 years wasn't
    as warm as recent decades.
        Projections call for far warmer conditions ahead. Warming over mid-
    latitude land masses, like the United States, is projected to be
    considerably higher than the forecasted average global warming. Much of
    the inland United States faces warming of 9+F to 15+F based on our
    current carbon pollution path (i.e. `business as usual') by century's
    end, with much of that warming occurring by midcentury.
        A 2007 article in the journal Science that examined 19 climate
    projections estimated that levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s
    Dust Bowl could stretch from Kansas to California by mid-century. To
    make matters worse, the areas in threat of reduced water supplies have
    also seen a massive population boom. The top 10 fastest-growing states
    include Nevada, Colorado, Texas, Arizona, and Utah. Also, water over-
    use in such areas has long been rife, depleting groundwater supplies.
        It is not just our country that faces these issues. Since 1950, the
    global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74 percent of
    global land area per decade. Recent climate studies have projected
    `extreme drought' conditions by midcentury over some of the most
    populated areas on Earth--southern Europe, Southeast Asia, Brazil, the
    U.S. Southwest, and large parts of Australia and Africa. This can be
    seen in the following map by Aiguo Dai of the National Center for
    Atmospheric Research, from his 2010 study.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In the Great Plains during the Dust Bowl, the Palmer Drought
    Severity (PDSI) spiked very briefly to -6, but otherwise rarely
    exceeded -3 for the decade. Dai found that:
            ``By the end of the century, many populated areas, including
            parts of the United States and much of the Mediterranean and
            Africa, could face readings in the range of -4 to -10. Such
            decadal averages would be almost unprecedented.''
        These Dust Bowl-like drought conditions are projected to worsen for
    many decades and be ``largely irreversible for 1000 years after
    emissions stopped,'' according to a major 2009 study led by researchers
    at the The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The most pressing question is what will happen to our food security
    if Dust Bowl conditions become the norm for both food-importing poorer
    countries and food-exporting richer countries, including the United
    States? Extreme, widespread droughts will occur at the same time as sea
    level rise brings salt-water deep into some of the world's richest
    agricultural deltas, such as the Nile and Ganges. Meanwhile, ocean
    acidification, warming and overfishing may severely deplete the
    availability of seafood.
        What are the implications for the global carbon cycle? Increased
    wildfires release carbon stored in forests and soils, creating an
    amplifying feedback that further warms the planet--a vicious circle
    that leads to yet more wildfires.
        Adaptation to offset or minimize the worst impacts of prolonged,
    extreme drought conditions is difficult or impossible. Historically,
    the primary `adaptation' for Dust-Bowlification is human abandonment of
    afflicted areas. The very word ``desert'' comes from the Latin desertum
    for ``an abandoned place''. This occurred eighty years ago when
    hundreds of thousands of families fled during the relatively short-
    lived U.S. Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Experts predict huge mass migration
    due to drought and famine from global warming, particularly in Africa.
    This could initiate a humanitarian aid crisis of epic proportions, a
    scenario many retired generals and admirals fear because our military
    would be part of the responses, and such instability would threaten our
    national security.
        We must plan for how the nation and the world will deal with
    steadily growing regions of non-arable land right in the heart of
    populated countries and global bread-baskets. We must plan for these
    drought-spurred migrations--globally and here at home. As the above map
    shows, much of northern Mexico is projected to become a Dust Bowl too.
        The inexorable conclusion is that feeding the world's 9 billion
    people by mid-century in the face of a rapidly warming climate with
    extreme droughts may well be the greatest challenge the human race has
    ever faced.
        Moreover, these predictions are not worst-case scenarios: They rely
    on business as usual estimates of future carbon pollution. We can hope
    the models are too pessimistic, but some changes, like expansion of the
    subtropics, already appear to be occurring faster than the models
    projected. It is clear we need to pursue the most aggressive carbon-
    pollution mitigation policies promptly, and put warming-driven Dust-
    Bowlification atop the national agenda.
        Again this is not a new or sudden prediction. In fact, a decade ago
    climate scientists around the world were figuring out the same thing--
    we are speeding toward a climate cliff with our foot on the
    accelerator. I summed up some of their research back in six years ago:
            Since the 1970s, the number of ``very dry areas'' on the
            planet, as defined by the widely used Palmer Drought Severity
            Index, has more than doubled, to about 30 percent of the global
            land. As a major study by the National Center for Atmospheric
            Research concluded, ``These results provide observational
            evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic
            [human caused] global warming progresses and produces both
            increased temperatures and increased drying.''

            Not surprisingly, but rarely reported in context, wildfires
            have been on the rise worldwide for half a century. Every
            decade since the 1950s has seen an increase in major wildfires
            in the United States and around the world.

            Large parts of the country have been getting hotter and drier,
            and suffering extended droughts. . . .

            Not only do drought and high temperatures increase the number
            of wildfires, they also lead to a greater range of pests that
            feast on trees whose defenses have been weakened by heat and
            lack of water. Trees from the Southwest up to Alaska are dying
            by the millions.

            A 2005 study led by the University of Arizona, with the Los
            Alamos National Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey,
            examined a huge 3-million-acre die-off of vegetation in 2002-
            2003 ``in response to drought and associated bark beetle
            infestations'' in the Four Corners area (Arizona, New Mexico,
            Colorado, and Utah). This drought was not quite as severe as
            the one that region experienced in the 1950s, but it was much
            warmer, hence it fit the global-warming model. The recent
            drought had ``nearly complete tree mortality across many size
            and age classes,'' whereas ``most of the patchy mortality in
            the 1950s was associated with trees [more than] 100 years
            old.''

            Most of this tree death was caused by bark beetle infestation,
            and ``such outbreaks are tightly tied to drought-induced water
            stress.'' Healthy trees defend themselves by drowning the tiny
            pine beetles in resin. Without water, weakened, parched trees
            are easy meals for bugs.

            ``We're seeing changes in [mountain pine beetle] activity from
            Canada to Mexico,'' said Forest Service researcher Jesse Logan
            in July 2004, ``and the common thing is warming temperatures.''
            According to the Department of Forest Resource Management at
            the University of British Columbia, the beetle infestation has
            spread to higher and more northern regions thanks in large part
            to climate change. And milder winters since 1994 have reduced
            the winter death rate of beetle larvae in Wyoming from 80
            percent per year to under 10 percent.

            In a February 2006 speech on climate change, Senator Lisa
            Murkowski of Alaska pointed out that the tremendous recent
            warming had opened the door to the ``voracious spruce bark
            beetle,'' which devastated more than 3 million acres in Alaska,
            ``providing dry fuel for outbreaks of enormous wild fires.''
            Half of the wildfires in the record-breaking 2005 season were
            in Alaska.
        And as the members know, the bark beetle has continued to spread
    throughout the West, devastating trees in states like Montana and
    Colorado. That's because climate change favors invasive species.
        In 2009, in a detail report on the impacts of climate change on
    this country, the U.S. Global Change Research Program said:
            Wildfires in the United States are already increasing due to
            warming. In the West, there has been a nearly fourfold increase
            in large wildfires in recent decades, with greater fire
            frequency, longer fire durations, and longer wildfire seasons.
            This increase is strongly associated with increased spring and
            summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, which have
            caused drying of soils and vegetation.
        Here's the grim projection from a presentation made by the
    President's science adviser Dr. John Holdren in Oslo in 2010:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We can barely manage the wildfires we have today. How exactly
    would much of the West ``manage'' a 4-fold to 6-fold increase in
    wildfires? And that's just from a 1.8+F increase in temperatures.
    Again, we could see 5 times that this century.
        As Tom Kenworthy, longtime environmental reporter and now Senior
    Fellow at American Progress, reported this month on Climate Progress,
    wildfires have multiple causes:
            It's impossible to link any one particular fire or weather
            event to climate change. In the case of fires in the West,
            there are other factors as well: more people living in fire-
            prone areas in and near forests and unnaturally crowded forests
            brought on in large part by decades of misguided efforts to
            battle and suppress nearly all fires.

            But federal scientists and officials whose responsibilities
            include management of the vast national forest system in the
            West are increasingly saying flat out that there is an
            undeniable link between wildfires and climate change.

            The Agriculture Department official who oversees the U.S.
            Forest Service, Under Secretary Harris Sherman, noted recently
            that 10 states have had record fires in the past decade. ``The
            climate is changing,'' Sherman told The Washington Post, ``and
            these fires are a very strong indicator of that.''

            ``There's enough data that show fires are very clearly linked
            to warming,'' U.S. Geological Society Research Ecologist Craig
            Allen recently told a symposium sponsored by the Aspen Center
            for Environmental Studies. ``Fire season's about two months
            longer than it used to be.''
        The longer season is just the start. The National Interagency Fire
    Center in Boise, Idaho, reported that the wildfires are becoming more
    destructive--the total acreage burned has skyrocketed in recent
    decades:
            During the four decades of the 1960s through the 1990s, the
            annual acreage burned by wildfire averaged 3 million acres.
            Between 2000 and 2009 the average year saw 7 million acres
            burn.

            Between 1960 and 1995 there were just five years where the
            acreage burned exceeded 5 million. Between 1996 and 2011, 11 of
            the 16 years exceeded 5 million acres burned, including 8 of
            the past 10 years.

            As of early July, fires have burned about 2.4 million acres,
            according to the National Interagency Fire Center. And the
            outlook for the rest of the summer and early fall is not rosy,
            the center reports. Much of the West--from northern Arizona and
            northern New Mexico to southern Montana, across Nevada, and
            into parts of California--will have above-normal fire potential
            through the remainder of July. From August to October large
            swaths of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and California
            will have above-average fire potential due to drought, fuel
            conditions, and El Nino, which causes sea temperatures to rise.

            Various federal initiatives since the 1990s have sought to
            address the questions surrounding forest fuel loads and how to
            better manage them to moderate the wildfire threat, either by
            reintroducing fire, by thinning crowded forest stands using
            logging tools, or a combination of both methods. The results
            are questionable at best.
        A recent Congressional Research Service paper on wildfire
    protection reviewed the science on whether such interventions work and
    concluded:
            The presumption is that lower fuel loads and a lack of fuel
            ladders [underbrush and small trees that carry fire into the
            tops of larger trees] will reduce the extent of wildfires, the
            damages they cause, and the cost of controlling them. Numerous
            on-the-ground examples support this belief. However, little
            empirical research has documented this presumption. As noted in
            one research study, ``scant information exists on fuel
            treatment efficacy for reducing wildfire severity.''
        Kenworthy discusses the efficacy of fuel treatment--thinning dense
    forests and using prescribed burns to eliminate surface fuels:
            Despite that research ambiguity, fire years such as the current
            one almost always spur calls for large-scale efforts to thin
            overgrown forests and return them to a more natural condition,
            particularly in what is called the ``wildland-urban
            interface.'' That awkward phrase is sometimes defined as
            ``where combustible homes meet combustible vegetation.''

            Sherman, speaking to the recent Aspen conference, said that,
            ``We need to move forward with landscape-scale restoration. Too
            often we have conservation projects where we're working on a
            hundred acres here or a hundred acres there. We need to move
            into an entirely new and expanded scope of work.''

            That demand for larger restoration is partly driven by the
            extraordinary costs of fighting fires. Between fiscal year 2000
            and fiscal year 2010, fire suppression appropriations by
            Congress rose from less than $300 million to nearly $1.4
            billion, according to a 2011 Congressional Research Service
            paper on federal funding of wildfire activities. At the same
            time federal spending on fuel reduction rose from $117 million
            in fiscal 2000 to $400 million the next year and has largely
            remained in the $400-million-to-$500-million range since.

            The cost of an ambitious forest restoration effort would be
            huge. In a 1999 report the U.S. General Accounting Office (now
            the Government Accountability Office) estimated it would cost
            $12 billion to treat the 39 million Forest Service acres at the
            time thought to be at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Since
            then the Forest Service has raised its acreage estimate to 51
            million acres, and the estimate of a $300-per-acre treatment
            cost has probably become obsolete. Further, the original
            estimate did not include other federal lands beyond Forest
            Service areas.
        The Congressional Research Service paper on wildfire protection
    noted, ``If a comprehensive program were undertaken to reduce fuels on
    all high-risk and moderate-risk federal lands, using GAO's treatment
    cost rate of $300 per acre, the total cost would come to $69 billion.''
        The CRS reported noted ``There is a final, significant question.
    Would it work?'' They concluded
            Reducing fuel loads might reduce acreage burned and the
            severity and damages of the wildfires that occur. Research is
            needed. . .to examine whether the cost of fuel reduction is
            justified by the lower fire risk and damage. However, it should
            also be recognized that. . .as long as there is biomass for
            burning, especially under severe weather conditions (drought
            and high wind), catastrophic wildfires will occasionally occur,
            with the attendant damages to resources, destruction of nearby
            homes, other economic and social impacts, and potential loss of
            life.
        Kenworthy concluded his analysis:
            In a warming world we can expect those things will happen more
            often and with greater intensity, as we are seeing this summer.
            The bottom line is that climate change is a major cause of
            these fires, and climate solutions should become part of the
            effort to tame them.
        All three pieces of legislation today seek to address the wildfire
    and insect issue by accelerating and increasing forest thinning. The
    scientific support of fuels treatment as a wildland fire mitigation
    strategy is spotty at best. As the subcommittee considers legislation,
    I urge you to ensure that federal agencies maintain the flexibility to
    undertake projects based on the best scientific information available.
    As you know, new studies come out daily and can inform best management
    practices. I am concerned that H.R. 5744 sponsored by Congressman Gosar
    and H.R. 6089 sponsored by Congressman Tipton mandate the
    implementation of projects and lock in a certain management approach
    for 10 to 20 years. Congressman Markey's legislation, H.R. 5960 allows
    a more scientifically based approach to addressing the insect issue by
    providing for accelerated consideration of project but on a pilot
    basis.
        The bottom line is that the climate is changing just as the climate
    scientists have predicted for decades. Dr. Overpeck told the AP this
    month,
            ``This is what global warming looks like at the regional or
            personal level. The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat
            waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I
            and many other climate scientists have been warning about.''
        Now scientists are warning that if we fail to act quickly to
    curtail greenhouse gas emissions we may destroy the breadbasket of the
    world and may render large parts of the United States--including many
    of the districts you represent--all but uninhabitable, possibly for
    centuries. Will we finally make the carbon pollution reductions
    essential to reduce the worst impacts of climate change, or will
    Congress keep ignoring the warnings about the fires yet to come?
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Commissioner Jankovsky from Garfield County,
    welcome. Five minutes, please.

          STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM JANKOVSKY, COMMISSIONER,
                       GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO

        Mr. Jankovsky. I am Tom Jankovsky, Garfield County
    Commissioner, Garfield County, Colorado. I have also worked in
    the ski industry for 40 years. I am the general manager of
    Sunlight Mountain Resort, which is a local ski area in Glenwood
    Springs, Colorado. And those 40 years have been in the forest
    of Colorado.
        I have traveled here to speak in support of H.R. 6089. This
    bill addresses the deteriorating health of Colorado forests,
    has the strategy to improve safety and strengthen stewardship
    of the forests, and provides benefits for our local
    communities.
        First of all, the health of our forests is at risk. Forests
    are deteriorating. Colorado forests are extremely dense because
    of what I believe is misguided management practices. Currently
    30 percent of our--or currently our forests are 80 to 100
    percent canopy, which a healthy forest has a 30 percent canopy.
    Also the bark beetle epidemic has deteriorated our evergreen
    forests, and drought conditions have impacted our aspen
    forests.
        The Nation has watched the recent tragedies in Colorado at
    the Wallow Canyon and Hyde Park fires. The dollar amount that I
    saw in the Denver Post yesterday was $450 million in private
    property loss, as well as loss of lives.
        Current Federal regulations fail to recognize the
    importance of our forests regarding water conservation, water
    supply, wildlife habitat, recreation, economic benefit, and
    multiple uses and environmental health. H.R. 6089 improves the
    safety and strengthens stewardships. This bill extends
    stewardship beyond the current Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
    It has a 20-year life. It gives us the ability to expedite and
    improve hazardous fuel reduction. It also gives us the ability
    to manage and restore our forests.
        This bill empowers the Governor of the State and local
    communities to designate and cooperate with Federal land
    managers to develop emergency hazardous fuel-reduction
    projects. It also gives a benefit to our Federal land managers,
    another tool for them to work with our local communities.
        The bill supports an emerging forest restoration industry.
    We are starting to see an industry which provides tools and
    manpower for forest restoration. And through this bill, we are
    seeing an increase from our natural resources for lumber mills,
    log furniture making, firewood sales, biomass energy and wood
    pallets. And so this bill, although it doesn't say that
    directly, does provide some economic impacts as well to our
    communities.
        H.R. 6089 allows for creating funding as well, private-
    public partnerships to reduce hazardous fuel mitigation.
        Also I would just like to--Federal land managers know the
    high risk around our areas. I mentioned this earlier. But it
    gives them another tool in working with local communities to
    address those risks.
        One thing that is not in the bill, but I would like to talk
    about, I think it is very important that we continue to educate
    the public on defensible space. We have a lot of communities
    and homeowners, homeowner associations that are up into the
    forests. Right now in Colorado citizens can be reimbursed up to
    50 percent for the costs for improvements of the defensible
    space.
        Local doctrine regarding public land use is extremely
    important for us. Nearly 70 percent of our lands in Garfield
    County, Colorado, are owned by the Federal Government. It
    really helps for us to have the ability to talk to and be
    empowered to work with the Federal Government.
        And indeed, the vitality and the strength of the Western
    United States is closely tied to the health of our public
    lands. And for those reasons Garfield County, Colorado,
    supports H.R. 6089.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jankovsky follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Tom Jankovsky, County Commissioner, Garfield
       County, Colorado, on H.R. 6089, Healthy Forest Management Act 2012

            1.  Good morning, Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
            2.  I am Tom Jankovsky
                      County Commissioner, Garfield County,
                    Colorado
                      General Manager, Sunlight Mountain Resort
                      I have spent 40 years working with the forest
                    industry--15 in operations, 25 in management and
                    administration, planning, and strategy
            3.  Have traveled to speak in person, and support H.R. 6089 for
            three reasons. The bill:
                      Addresses the deteriorating health of
                    Colorado forests
                      Improves safety and strengthens stewardship.
                      Provides benefits to the local community.
            4.  First, the health of Colorado forests is deteriorating.
                      Colorado forests are extremely dense because
                    of misguided management practices. The current
                    management plan is to let our forests grow wild and to
                    do nothing.
                      A healthy forest has 30% canopy. Our forests
                    currently have 80-100%.
                      These conditions and others create a high
                    risk to communities from fast moving wildfires that
                    threaten life and property.
                      The Nation watched the recent tragedies in
                    Colorado at Waldo Canyon, High Park, and elsewhere, the
                    most devastating and costly wildfires in state history.
                    Lives were lost, hundreds of homes burned to the
                    ground.
                      Also, the bark beetle epidemic has
                    deteriorated our evergreen forests, and drought
                    conditions have impacted our Aspen forests.
                      Current federal regulations fail to recognize
                    the importance of our forests regarding water
                    conservation, water supply, wildlife habitat,
                    recreation, economic benefit, multiple uses, and
                    environmental health.
            5.  Next, HR6089 improves safety and strengthens stewardship
                      The Bill extends stewardship beyond that of
                    the current Healthy Forest Restoration Act for an
                    additional 20 years.
                      That existing legislation primarily deals
                    with forest management and forest restoration in the
                    wilderness
                      In contrast, the Healthy Forest Management
                    Act takes management and restoration beyond the forest
                    and wild land urban interface and into our communities.
                    This Bill will create a healthy forest with less risk
                    to urban areas.
                      With passage of the Bill, we will be able to
                    expedite and improve hazardous fuels reduction in high-
                    risk areas.
            6.  HR6089 provides benefits to the local community
                      The Bill empowers the Governor, state, and
                    local communities to designate and cooperate with
                    federal land managers to develop emergency hazard fuel
                    reduction projects.
                      The Bill supports an emerging forest
                    restoration industry, which provides tools and manpower
                    for forest restoration and contributes to economic
                    certainty.
                      Passage of the Bill will provide natural
                    resources for lumber mills, furniture, firewood,
                    biomass, and wood pellets, helping all of the related
                    industries.
                      The Bill creates jobs and provides other
                    positive economic impacts in our local communities.
                      HR6089 allows for creative funding for
                    public-private partnerships for hazardous fuel
                    mitigation and reduction. For example, in Pitkin
                    County, Colorado, in a project in Aspen's Starwood
                    neighborhood, neighbors there paid for the restoration
                    and mitigation of the forest adjacent to them.
            7.  In closing, I offer the following points:
                      Federal land managers know the highest risk
                    areas around us--this Bill gives them another tool in
                    working with local communities to address those risks.
                      Educating the public on defensible space
                    continues to be a top priority and should not be
                    overlooked. In Colorado, citizens can be reimbursed by
                    the state 50% of costs for improvements to defensible
                    space.
                      The local use doctrine regarding public land
                    use is extremely important to us. Nearly 70% of the
                    lands in Garfield County, Colorado, are federally owned
                    or managed. Forest management practices are a crucial
                    part of the picture.
                      Indeed, the vitality and strength of the
                    Western United States is closely tied to the health of
                    our public lands.
                      Garfield County, Colorado, supports this Bill
                    for the reasons stated.
                      Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kashdan, from the Association of Forest
    Service Retirees.

           STATEMENT OF HANK KASHDAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
            NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES

        Mr. Kashdan. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National
    Association of Forest Service Retirees, we appreciate being
    here. Our comments are specific to H.R. 6089, the Healthy
    Forest Management Act of 2012, but we do want to acknowledge
    that the attention given to all three bills is important in
    bringing attention to the continued degradation of America's
    forests and rangelands caused by insect infestation, drought
    and other factors. This is a serious threat to America's public
    lands, communities adjacent to those lands and our
    infrastructure.
        As retirees we clearly feel that action is needed, action
    that is rapid, efficient, collaborative, and which pushes the
    envelope in terms of procedures and authorities. We all know
    that increasing budgets is not a fix, and we also accept the
    potential for budgets to be decreasing. So in a legislative
    approach, there has to be a focus on public-private
    partnerships, reduced process and much greater recognition of
    this crisis. We think that H.R. 6089 supports this approach.
        I do want to acknowledge the excellent work of the agency
    so far in addressing this. The Forest Service's approach with
    bark beetle strategy, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program, and use of the Integrated Resource
    Restoration Budget pilot should go a long way toward increasing
    accomplishment. The Forest Service and BLM's joint work in the
    use of stewardship contracting, the release of the national
    cohesive wildland fire strategy are all important. These are
    steps in the right direction, but we do think more is needed,
    and we think H.R. 6089 will really help moving that process
    forward.
        With the exception of a minor reservation, we strongly
    support this legislation. For the stewardship contracting
    extension to 2017, let me just say thank you. That tool is an
    essential part of future accomplishment and working with
    communities. The contract term extension to 20 years we think
    is helpful in incentivizing the investment of business capital
    and in building long-term community participation in decisions
    about the adjacent watersheds. The Good Neighbor authority
    being made permanent is a critical need. The inclusion of
    categorical exclusions for projects within 500 feet of
    infrastructure is important.
        And we like the Governor's authority to designate high-risk
    areas. Now, we understand there is some reservation on that
    part. I remember distinctly when the Good Neighbor authority
    was implemented back in the late 1990s, there was some concern
    about what I would call shared authority, if you will. Well,
    concerns about that have not come to pass. It is an excellent
    authority. And as we look at the expedited procedures that are
    called for in this bill under the Healthy Forest Restoration
    Act regarding analysis, appeals and judicial review, we think
    that the Governor's high-risk designation making those
    procedures applicable is a good part of this legislation.
        We also very much appreciate the application of those same
    procedures to nonwildland-urban interface lands that are also
    very important to addressing the degradation.
        I mention one reservation. Let me just say that the
    provision calling for project implementation within 60 days of
    a Governor's designation even in the case where the Secretary
    may not have designated an area as high-risk, we are concerned
    that might raise a false expectation that national resources in
    terms of money and budget will be shifted to those projects.
        Across all public lands there is very good work being done
    by the agencies and being done with a very limited funding
    level. So to think that there will be a shift like that is
    probably not realistic, And where it has been attempted in the
    past, it has been met with very little success. So we do think
    that retaining the Federal agency's authorities over the
    program work is important.
        I might also note one technical correction dealing with the
    section 6 prohibition on clear cuts relative to hazardous fuels
    action. Lodgepole pine is a species that requires openings in
    order to effectively regenerate, so we think that might be
    something that should be considered in the final bill.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks, and
    I look forward to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kashdan follows:]

     Statement of Hank Kashdan, Legislative Director, National Association
    of Forest Service Retirees, on H.R. 6089, Healthy Forest Management Act
                                    of 2012

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National
    Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) appreciates the
    opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to comment on H.R.
    6089, the Healthy Forest Management Act of 2012. I am Hank Kashdan,
    Legislative Director for NAFSR. I retired from the Forest Service in
    December, 2010 having served as Associate Chief immediately prior to
    retirement. I was a Forest Service employee for 37 years. The NAFSR
    organization is a national, nonprofit organization of former Forest
    Service employees and associates. Members of the Association possess a
    unique body of knowledge, expertise and experience in the management of
    the National Forests, other public lands, forestry research, state and
    private forestry assistance, agency history, laws and regulations, and
    international forestry. Members of NAFSR are devoted to contributing to
    understanding and resolving natural resource issues through education,
    independent and cooperative analysis, and periodic review and critiques
    of agency policies and programs.
        Although my testimony is specific to H.R. 6089, NAFSR recognizes
    that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing on three bills that focus
    on major forest and rangeland health issues across the nation's public
    lands under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service or the
    Bureau of Land Management. This high level attention is much
    appreciated by NAFSR. The recent catastrophic wildfires occurring
    throughout the West, clearly illustrate the need for rapid, efficient,
    and collaborative action to address insect epidemics, drought,
    deteriorating forest health, and the ever increasing risk of
    catastrophic wildfire. These conditions are a direct threat to
    communities, the health of the nation's public lands, and
    infrastructure investments on and near those public lands. The retirees
    in NAFSR stand ready to assist the Subcommittee on this issue at any
    time during its consideration of these bills.
    Overview of Actions Taken to Date
        NAFSR applauds the significantly increased attention by the
    agencies in addressing deteriorating forest and rangeland health issues
    on public lands.
        The recently authorized Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    Program is already yielding improved forest health and brightening the
    economic prospects for communities adjacent to public lands. The
    collaborative basis for establishing management activities in these
    areas is a model of how public lands can be managed in the future.
        The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management's use of
    stewardship contracting authority has finally reached the point of
    ``critical mass'' such that it is becoming a tool of choice for land
    managers rather than an experiment in the performance of restoration
    activities on the nation's forests and rangelands. Although the
    retirees feel that stewardship contracting has been implemented over a
    painfully long period of time, we now see widespread acceptance and
    understanding within the agencies of the benefits of this tool. As
    noted later in our testimony, NAFSR believes permanent authority for
    stewardship contracting is an important consideration in meeting the
    challenges identified in H.R. 6089.
        The retirees congratulate the agencies on the issuance of the
    National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy that will serve as
    a framework for broad interagency strategy actions to address wildland
    fire issues with close involvement of local and tribal governments,
    non-governmental organizations and others.
        The Forest Service is currently pilot testing new budget structure
    efficiencies as authorized in the Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations Act.
    The pilot, under an Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item,
    applies to three of the four Forest Service Regions in the
    Intermountain West, which contain many areas severely impacted by
    drought and insect infestation. We are hopeful the test of this
    integrated budget structure will increase the efficient use of existing
    funds in completing critical projects.
        The Forest Service's development of a Bark Beetle Strategy is an
    important aspect of prioritizing the critical project needs to address
    a problem that, taken as a whole, cannot simply be addressed with
    higher funding levels that are highly unlikely to occur in the near or
    long term future.
        The retirees note the use of Good Neighbor Authority that was first
    authorized in the late 1990's. This program has been very successful in
    providing resources and focus in working with the states to address
    forest and rangeland health issues. I personally remember some of the
    reservations the Forest Service had with enactment of this authority in
    an Appropriations Bill. Those concerns focused on the perception of
    ``shared authority'' to conduct restoration activities on federal, as
    well as adjacent state and private lands. The success of this authority
    resulted in a similar authorization for the Forest Service to use
    hazardous fuels reduction funds (with an expenditure limitation) on
    adjacent non-Forest Service lands. We highlight the initial concerns
    about such shared authority as we note similar perceptions by agencies
    will undoubtedly be at the forefront of concerns about H.R. 6089 as it
    receives further consideration.
        All and all, NAFSR believes good progress is being made through the
    interagency increase in focus, prioritizing, and collaboration.
    Recognizing that the prospect for increased funding, or even sustained
    levels of funding, to land management agencies to address these
    problems is highly unlikely, it is clear that a new perspective with a
    strong bias for action and collaboration is needed. A simple look at
    the impacts of the recent wildfires in the West, expanding drought
    areas, and further spread of insects across the landscape, mandates
    that increasingly bold action be taken through an expansion in the use
    of existing tools and authorities, further collaboration with
    stakeholders, and a streamlining and expediting of procedures for
    environmental analysis and public involvement. This will require
    efforts that stretch the cultural ``comfort zones'' of the public land
    management agencies in order to be successful. It is in that context
    that NAFSR offers the following perspective on H.R. 6089.
    NAFSR Perspective on H.R. 6089
        With only one significant reservation, NAFSR is very supportive of
    H.R. 6089. I will address that reservation after first acknowledging
    the Bill's positive aspects.
              The Bill provides for an extension of Stewardship
            Contracting authority. This is essential. Stewardship
            contracting is a key element in future successful
            implementation of actions to address the critical challenges on
            the landscape. NAFSR would only recommend that strong
            consideration be given to making the authority permanent as was
            done in the Senate Agriculture Committee's markup of the Farm
            Bill.
              The Bill provides for Stewardship Contracts to be
            executed for up to 20 years. NAFSR concurs with this provision.
            Such long term contracts in critical landscapes will provide
            better prospects for local business to obtain financial backing
            and provide for the long term collaborative structure within
            local communities that will improve forest and rangeland
            health.
              The Bill makes the Good Neighbor authority permanent.
            NAFSR supports this action. This authority has been a good tool
            in conducting cooperative work on federal and adjacent lands.
              NAFSR appreciates specific mention in the Bill that
            emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects, whether inside or
            outside the wildland urban interface, would be performed using
            analysis, appeals, and judicial review procedures provided for
            in the Health Forest Restoration Act of 2003.
              The Bill extends environmental analysis, appeals, and
            judicial review processes contained in the Healthy Forest
            Restoration Act of 2003 to hazardous fuels reduction project to
            be performed under this Act. The Bill further authorizes the
            use of categorical exclusions for projects within 500 feet of
            houses or infrastructure. NAFSR supports this method of
            streamlining analysis and appeals procedures in order to move
            quickly to perform activities that if otherwise delayed by
            cumbersome procedures, would result in unacceptable
            deterioration of forest and rangeland health, damage to
            communities and infrastructure, and possible loss of life.
              The Bill formalizes a significant role for Governors
            in designating high risk areas. NAFSR understands the federal
            agencies have concerns about such legislation; however we also
            recognize that cooperation with Governors is already a standard
            and highly routine practice by the federal agencies in
            developing collaborative plans to address management on federal
            lands. As such, we are supportive of such authority except as
            stated in our one major reservation which is explained as
            follows.
        The Bill, in Section 6 (e) (1) states that for projects identified
    by the Governor, ``implementation'' will occur within 60 days. Our
    reservations are as follows:
              A false expectation is potentially created that the
            agency will shift nationwide resources to implement projects
            simply as a result of designation by a governor. The current
            budgetary capacity of the agencies would not support such an
            expectation. If enacted as currently stated, the provision will
            likely result in unnecessary friction and conflict between a
            Governor's office and the federal agencies. NAFSR feels the
            final implementation of projects should be at the discretion of
            the Secretary in consultation with the Governor.
              Rather than potentially creating false expectations
            that nationwide resources might be shifted as a result of a
            Governor's designation, NAFSR feels that the primary benefits
            derived from this legislation will be through extension and/or
            permanent authority in the use of available tools (stewardship
            contracting, Good Neighbor Authority, etc.) and a streamlining
            of environmental analysis, appeals, and judicial review. With
            the legislation authorizing a Governor to designate high risk
            areas, the streamlined analysis, appeals, and judicial review
            would become available to the agencies.
    Conclusion
        In closing, NAFSR would again like to thank the Subcommittee for
    affording us the opportunity to provide testimony regarding H.R. 6089.
    We again offer our assistance in any way possible to assist the
    Subcommittee in developing legislation that will achieve a significant
    improvement in the health of the nation's forests and grasslands, while
    protecting communities and infrastructure.
        I would be glad to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have
    either now or in the future.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. I thank all the witnesses for having come here
    and given their testimonies and staying within the 5-minute
    level. I am aware of all the flight plans that people have. We
    are going to get it all done on time.
        Ms. Noem, Representative Noem, I realize that you have the
    first plane out, so I am going to yield my time. I am going to
    ask the panelists if they would limit their questions to H.R.
    5960 and H.R. 6089. And once we have a round of those
    questions, I have two other witnesses that are talking about
    H.R. 5744. I will bring them up, and then we can ask questions
    on that bill by itself.
        So, Representative Noem, if you would like to take my time
    at first, I will yield to you.
        Mrs. Noem. Is this a question time?
        Mr. Bishop. Questions, yes.
        Mrs. Noem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have plenty of time for this because this is a very
    important issue for us, so I thank you for yielding to me and
    allowing me the opportunity to ask a few questions and to make
    an opening statement.
        My questions would be for Ms. Wagner. You know, remind me
    again how many acres specifically have the bark beetles
    impacted since the epidemic has begun? I think the number in
    your testimony was around 18 million acres.
        Ms. Wagner. I have corrected information for that. Across
    the Nation the impacts of bark beetle on all jurisdictions are
    found on over 43 million acres; on the National Forest System
    alone, over 30 million acres.
        Mrs. Noem. OK. And you also discussed in your testimony
    that 65 million acres are at high risk for wildfires. So that
    is the number that not necessarily all of those acres are
    impacted by pine beetle epidemics, but that is a very high
    number. Even if you took the $18 million number--I was running
    some numbers here while I was sitting--it appears to me that
    what has actually been treated and addressed on Forest Service
    land is less than 2 percent of the lands that you have
    jurisdiction over have actually gone in and been dealt with and
    then treated for Fiscal Year 2011. Is that an accurate
    statement?
        Ms. Wagner. For the bark beetle strategy that we created
    and began to implement in Fiscal Year 2011, we have treated
    over 300,000 acres to increase resiliency and reduce public
    safety issues. Relative to the size of the impact of the pine
    beetle, I agree, that is a small amount of acreage. Overall we
    are trying to upscale our treatments on the landscape, address
    priority areas, and that is where the 3.7 million acres were
    restored in Fiscal Year 2011.
        Mrs. Noem. OK. Well, for me that is a very disappointing
    percentage. We have--obviously, as a lot of the testimony has
    been here today, that we have a critical situation on our
    hands. And when the Federal Government has jurisdiction over
    lands, it is my anticipation that they would be responsible for
    maintaining and taking care of those lands, especially when
    private lives are at risk and in jeopardy.
        This is a very timely and incredibly important issue for
    States across the West, including South Dakota. And I know you
    and Chief Tidwell have had conversations with me in my office
    regarding this and how South Dakota is impacted. This is one of
    the hottest summers on record. Droughts have been declared in
    several different States. Forests across the West are turned
    into tinder boxes, as we have heard testimony today. One fire
    in the Black Hills claimed the lives of four National Guardsmen
    from North Carolina, and so my heart has been going out to
    those families as well in fighting these fires that have been
    going on.
        The outbreak of the beetle has changed our landscape. I
    have some photos here that I am going to pass around to the
    other members on the Committee that they can look at what is
    going on in South Dakota. But what is so interesting is when
    you look at this picture, and I will let everyone on the panel
    look at it as well, is you can see the vast difference between
    what has been treated by the State and what the State has
    stepped up and taken care of and the difference on the U.S.
    Forest Service land and how the pine beetle is out of control
    on that land right next to land that the State has taken the
    opportunity to go in and address.
        So I would like to thank my colleagues for introducing this
    legislation. I would also like to thank everyone for being
    willing to tackle this issue. It underlies the importance of
    this issue that we have people on both sides of the aisle that
    are looking to find a solution; that it is not a Republican, it
    is not a Democrat issue, that it impacts all Americans who care
    about our forests and the livelihoods of thousands of people
    across the Nation.
        So one other question for Ms. Wagner as well. Have you been
    out to Colorado or to the Black Hills to visit and to see this
    with your own eyes yet?
        Ms. Wagner. I have not personally. I know the Chief has
    spent time in the field. Our regional foresters have spent time
    with many Members. I have not made the trip to Colorado or
    North Dakota.
        Mrs. Noem. I would love to personally invite you to come to
    South Dakota and to bring Chief Tidwell with me. He did come to
    my office and visit me, and I appreciated that. But there is an
    urgency on the ground, and I would love to bring you out to
    South Dakota and show you around and host you doing that. If
    they say something about--you know, we certainly have
    cooperation that is potential there, and so I certainly would
    love to have you envision that and see that together to see how
    this could work and how these bills could work on the ground
    for the benefit of people living there.
        So with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative. Bluewood is very
    pretty, isn't it?
        Let me turn to the Ranking Member Mr. Sablan.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start with Ms. Wagner. Almost 15 years ago the
    Forest Service began a process of reviewing the management of
    pristine forests or roadless areas. In 2001, the Forest Service
    Chief Mike Dombeck issued regulations to protect these areas,
    and therefore recognizes one of the most far-reaching
    conservation initiatives taken by the Federal Government since
    the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. After a decade of
    litigation, 60 million acres of our forests and water that
    provide are protected from harmful. So H.R. 6089 declares an
    entire National Forest System in imminent danger. Does this
    declaration waive the roadless area protection in Colorado and
    every other State?
        Ms. Wagner. The position of the Administration is we
    support the roadless area conservation rule as enacted and
    reviewed by the courts. So there are 58 million acres under
    that management strategy identified across the Nation, and then
    specific roadless area conservation rule promulgated in the
    State of Idaho, and one under way for the State of Colorado.
        In the case of high-priority need for fuels treatment and
    fire risk, the majority of those acres are outside of roadless
    areas adjacent to wildland-urban interface, and so we think we
    can abide by the provisions of the roadless area conservation
    rule and work on forest restoration where it is needed in
    priority landscapes.
        Mr. Sablan. But let me get back to my question.
        Ms. Wagner. Sorry.
        Mr. Sablan. Does the declaration--section 3 of H.R. 6089
    declares the entire National Forest System in imminent threat.
    Does this declaration, section 3, waive the roadless area
    protections in Colorado and every other State, yes or no?
        Ms. Wagner. I believe it would.
        Mr. Sablan. It does. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Roberson, your testimony points out that two of these
    bills waive important environmental laws and make it difficult
    for the public to engage with Federal land managers. Can you
    give us an idea, make it short, of how many hazardous fuels
    projects the Bureau of Land Management implements every year
    and how many of these projects are appealed?
        Mr. Roberson. We have treated--in the last 10 years, we
    have treated 23 million acres with fuels and--hazardous fuel
    reduction projects, stewardship contracting and Good Neighbor
    authority. And in 2011----
        Mr. Sablan. I can't hear you.
        Mr. Roberson. OK. Over the last 10 years, we have treated
    23 million acres of land. We have restored rangeland health and
    forest health in those acreages using fuel projects--fuel-
    reduction projects and other veg treatments. We have also in
    the last year--as an average we have treated 400,000 acres. And
    we have less than 1 percent, half of 1 percent, are actually
    protested and appealed. These are projects that the community
    support that we have worked on with the community, and they
    have not been appealed or protested.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
        Mr. Kashdan, good morning, sir. Let me ask you this: Do you
    think all 193 million acres of the National Forest System lands
    are in imminent threat to health and safety so that roadless
    area protections should be suspended?
        Mr. Kashdan. Well, let me address that this way, and I am
    speaking more on my own behalf, because we haven't taken a
    position as a retiree group. The concern is that roadless lands
    are essentially lands in limbo, and we need to ultimately make
    some determination as to how to properly assign those to some
    type of either management or nonmanagement status. That would
    be as far as I would go on that.
        Mr. Sablan. All right. And so in your testimony on H.R.
    6089, you raise concerns about the requirement for agencies to
    implement projects submitted by Governors within 60 days. Do
    you or why don't you have the same concern for the requirement
    to implement projects by the agency within 60 days? And
    quickly, please. Is that a realistic timeframe?
        Mr. Kashdan. If I am following your question correctly, let
    me just say that I think that that provision, although it tends
    to get a lot of attention and is precedential, 99 percent of
    the benefit derived from this bill is not germane to that
    issue.
        Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Tipton.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to give particular thanks to Mr. Jankovsky for
    taking the time to be able to be here out of my home district.
        Tom, can you maybe give us a little idea, as county
    commissioner, how much time do you spend dealing with issues
    relating to land management?
        Mr. Jankovsky. Well, land management in general--I am a new
    county commissioner, I have been in office for 2 years, and I
    thought I had a pretty good idea of what I was going to be
    doing as a county commissioner, but I am spending 50 percent of
    my time or more on Federal issues concerning our county, and
    they are numerous, this is one of them, but----
        Mr. Tipton. Should Federal agencies engage county
    commissioners a little more in terms of----
        Mr. Jankovsky. There is no doubt. I think the benefit to
    this bill is that it creates a working relationship between
    local communities and Federal land managers, and I think that
    is very important, and I have the highest regard for our
    Federal land managers in our area, but I think there could be
    great improvement.
        Mr. Tipton. Great, thank you.
        Mr. Roberson, I would like to ask you, does the Healthy
    Forest Restoration Act of 2003 require public input with
    respect to projects carried out under the terms of the Act?
        Mr. Roberson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tipton. They do, OK. Those are authorities that we are
    using here. So you don't need to worry about the public input
    that you were concerned about in your testimony in opposing the
    bill. We provide for that public input.
        So, thank you, sir.
        Mr. Kashdan, I really want to be able to visit with you, if
    I may, just a moment. I appreciate your candor with respect to
    section 6(e)(1) in H.R. 6089, and I recognize some of the
    fiscal constraints faced by the agency. With that said, with
    your extensive experience in Forest Service, do you believe
    that there are efficiencies within the agency that could be
    pursued that would help prioritize the approval of hazardous
    fuel reduction projects and to be able to actually help meet
    those fiscal needs?
        Mr. Kashdan. Yes, sir, I do, and I also think the
    provisions in H.R. 6089 specific to the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act of 2003 regarding appeals, analysis, and
    judicial review will greatly enhance that. So you combine those
    efficiencies, you apply them to non-wildland-urban interface,
    and you use some of the existing tools with stewardship
    contracting, we are going to go a long way toward improving the
    accomplishment. I think there are examples of how far you can
    go when you are encumbered by very minimal analysis. I think
    burned area emergency rehab is an example of a program that is
    rapidly executed, delivered with good results, and it is done
    with a wide demand on the part of the public regardless of
    where they stand on the environmental spectrum to get work done
    to stabilize areas after a catastrophic wildfire, and it is an
    example of how far dollars can go when you are not encumbered
    by----
        Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that, because if we bring some
    common sense to the process, allocate the resources with common
    sense to be able to address the problem, we will be able to
    achieve an actual win-win. So I appreciate that, sir.
        Ms. Wagner, I had the opportunity to be able to go out into
    Archuleta County in Colorado to be able to tour an area that
    was actually being treated that Congresswoman Noem was talking
    about. We are seeing a healthy forest emerge. We were talking
    about water table increases of 15 percent by getting in to be
    able to actually thin the forest, healthy trees that were then
    being able to survive and to be able to grow. Is it pretty much
    your estimation that when we see the tragedy of these fires
    moving through areas like South Dakota, Colorado, impacting our
    watershed, impacting wildlife habitat, impacting those streams
    and endangered species when that ash hits the rivers, that it
    is a good, sensible approach to be able to bring together tools
    and that local commitment of working with county commissioners,
    working with our local Governors, working with the tribes, the
    people who live there and love it most, to be able to make
    those sensible determinations of where the real risks are at?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes. We are keenly interested in working in
    that kind of environment and doing our part to help sustain our
    Nation's forests.
        Mr. Tipton. Great. Thank you very much for that.
        Mr. Kashdan, I would like to come back to you real quick.
    In your testimony, you mention some of the great successes of
    the good neighbor policy authority that the Forest Service has
    accumulated in collaborative efforts that are going on. Given
    this, do you believe it might also be beneficial to expand this
    applicability to BLM land as well?
        Mr. Kashdan. Definitely. I think the good neighbor
    authority as well as some of the other efficiencies modeled
    similarly, there was some similar authority in Oregon, and even
    some of our hazardous fuels money is authorized to be spent in
    a similar nature. It works, and to apply it to the other
    Federal agencies is a good thing to do.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Kashdan, I apologize for cutting you off twice, but you
    were able to answer in 9 seconds or less, that is very good.
        I am doing another audible here. I want to explain what I
    want to get done. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee is
    here and has remarks on his particular bill. I have two other
    witnesses that need to talk about the Gosar bill that also have
    planes to catch here.
        Can I just ask, Mr. Gosar, do you have any questions
    specific to H.R. 6089? And if not----
        Dr. Gosar. Not that can't be addressed later.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Gardner, I am assuming you are here for
    H.R. 6089?
        Mr. Gardner. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. When I turn to you for questions on that, we
    will finish the questions on H.R. 6089, allow our two witnesses
    that are here specifically for that bill to be excused, bring
    the other two up for H.R. 5744, and then let Mr. Markey also
    give his opening remarks for his bill, if we can do it that
    way?
        Cory, you are up.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    House Resources Committee for allowing me to join you today and
    to participate in this.
        Thanks in particular to Congressman Tipton for his work on
    this legislation and the work that he is doing to help protect
    Colorado and the Western United States, one of the most
    incredible resources this Nation has to offer, and also I want
    to welcome the witnesses from Colorado, thank you
    commissioners, and Commissioner Gibbs, good to see you, we
    served in the State legislature together, and I thank you for
    your work there and here.
        I am stunned by the callousness of the Department of the
    Interior's objection to the healthy forest bill, H.R. 6089. We
    have a situation once again where Washington is fiddling while
    our States are burning. In your testimony, you state that
    Governors can require BLM to manage Federal lands and resources
    to meet the Governor's objectives without regard to national
    objectives, interests or a fair return to the American people.
    A fair return to the American people? I have over 200 homes
    burned in my district, tens of thousands of acres are burned.
    You want to protect wild and scenic rivers? What about the
    Poudre River that now has ash and debris flow contaminating the
    river, drinking water systems that are overwhelmed? And you are
    going to oppose this legislation because it gives the Governor
    the authority to save his State?
        BLM's ability to manage for resources protected by Federal
    law: Do you believe that bark beetle, beetle-killed areas are
    high risk?
        Mr. Roberson. Yes, Congressman.
        Mr. Gardner. Do you believe we ought to give the States the
    tools they need to protect their citizens and their State?
        Mr. Roberson. We believe that we and the States should work
    together along with the local counties on this problem together
    and work together.
        Mr. Gardner. Do you believe you know better than the
    States?
        Mr. Roberson. No, sir, I wouldn't substitute my judgment
    for that of the States.
        Mr. Gardner. Then why would you oppose a bill that gives
    the State the ability to protect its citizens?
        Mr. Roberson. We are managing national public lands, and we
    are trying to do that to achieve ecological balance across the
    Nation. We believe----
        Mr. Gardner. Ecological balance?
        Mr. Roberson. And to provide for jobs and opportunities as
    well. We believe in the principles that were outlined that
    Congressman Tipton just raised and that Mary Wagner just agreed
    to. We believe that we should work in concert, and we do that
    at the State and local level with the Governors. Our cohesive
    fire strategy will allow us to continue to work on building
    resilient landscapes and working together on fire preparedness
    and firefighting.
        Mr. Gardner. Is 90,000 acres of burned forest a resilient
    landscape?
        Mr. Roberson. Not on that landscape, sir.
        Mr. Gardner. Two hundred sixty homes that have burned,
    resilient?
        Mr. Roberson. We have----
        Mr. Gardner. Is what you are telling me, are your forest
    policies, are they working to prevent this from happening?
        Mr. Roberson. The Bureau of Land Management has
    approximately 1.3 million acres of beetle-killed trees out of
    the 58 million acres that we manage. We are focused on that
    issue. We have a plan for beetle kill infestation in Colorado
    and other areas, and we are working through our local planning
    efforts with county commissioners, State foresters, and other
    land managers to address the issue, including the State
    governments, and our plans are reviewed by the Governors of the
    States when we complete them.
        Mr. Gardner. You mentioned the bill provides that high risk
    areas will be designated for 20 years, and you object to that.
    Are beetle-killed areas going to be around for 20 years?
        Mr. Roberson. Twenty years ago, in my experience, we did
    not anticipate the level of beetle kill that we have now or
    some of the other changes that we have across the environment.
        Mr. Gardner. I will ask you again, are those beetle-kill
    areas going to be around for the next 20 years?
        Mr. Roberson. I can't project, sir.
        Mr. Gardner. You are telling me that----
        Mr. Roberson. I am saying that the----
        Mr. Gardner. You can't guess that a stand of dead trees
    won't be there in 20 years?
        Mr. Roberson. Pardon me, sir. My statement is that 20 years
    as a designated high-risk area is too long, we believe. We
    believe that you can focus on those high-risk areas in----
        Mr. Gardner. How long does it take to recover from a
    catastrophic wildfire?
        Mr. Roberson. Pardon me?
        Mr. Gardner. How long does it take to recover from a
    catastrophic wildfire?
        Mr. Roberson. I have no idea.
        Mr. Gardner. Twenty years or less or more?
        Mr. Roberson. I can get back to you on that.
        Mr. Gardner. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        I have just one question on this particular bill. Do others
    have other questions on this bill? Let me just ask mine, and
    then we are going to make the switch, and I think some of the
    other questions also would deal with Representative Gosar's
    bill as well or they can fit in that concept as well.
        Mr. Roberson, I just have one specific to this. In your
    testimony, you said that 60 days to distinguish a high-risk
    area is not enough time. How much time is enough? How much time
    do you need to make that designation?
        Mr. Roberson. We would normally do that through our local,
    working with county commissioners and the State and the State
    foresters, we would work with them to designate high-risk areas
    that still were in place.
        Mr. Bishop. Sixty days?
        Mr. Roberson. I am not sure how long it would take. I think
    the level of the problem that we have, the magnitude of the
    multi-agency landscape that we deal with, I have no estimate,
    sir.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. And I will tell you my frustration, simply
    not just with you, but with almost every agency around here. I
    am a schoolteacher, which means you had 9 months to do it, and
    it was over. If my principal came to me and told me the final
    test is on Tuesday, and I simply said, Look, I can't cover all
    the material by Tuesday, I will get back to you when we are
    ready to actually take the test, you can imagine what would
    happen to me. In my profession, I was trained that you have to
    get it done when the deadline is there.
        Yesterday we had another hearing, same situation. I wanted
    them to say when they actually will get it done. There is no
    deadline that happens to be there. We had another hearing when
    it said it would take an agency 4 years to do a study on a land
    swap. Those are frustrating to those of us who are not
    inculcated into the climate of Washington, D.C. So if 60 days
    is not enough, that presents an illusion of a problem that is
    difficult for me to wrap my mind around, because I am used to
    hitting deadlines, and I had no choice in that matter.
        I appreciate that. With that, let me close this. I want to
    thank--oh, do you have a question?
        I am sorry, Mr. Markey for this particular panel, on H.R.
    6089. OK.
        Mr. Markey. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        Mr. Romm, do you think that climate change or climate
    variability is influencing the frequency and severity of fires
    in the United States?
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Markey, can I interrupt for just a second
    here?
        Mr. Markey. Sure.
        Mr. Bishop. I think that is a very good and a legitimate
    question. It applies to the other bills as well. If I can do
    just H.R. 6089 so I can get these two witnesses on their way
    and then bring the other witnesses up, I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Markey. I see what you are saying. No, I do not have
    any questions for those two.
        Mr. Bishop. Then, Commissioner Jankovsky, Mr. Kashdan, I
    appreciate your attendance here. I appreciate you flying all
    the way out here.
        You can go back and enjoy yourself at this particular stage
    of the game, and I will invite David Cook from the Arizona
    Cattlemen's Association--I am sorry, the National Cattlemen's
    Beef Association and Doyel Shamley from the natural resource--I
    am doing this without glasses--coordinator from Apache County,
    Arizona, can come and join us at that panel.
        And while they are coming up, Mr. Tipton, I will give you
    the last comment on your bill.
        Then Mr. Markey, let me attend, give you time to introduce
    your piece of legislation. We will have the other two witnesses
    introduce their testimony, and then we will open it up for
    questions again.
        Mr. Tipton.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make
    sure that the list of organizations, concerned citizens in
    Colorado and throughout the United States that are supporting
    H.R. 6089, to be able to submit their letters of support for
    the record.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Without objection, it will
    be so ordered.
        Mr. Bishop. Once again, I apologize for shifting gears on
    everyone here, but I am trying to get everything to move in the
    proper order, and we will--one of you I know has a flight going
    out this afternoon. We will get you there on time. So I
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Markey, we have not had a chance to introduce your
    piece of legislation. Can I give you 5 minutes to address your
    legislation?
        Mr. Markey. I appreciate it.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
            CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        And I first want to address Congressman Gosar's earlier
    comment about the ability of people who live in the concrete
    jungle of Massachusetts to be able to understand wildfire and
    forest issues, because that is an ironic comment coming from a
    gentleman who lives in a landlocked desert State voting in this
    Committee just 2 days ago to authorize drilling for oil and gas
    in the ocean off the coastline of Massachusetts.
        So the gentleman should probably square up where he thinks,
    you know, he has expertise to be able to vote because a desert
    State Member obviously should never be able to vote on anything
    to do with the oceans in the country.
        Although, let's be honest, our job is to vote on
    everything, we are here to represent everybody, and so making
    those kind of artificial distinctions is absolutely
    inappropriate. It would rule out most Members from most
    subjects because their State would not be the center of the
    issue.
        We are here because it is the taxpayers of America who fund
    it all, you know, including the response to wildfires and the
    response to what happens after the wildfires are completed. It
    is a national issue, and the taxpayers from Massachusetts help
    out the taxpayers of Arizona and Colorado, and the taxpayers of
    Colorado and Arizona help out the taxpayers of Massachusetts
    when they need it. That is the essence of what this institution
    is all about, e pluribus unum, ``out of many one,'' that is
    what the whole revolution was about, including the Civil War,
    to finally resolve that, that it is not separate, isolated
    States but, rather, all of us working together, and I just wish
    the gentleman appreciated that.
        And I want to thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this
    hearing to consider legislation to combat wildfires. I am glad
    that the Full Committee will be holding an investigative
    hearing next Tuesday.
        Today we are considering a bill I cosponsored with Mr.
    Grijalva, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Costa, and Congressman
    Polis. We have a very serious problem, and I am willing to name
    it. The problem that we have impacting our lands across this
    country is climate change. If you think storms and drought
    conditions and catastrophic wildfires are just random freak
    events, then you are in deep, deep denial.
        When Sigmund Freud studied denial, he suggested that when
    people are forced to face unpleasant facts, they are prone to,
    one, deny the reality of the fact outright; two, minimize the
    seriousness of the issue; or, three, project responsibility of
    the unpleasant situation on someone else.
        This is an apt analogy to how the climate deniers have
    chosen to deal with severe weather events, drought and
    wildfire. For months, the majority has denied that there was a
    problem. Now the majority apparently is willing to accept part
    of the reality that we are approaching dust-bowl-like drought
    conditions and fires are becoming larger and more severe, but
    they still deny the root cause of the push to the extremes is
    actually caused by climate change.
        Instead, they are going to project the responsibility of
    wildfires onto environmental laws, land management agencies,
    litigation, endangered species, and even immigrants.
        If we are serious about reducing catastrophic wildfire, we
    first must admit that there is a link between climate change
    and wildfire. The Under Secretary of Agriculture, Harris
    Sherman, has admitted this link exists. The chief of the Forest
    Service has admitted this link exists. Scientists around the
    world have proven this link exists.
        Earlier this week a massive chunk of ice twice the size of
    the island of Manhattan broke off the Petermann Glacier in
    Greenland, and scientists point to warming ocean temperatures
    as the culprit. I have suggested that we rename it Denier
    Island, where those who question the science behind global
    warming can spend the summer cooling off and escaping the heat
    waves, the drought and the wildfires that have beset the United
    States, and today two of those bills seem to be legislating
    from Denier Island.
        The goal that I have is to introduce legislation here that
    will make it possible to recognize that we have a problem with
    our forests. It also recognizes that we don't have the type of
    scientific certainty to lock in logging and grazing projects
    for 10 or 20 years like the other measures propose. Instead, my
    bill allows the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
    Management the flexibility to do thinning in areas impacted by
    insects and disease without waiving environmental laws and
    forcing Federal agencies to make decisions on projects in
    unrealistic timeframes.
        My bill also recognizes our constrained fiscal environment
    and gives the Federal agencies additional authorities they
    desire to stretch their Federal dollars further. As we will
    hear from both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
    Management, stewardship contracting authority is very helpful
    by allowing agencies to barter trees for thinning work.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make an
    opening statement, and I appreciate the panel that will be here
    to discuss the subject.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Good morning and thank you to all who have joined us today.
        I want to thank Congressman Bishop for holding this hearing today
    to consider legislation to combat wildfires. And after my requests to
    the Republican leadership to hold these hearings, I am also glad that
    the Full Committee will be holding an investigative hearing next
    Tuesday.
        Today we are considering a bill I have sponsored with Ranking
    Member Grijalva, Ranking Member Lujan, Ranking Member Napolitano,
    Congressman Costa and Congressman Polis.
        As we are going to hear today from Joe Romm [Rome] and others, we
    have a very serious problem--and I'm willing to name it. The problem we
    have impacting our lands across this county is climate change. If you
    think storms, drought conditions and catastrophic wildfires are just
    random, freak events, you are in deep, deep denial.
        When Sigmund Freud studied denial, he suggested that when people
    are forced to face unpleasant facts they are prone to 1) deny the
    reality of the fact outright; 2) minimize the seriousness of the issue
    or 3) project responsibility of the unpleasant situation on someone
    else.
        This is an apt analogy to how the Republican Party has chosen to
    deal with severe weather events, drought, and wildfire.
        For months the Majority denied there was a problem. Now, the
    Majority apparently is willing to accept part of the reality--that we
    are approaching dust-bowl-like drought conditions and fires are
    becoming larger and more severe. But, they still deny the root cause of
    the push to the extremes is climate change. Instead, they are going to
    project the responsibility of wildfires onto environmental laws, land
    management agencies, litigation, endangered species, and even
    immigrants.
        If we are serious about reducing catastrophic wildfire, we first
    need to admit that there is a link between climate change and
    wildfires.
        The Undersecretary of Agriculture, Harris Sherman has admitted this
    link exists.
        The Chief of the Forest Service has admitted this link exists
        Scientists around the world have proved this link exists.
        Earlier this week, a massive chunk of ice twice the size of
    Manhattan broke off of the Petermann Glacier in Greenland, and
    scientists point to warming ocean temperatures as the culprit. I have
    suggested that we rename it Denier Island, where those who question the
    science behind global warming can spend the summer cooling off and
    escaping the heat waves, the drought and the wildfires that have best
    the United States.
        And today, two of these bills seem to be legislating from Denier
    Island.
        On Denier Island, environmental laws are causing catastrophic
    wildfires and so they should be waived. In different ways, both H.R.
    5744 and H.R. 6089 waive important land protections.
        On Denier Island, people participating in government are causing
    catastrophic wildfires so they need to be cut out of the process. H.R.
    5744 and H.R. 6089 rob citizens of their ability to influence the
    future of our forests.
        On Denier Island, popular policy protecting pristine and unroaded
    forests forest is nuisance and needs to be overturned. H.R. 6089 takes
    a clever approach to suspending the roadless area protection policy in
    Colorado and elsewhere.
        The legislation I have put forward with my colleagues recognizes we
    have a problem in our forests. It also recognizes that we don't have
    the type of scientific certainty to lock in logging and grazing
    projects for ten or twenty years like the other measures propose.
        Instead, my bill allows the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
    Management the flexibility to do thinning in areas impacted by insects
    and disease without waiving environmental laws and forcing federal
    agencies to make decisions on projects in unrealistic timeframes.
        My bill also recognizes our constrained fiscal environment and
    gives the federal agencies additional authorities they desire to
    stretch the federal dollars further. As we will hear from both the
    Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, stewardship contracting
    authority is very helpful by allowing agencies to barter trees for
    thinning work.
        The Good Neighbor Authority in my legislation makes projects that
    cross federal and state lands cheaper by allowing federal agencies and
    state agencies to partner and issue one contract for large areas that
    include both federal and state lands. Finally, with the limited money
    available for clean-up work after fires, the Markey bill gives priority
    consideration to communities whose water source is at risk due to
    wildfires on federal lands.
        As we hear the testimony of our witnesses today, I urge us all to
    acknowledge and accept the seriousness of the issue we are attempting
    to address. This can help us move forward with smart solutions.
        Thank you. I yield back my time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right.
        Mr. Shamley, I understand you have the first flight that
    has to go out?
        Mr. Shamley. I believe so.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. Can I ask you if you can make your
    statement first for the record and then Mr. Cook, and then we
    will open up questions to both Mr. Markey's bill as well as Mr.
    Gosar's bill, so Mr. Shamley, if you would, please.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN DOYEL SHAMLEY, NATURAL RESOURCE COORDINATOR,
                         APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA

        Mr. Shamley. I am Doyel Shamley from Apache County,
    Arizona. I am the natural resource coordinator for the county
    there and also do work for many other entities, like the State
    legislature, other counties, et cetera. The need for sweeping
    and massive reform and the mechanisms to expedite forest
    management projects to reduce hazardous fuels, increase forest
    health, and economic development cannot be stressed enough. The
    current system in place is heavily laden with out-of-date,
    along with unclear and conflicting mandates upon the land
    management agency, slowing down an already cumbersome system
    even more.
        Many more roadblocks to fuels reduction, stewardship
    activities by counties along with pre- and post-fire activities
    need to be addressed and removed as well, and there is no doubt
    in the minds of Apache County and elected officials around the
    Western regions that something drastic has to happen, because
    unless we have drastic and sweeping changes made to management
    practices, we will lose our great Western timber stands. This
    will affect the very cultural and historic uses of the people,
    the people's ability to derive economic benefits, recreational
    abilities, strategic capabilities along with a loss of massive
    amounts of habitat and wildlife. And H.R. 5744 can go a long
    way in getting there because we are at a point where emergency
    measures are needed now.
        Having this week just attended the strategic planning
    meeting for the National Institute of the Elimination of
    Catastrophic Wildfires as a keynote addresser, it is completely
    evident that multiple peoples and entities with decades of
    experience on the land see the threat to our Nation and
    heritage. The bulk of the participants were prior land
    management agency people who have come together alongside
    multiple Ph.D. scientists, research professors, and college
    deans that were present to address these issues. One thing that
    was notable during this event was the multiple instances in
    which presentations and conversations turned to the issue of
    catastrophic wildfires on our forests and what to do with the
    forests throughout the country and mainly especially in the
    West. This is due to the overwhelming evidence that our current
    state of affairs will lead to nothing but irreparable damage.
        Another topic that needs to be highlighted and addressed
    that goes hand in hand with catastrophic wildfire prevention is
    the necessity of the roadway networks in there, they cannot be
    neglected. Those roadway networks have proven time and time
    again after the Wallow Fire--and remember we just went through
    that last summer, 838 square miles destroyed, and those roadway
    networks are a critical part of that wildfire prevention. Those
    have to be integral with our future plans, including with this
    bill of Mr. Gosar.
        Sweeping changes are necessary to the stewardship of our
    lands, and the model of county stewardship by Apache County,
    Arizona, needs to be replicated throughout the United States.
    H.R. 5744 would allow county stewardship and others to more
    easily move forward with wildfire prevention and protection to
    health, safety, and welfare in all those areas under our
    jurisdiction.
        Post-fire activities are almost next to none, if you want
    to know the truth. Being on the ground, zero, if you will.
    Post-fire recovery programs were often so shortsighted,
    mismanaged or misguided as to be useless to the very people and
    resources they were meant to be helping. Multiple programs came
    down, and many of us have to ask after going through the
    conundrum of bureaucracy and red tape and seeing no outcome,
    agency after agency--dollar upon dollar was waved in front of
    the victims of these fires with no outcome whatsoever--where
    did the money go, many of us have to ask? Millions of dollars
    and absolutely unusable by anybody affected.
        Unless the very fabric and core of the management practices
    and conservation of our natural resources in this country are
    reviewed with the best available science, one of the greatest
    losses in our history will occur, and these times do call for
    immediate actions unfortunately, and these bills and questions
    can begin that attack upon these problems.
        We need to remember, too, that the catastrophic wildfires
    are just a symptom of a disease, and that is to a great extent
    mismanagement by Federal land management agencies of our lands
    held in trust for the public. And with that, I would just like
    to remind everybody a little historical note that we need to
    get both back in control, the government and fire, and George
    Washington alluded to that when he stated, the machinations of
    government, how they were like fire, and it was a dangerous
    servant and a fearful master.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shamley follows:]

     Statement of John Doyel Shamley, Natural Resource Coordinator, Apache
     County, Arizona, and CEO, Veritas Research Consulting, on H.R. 5744,
                            H.R. 5960 and H.R. 6089

        The need for sweeping and massive reform in the mechanisms to
    expedite forest management projects to reduce hazardous fuels, increase
    forest health and economic development cannot be stressed enough. The
    current system in place is heavily laden with out-of-date along with
    unclear and conflicting mandates upon the land management agencies,
    slowing down an already cumbersome system even more. Many more
    roadblocks to fuels reduction, stewardship activities by Counties along
    with pre and post fire activities need to be addressed and removed as
    well. There is no doubt in the minds of residents and elected officials
    throughout Apache County and the Western States in general that a
    catastrophic loss of a natural resource is occurring. Unless drastic
    and sweeping changes are made to the management practices of federally
    managed lands, we will lose our great western timber stands. Effecting
    the very cultural and historic uses of the people, ability to derive
    economic benefit, recreational abilities, strategic capabilities and
    national defense along with massive amounts of habitat and wildlife.
    H.R. 5744 can greatly aid in this endeavor and is of utmost importance
    considering our current situation.
        The road networks throughout each forest are not only an economic
    and social asset to each County and State they fall within, but an
    absolutely necessary item in the abatement of, and dealing with,
    wildfire incidents. These road networks need to be retained in their
    entirety, fully intact as they are on the ground and must not be
    encumbered by any legal or physical blockages, removed from mapping
    inventories or in any way hindered in their ability to be used.
        Sweeping changes are necessary in the Stewardship of our lands, and
    the model of County Stewardship by Apache County, Arizona needs to be
    replicated throughout the country. If Stewardship is to be successful,
    it must be in the hands of the County Governments who often are the
    most experienced in the care of our lands, the cultural and historic
    uses and the most logical and feasible local governing body. Only
    through concise coordination with County Government as a lead entity on
    the treatment and conservation of our resources will the National
    Forest System be able to survive.
        Post-fire activities, rehabilitation, restoration and emergency
    measures are greatly hindered and in many cases so encumbered as to be
    a continual cause of great losses of economy, habitat and livelihoods.
    Many of the post-fire recovery programs are so short-sided, mismanaged
    or misguided as to be useless to the very people and resources they are
    meant to be helping.
        Unless the very fabric and core of the management practices and
    conservation of our natural resources in this country are concisely
    reviewed using the best available science, one of the greatest losses
    to our country will continue to progress to the point of being lost
    forever. And in fact, the entire system of lands, timber stands,
    resources, human environments and culture that people across this
    nation look to as one of the greatest assets in our country is
    threatened with permanent and unrecoverable damage.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Cook.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID COOK, ARIZONA CATTLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION,
      PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Cook. Chairman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for inviting me to testify today on H.R. 5744. My
    name is David Cook, and I am a rancher from Gila County,
    Arizona, where my wife and I, along with our son and daughter,
    run a cow-calf operation on public and private lands.
        I am vice chairman of Federal Lands Committee for the
    National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and today I am also
    representing the Public Lands Council and the Arizona Cattle
    Growers Association. Livestock grazing represents the earliest
    use of Western lands as our Nation expanded westward. Today
    those lands and resources found on them continue to be
    essential for livestock, wildlife habitat, open space, and
    rural economies of the West.
        However, a hands-off management approach by the Federal
    agencies has led to severe damage of the resource. By all but
    shutting down logging and continuously reducing grazing on
    public lands, multiple-use industries are suffering. This
    mismanagement is causing a build-up of fuels that leads to
    catastrophic wildfire. When catastrophic wildfire breaks out,
    there are no winners; not the wildlife, not the rural
    communities or the taxpayers.
        That is why we are here today, to discuss real, immediate
    relief to the dangerous situations on and near our public
    forested lands. Last year in Arizona alone, we had 1 million
    acres burned up, impacting 100 ranching families and displacing
    about 18,000 head of cattle. As of this week, over 1.5 million
    acres have burned this year in the West alone. The overall cost
    of wildfires range from 3 to 10 times fire suppression costs,
    not counting property loss, personal injuries, and death.
        For ranchers, the cost includes displaced cattle, lost
    forage, loss of infrastructure, and death of livestock.
        What is the cause of this destruction? We should start by
    looking at NEPA. Agencies face a tremendous workload of hourly
    burdensome NEPA analysis and other regulations. They plan,
    study, get sued, plan and study for months and even years on
    end, creating backlogs and pile-up. Extreme anti-logging and
    anti-grazing environmental groups wait in the wings to file
    suit on procedural points, like missed deadlines, oftentimes
    collecting attorney's fees.
        In doing so, they add to agency workloads and further
    worsen the backlog. The result is tremendous economic
    uncertainty. The Forest Service estimates a current NEPA
    backlog of 2,600 grazing allotments. I have personally been
    involved in an 8-year process to renew a simple 55-head permit.
    How is this remotely acceptable?
        We should also take a look at another environmental law
    that has added greatly to the problem, the Endangered Species
    Act. Wildfire poses a huge threat to many wildlife species, yet
    ESA is often used to limit activity, such as timber harvesting
    and grazing, the very activities that should be used to reduce
    fuel loads and diminish the threat to wildlife. The spotted owl
    has all but wiped out the timber industry in the West and
    drastically reduced grazing. By the way, over half of the
    Mexican spotted owl nesting sites were destroyed in the Wallow
    Fire alone. How long do we have to watch everything from
    wildlife habitats, subdivisions, to natural resource wealth go
    up in smoke on the nightly news before our country wakes up and
    calls for a stop to the mismanagement of these public lands?
        The Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act goes to the heart
    of the problem. Regulations that have led to overgrowth of
    fuels, it will expedite grazing and thinning projects and
    encourage free enterprise solutions on Federal lands that will
    reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, ultimately reducing
    threats to communities, the landscape, and endangered species.
    It puts special focus on two priority areas: The wildland-urban
    interface and the endangered species habitat. If the agencies
    miss the deadline, it automatically deems those projects
    compliant under NEPA. Wildfire does not wait for endless
    deliberation in high-risk situations. Neither should we. Still,
    the bill allows for a 30-day public review and comment period.
    No longer would radical environmental groups be able to hold
    off until the last minute to bring a project to its knees.
        Finally, this bill requires the use of existing ESA
    emergency provisions which allow for informal consultation.
    This bill is just common sense. It will put people to work and
    help countless communities while improving the health and
    safety of our forests. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today, and I look forward to any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

      Statement of David Cook, Public Land Rancher and NCBA Federal Lands
    Vice-Chair, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council
       & Arizona Cattle Growers Association, on Bills to Reduce Risk of
       Catastrophic Wildfire, Improve Forest Health; ``The Catastrophic
                       Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012''

        Dear Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Public Lands
    Council (PLC) and Arizona Cattle Growers Association (ACGA) appreciate
    the opportunity to voice to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests
    and Public Lands our strong support for H.R. 5744, the Catastrophic
    Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012. H.R. 5744 was introduced by
    Congressman Gosar (AZ) to address the forest health, public safety, and
    wildlife habitat threats presented by the risk of wildfire, including
    catastrophic wildfire, on National Forest System lands and public lands
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The legislation would
    require the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
    to expedite forest management projects relating to hazardous fuels
    reduction, forest health, and economic development. Timber thinning and
    livestock grazing projects aimed at reducing hazardous fuel loads on
    our Nation's forests would be expedited, particularly in forests
    surrounding communities.
    Dire Situation Facing the Nation's Forests
        Fires are a natural occurrence in forest ecosystems in North
    America and, when occurring in healthy forests, should be considered
    beneficial. Fire acts to remove excess debris including dead and dying
    trees and herbaceous material, providing sunlight and nutrients for
    subsequent growing seasons. Removing young trees where sufficient
    canopy cover exists helps maintain a balance within the forest system.
    However, while naturally occurring fire is good for healthy forests,
    catastrophic wildfire--a result of excessive forage and trees--causes
    great harm to forest ecosystems. Roughly four decades of severe
    mismanagement of our National Forests has resulted in vast areas of
    public lands that have either recently experienced or are at risk of
    experiencing catastrophic wildfire. According to the Evergreen
    Foundation, forest density has increased 40 percent in the U.S. over
    the last 50 years.(http://evergreenmagazine.com/pages/Forest_Facts-
    v2.html). Also on the rise, largely as a result of this overgrowth, is
    insect infestation. According to the U.S. Forest Service, thinning
    trees would help put a stop to the growing pine bark beetle epidemic,
    which currently affects over four million acres across South Dakota,
    Wyoming and Colorado alone (http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/bark-beetle/faq/
    ). Under current management, however, the infestation is leading to
    dead trees--and even more risk of catastrophic fire.
        According the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station
    in Missoula, Montana there are vast areas of federal land managed by
    the federal government which are not meeting ``condition class I''
    standards. ``Condition class I'' classification means fuel loads are
    within their historical range. According to the research station's data
    released in February 2001 (which is the most recent data), only 31% or
    about 52 million acres of forested land managed by the federal
    government are classified as ``condition class I,'' leaving more than
    two thirds of the forests with fuel loads exceeding historical levels,
    which puts those lands and the surrounding areas at risk of wildfire
    (potentially catastrophic). Specifically, lands designated as
    ``condition class II,'' or lands characterized by vegetation that is
    moderately altered from historic levels, equate to about 66 million
    acres. Lands classified as ``condition class III,'' or lands
    characterized by vegetation that is significantly altered from historic
    levels, consists of about 50 million acres (http://www.firelab.org/
    ScienceApps_Files/downloads/coarsescale/data_summary_tables.pdf--Rocky
    Mountain Research Station report).
        What are the effects? According to the National Institute for the
    Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire, overstocked tree stands and dense
    canopies have contributed to ``such disastrous fires as the 2002 Hayman
    Fire in Colorado, the 2008 fires in Trinity and Siskiyou counties of
    California, and the 2011 New Mexico and Arizona fires; more than one
    million acres of valuable national forest resources have been destroyed
    by these wildfires alone.'' (http://www.stopwildfire.org/). In Texas in
    2011, roughly 4 million acres, nearly 3,000 homes and over 2,700 other
    structures were destroyed by wildfire.
        This year, this situation does not look much better. As of last
    month, over 25,000 fires had burned well over a million acres just this
    year (http://www.amforest.org/images/pdfs/AFRC_Newsletter_6-22-12.pdf).
    According to the National Interagency Fire Center, ``Worsening drought
    conditions in the West are leading to below normal live and dead fuel
    moistures and above normal Energy Release Components (ERCs) from the
    southern California mountains east through New Mexico and Colorado, and
    north through Montana and the Dakotas. Expanding drought in the Midwest
    could lead to low fuel moistures in the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys.
    Additionally, many of these areas have increased fine fuel loading from
    lingering dead, standing fuels and below normal snowpack, creating a
    heavy and continuous fuel bed'' http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/
    outlooks/monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf.
        One need only take a look at individual states to know the
    seriousness of the situation.
        Colorado, for example, has seen over 85,000 acres and many
    structures burn, with more expected as the summer progresses. According
    to the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), the state has vast
    acreages of lodgepole pine dying off due to insect infestation, but
    virtually no action has been taken to protect or thin the forests.
    Colorado has also lost most of its sawmilling infrastructure due to
    litigation, appeals and the inability of the Forest Service to offer
    timber sales. The southwestern United States, says AFRC, is facing the
    same fate. New Mexico has already seen nearly 350,000 acres burned.
    Fires are also taking a heavy toll in Montana, Nevada, California and
    Oregon. Southeastern Oregon's ``Long Draw'' fire, the biggest Oregon
    burn since 1865, spans over a half-million acres and has officially
    claimed 200 livestock; 400 more cattle are missing. Ranchers in this
    area and across the west will be in dire need of pasture. Some of them
    will likely go bankrupt and out of business.
    What's the Cost?
        The fiscal costs of wildfire extend far beyond just suppression.
    However, suppression expenditures (aviation, engines, firefighting
    crews, agency personnel, etc.) are nonetheless formidable, adding up to
    over $1 billion annually. And even though the agencies are dedicating
    more and more resources to wildfire suppression (the U.S. Forest
    Service spends nearly half its budget fighting fire), the number of
    burned acres continues to rise (http://www.idahoforests.org/img/pdf/
    FUSEE.pdf).
        Fire suppression costs do not account for local and state
    governments' expenditures, or for the loss of private property, timber
    and forage loss, damage to utility lines, evacuation aid, and many,
    many more costs. The National Institute for the Elimination of
    Catastrophic Wildfire estimates that ``overall damage costs of
    wildfires range from three to 10 times fire suppression costs, not
    counting associated property losses and personal injuries and deaths''
    (http://www.stopwildfire.org/). For ranchers, the costs include dealing
    with displaced cattle; lost pasture that takes years to recover;
    repairing fences, waterlines, and other infrastructure; and death loss
    of livestock to fire. In Arizona in 2011, the Arizona Cattle Growers
    Association reported that major fires impacted at least 100 ranching
    families and displaced approximately 10,000 head of cows and 8,000 head
    of calves.
    Why does this situation exist?
        It has become all too clear from the millions of charred acres
    across the west, that the planning process currently in use by the
    federal agencies is woefully broken. Planning, studying, consulting,
    litigating, appealing then planning and studying more for months and
    even years on end is not working and must be changed. How long do we
    have to watch subdivisions go up in smoke on the nightly news before
    our country wakes up and stops the dangerous mismanagement of public
    lands?
        There are many reasons why the federal government finds itself in a
    situation where over two-thirds of the land it manages is at risk of
    catastrophic wildfire due to fuel loads in excess of historical norms.
    The various reasons for the burgeoning fuel loads have one common
    theme: overregulation and, as a result, environmental litigation that
    creates a self-perpetuating cycle. According to the BLM, livestock
    grazing has been reduced on BLM lands by as much as 50 percent since
    1971, while the timber industry has been nearly destroyed over the last
    30 years--all almost entirely due to federal laws and regulations and
    predatory environmental groups.
        For far too long we have allowed outside interests and bureaucratic
    paralysis to dictate the management of our Nation's forests. Our
    federal government needs to reduce the current bureaucratic planning
    process and litigious playing field that our forests have been subject
    to for most of the last 30 to 40 years. Radical environmental groups
    masquerading as government watchdogs or protectors of the wildlife and
    forests drive their anti-livestock, anti-logging agenda through endless
    lawsuits and appeals--often times collecting attorney's fees in the
    process.
        One of the major impediments to efficient management of National
    Forest System Lands is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an
    act intended to require agencies to analyze alternatives when making
    major decisions. Unfortunately, the law has been abused to the point
    that NEPA has become an endless process, creating a state of gridlock.
    The excessive regulations resulting from NEPA have led to massive
    paperwork backlogs. On grazing Forest Service decisions alone, the
    agency estimates that there are currently approximately 2,600 grazing
    allotments that (as interpreted by the courts) ``need'' NEPA analysis.
    Such backlogs inevitably lead to litigation from extremist
    environmental groups, who wait in the wings to sue on process-based
    matters such as missed deadlines. Their lawsuits then suck up more
    resources, creating the aforementioned self-perpetuating cycle--and
    keeping agency personnel from doing the job we hire them to do: work
    with ranchers and other on-the-ground managers to care for the land.
    Instead, our members' livelihoods are being jeopardized, as are the
    land, the environment and wildlife. Such ``management'' is
    unacceptable.
        In addition to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been
    abused to drive the anti-livestock and anti- multiple-use agendas of
    special interest groups. The irony is that wildfire poses a great
    threat to many wildlife species, yet the ESA is often used to limit
    activities such as timber thinning and livestock grazing that reduce
    fuel loads and diminish the instances of wildfire. Critical habitat
    designations for the spotted owl have all but whipped out the timber
    industry in the northwest. Mexican Spotted Owl and Goshawk critical
    habitat designations have impacted ponderosa pine/conifer forests all
    over the West, and have resulted in substantial reductions in livestock
    grazing over the years (of note: over half of the Mexican Spotted Owl
    nesting sites were destroyed in the Wallow Fire). Heaven help the sage
    grouse, should the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decide to list it as
    a ``protected'' species: the listing has the potential to limit or
    remove the most important tool to reducing the threat of wildfire on
    the sage brush sea--grazing. How can we continue to allow species
    ``protection'' to be the source of such destruction?
        A number of other laws and regulations limit the management of our
    nation's forests to little more than preserves devoid of sustainable
    resource management through multiple-use activities.
    Grassroots effort to bring commonsense solutions forward
        In 2011, in an effort to respond to the problems and threats faced
    by the livestock industry and communities across the west and in
    Arizona particularly, the Arizona Cattle Grower's Association drafted
    the Save Arizona's Forest Environment (SAFE) plan. This grassroots
    effort led directly to ACGA and the national livestock associations
    working together to pass policy and, ultimately, work with Congress to
    develop legislation to provide solutions.
        More than twenty-five entities, listed below, endorsed ACGA's
    original SAFE plan, including Arizona's state Senate and House. The
    plan's goal was--and is--to reduce fuel loads and take other
    appropriate actions so that the risk of catastrophic wild fire is
    reduced in Arizona's National Forests by providing for long-term, self-
    funding mechanisms and infrastructure to eliminate the dangerous
    accumulation of overgrown trees and forests. More specifically, the
    plan seeks to achieve forest health, protect adjacent communities from
    catastrophic fire, achieve other forest management goals, and maintain
    Arizona's Forest lands in an ecologically sustainable condition. The
    ACGA proposes to use proven silvicultural practices, prescribed fire
    and proper forage management to achieve these goals. The Catastrophic
    Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012 shares the core principles of the SAFE
    plan.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012
        In an effort to provide efficiencies to the regulatory process for
    reducing fuel loads on federal lands, Congressman Gosar introduced the
    Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2012. The proposed legislation
    will expedite projects (timber thinning and livestock grazing),
    encouraging free enterprise solutions on federal lands to reduce the
    threat of catastrophic wildfire, ultimately reducing threats to
    communities, the landscape, and endangered species.
        The bill proposes to first and foremost address areas with homes in
    the wildland/urban interface (where federal lands are adjacent to
    communities.) This element is important, as an estimated 44 million
    homes in the U.S. are currently located in fire-prone wildland/urban
    interface areas, and the Forest Service predicts a 40% increase in new
    homes in similar areas by 2030 (http://www.idahoforests.org/img/pdf/
    FUSEE.pdf). It also focuses on the aforementioned ``At-Risk Forests,''
    which include all federal land classified as condition II and III by
    the Rocky Mountain Research Station report titled ``Development of
    Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management.''
        In these at-risk areas and in areas where endangered species are
    found, the bill expedites projects that focus on surface, ladder, and
    canopy fuels reduction activities and that enhance threatened and
    endangered species habitat. Informal consultation under the Endangered
    Species Act would be completed under the emergency provisions of the
    Act. Prior to the listing of any species under the Endangered Species
    Act research will be conducted to measure the impact a listing will
    have on fuel loads. Recovery plans and critical habitat designations
    will have catastrophic fire risk assessment analysis included.
        Exceptions to utilization standards would be made for livestock
    grazing for fuels-reduction projects in the at-risk areas. Timber
    harvesting and thinning would also be authorized projects. Resource
    management plans, land use plans and forest plans would not have to be
    amended while implementing authorized projects. The Secretaries would
    complete an environmental assessment for timber harvest and grazing
    projects within 30 days after notice in the federal register. Failure
    to meet this deadline would deem projects compliant with all
    requirements under NEPA. Grazing projects would be approved for a
    minimum of 10 years and timber projects for a minimum of 20 years.
    Adequate public review (30 days) would be allowed. In order to prevent
    litigation, the only members of the public allowed to comment on the
    final decision would be those who commented on the draft.
    Conclusion
        The National Forests are capable of providing the many values and
    benefits that people expect from our forests, but they need proper
    management in order to provide these values. The livestock industry
    supports prescribed fire, commercial timber harvest, noncommercial
    treatments and enhanced forage harvests on federally-managed forests.
    Further, we believe that commercial utilization payments could play a
    large role in bringing back private investment to help finance the many
    and extensive treatment needs of the forests.
        It will be through the empowerment of private investment,
    individuals and communities that we set the guidepost for future forest
    planning. We need to direct and see through the initiative to return
    people to work in the woods, protect habitats and communities and
    return to the days of 5,000 to 10,000 acre fires in our forests--not
    500,000 acre catastrophes.
        We urge the committee to advance the Catastrophic Wildfire
    Prevention Act of 2012 without delay, to enact commonsense solutions to
    reduce the threat of wildfire on public lands. H.R. 5744 will provide
    tools the agencies need to effectively manage the Nation's forests.
        Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments
    to the Subcommittee. If you have any questions concerning these
    comments or need further information, you may contact Dustin Van Liew
    at the Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    as our point of contact.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, and I appreciate how both
    of you hit the mark right there. That is very kind. You were
    watching it very well.
        We now are opening it up to questions now of Mr. Markey's
    bill, Mr. Gosar's bill. I will yield my time to Mr. Gosar
    because I know you are probably on the same airline that Mr.
    Shamley is going on. We will talk to you about how you should
    be using Delta later on.
        Mr. Gosar, allow me to yield my time to you.
        Dr. Gosar. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Wagner, Mr. Roberson, so timetables are failing us.
        I mean, I have just witnessed, just for a contract to get
    private industry for large swaths for the 4FRI initiative
    taking 6 months, and we knew it was coming. I mean, this is
    inappropriate. In fact, I am very aware that the chief had to
    fly in to Albuquerque to even oversee these types of contracts.
    I mean, this isn't rocket science, and I know we have to get it
    right.
        So you disagree with the timetables here. What would you
    like to see as far as timetables, 6 years, 5 years? I mean, it
    is inappropriate what we are doing right now, so give me a
    timetable very quickly.
        Ms. Wagner. What I would like to say is I appreciate the
    leadership of local elected officials. In many cases, they are
    the heart of some of the most successful work that we are doing
    out on national forests. States are playing a very similar
    role. We agree there is more work to be done. We would like to
    work with you to find all of the right tools to be most
    expeditious and efficient----
        Dr. Gosar. So I am limited on my time, so I really want to
    recapture this. Give me a timetable. Give me what you look at
    as a timetable. We said 60 days. Give me a timetable.
        Ms. Wagner. Sixty days for the Governors to identify high
    risk areas?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. Tell me what is wrong with this.
        Ms. Wagner. There is nothing wrong with it. I believe that
    it would be advantageous to look at the State action plans and
    assess where they identify priorities.
        Dr. Gosar. And in good stewardship, you should already be
    doing that, should you not?
        Ms. Wagner. Absolutely, yes.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Mr. Roberson, you actually said again you weren't in favor
    of this timetable. I want to hear your specifics very quickly.
        Mr. Roberson. I am in agreement with Associate Chief
    Wagner. I believe that we need to look at our local plans. We
    are looking at our local plans, our cohesive fire strategy
    bills on those plans in the States, and I believe together we
    identify those high risk areas and go out and work on them.
        Dr. Gosar. So what is wrong with 60 days? So my problem is,
    I don't see a problem with 60 days because let me explain to
    you. I see a lack of trust by the Federal Government with
    counties and States. I absolutely see that, and that has got to
    stop. Trust is a series of promises kept, and I don't see the
    Federal Government keeping their promises one iota. There are
    limited finances we can use here, and when we are starting to
    look at these widespread swaths to take care of, it is going to
    have to reinvigorate the private sector so that you are
    returning money on investment.
        Mr. Cook, I mean, give me your experience, I mean, we just
    saw this Wallow Fire, it was a disaster; I mean, an absolute
    disaster because this forest isn't returning anytime soon, is
    it?
        Mr. Cook. Not only is it not returning anytime soon, it has
    affected the permittees and the families. So, of the large $56
    million, I would give the total to of the loss in revenue and
    economic growth and rural communities.
        Dr. Gosar. And you have a kinship and a stewardship with
    the forest and the environment, don't you, because, I mean, you
    have to watch this very carefully, right?
        Mr. Cook. You know, communities and public land ranchers,
    we are one with the land, we want the land to be in the best
    shape it possibly can, we are the stewards of the land, and
    many times the agencies hand tie us to what we can do. I am
    reading a biological assessment now on a grazing allotment
    where the number one threat to the spotted owl is catastrophic
    wildfire, according to the recovery plan, and the biologist
    doesn't even mention that, but they want to reduce grazing, and
    it does not address the fuel load whatsoever.
        Dr. Gosar. Wow, amazing. Embracing private enterprise
    actually creating money and royalties actually goes to, I
    think, it is our education system, is it not?
        Mr. Cook. I agree. In fact, what I was just speaking about
    back here was that I saw the PILT information in the Secure
    Rural Schools Act, I know it has been funded for one more year,
    but you know, in the West, in rural areas, we want to be put to
    work. We want industry. We want jobs for our communities. We
    don't want government handouts. And we want to put loggers back
    in the forest. We want to put cattle back on the land. And we
    want to manage those things within our State the way we want to
    do so.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Shamley, I know you just got back from a
    conference on the West Coast, and you have some amazing
    information, do you not, that you want to share with us?
        Mr. Shamley. Yes. One of the key things I think to note is
    there is a growing movement amongst academia, former employees
    of the agencies, and I am in full agreement of it, one of the
    only long-term fixes is disposal of the forest back to the
    States of the public lands because there is no feasible way to
    manage the forest as the system is now, and we are going to
    keep losing millions, keep destroying massive amounts of
    habitat, as we saw in the Wallow Fire, and we are hamstrung and
    unable currently to do anything about it. Our county
    stewardship program is bold. It is working, and we are actually
    the ones protecting the spotted owl packs. I don't see any of
    the litigants there cutting alongside of us.
        Dr. Gosar. You are actually blazing a trail that is just
    pretty much common sense, is it not?
        Mr. Shamley. Yes, it is, and we created a lot of jobs for a
    lot of people already.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Sablan.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        One of my experiences recently, is I flew to the Island of
    Hispaniola down south near Florida. Flying onto the island, you
    see half of the island is lush green and the other half is
    barren, Dominican Republic and Haiti, and there must be
    something wrong there.
        And Mr. Cook, I am not going to argue with you, sir,
    because you know your business better than I do, but
    apparently, you know, it is like NEPA and the spotted owl are
    the reasons for all our problems here, and so, you know--but we
    ought to also look, there are places in the world where we can
    see the consequences of lack of regulations or lack of control
    over natural resources. And I also don't understand the science
    as well as Ph.D.s and scientists, but on issues of climate
    change, anyone who wants to see evidence of climate change, I
    invite you to the islands where I am from, and you will see
    coconut trees inside the water, you will see house stilts in
    the water, you know, because of the rising sea, and at this
    time, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Markey.
        Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman very much.
        You know, in 2012, we are beginning to emerge from the
    great recession, but a new drought for a new era is threatening
    a majority of our country. The Dust Bowl was surely due to an
    actual parched state, but it was also man made as years of poor
    land management and farming on marginal land had sapped the
    strength from our soil, leaving it to turn to dust as the rain
    dried and the winds whipped.
        This flash drought of 2012 is also man made, but not
    because we failed to learn the lessons of the land. We did. It
    is man made because we have failed to heed the warnings from
    nature. The drought of 2012 is yet another data point in the
    ever-growing canon of climate catastrophes.
        Mr. Romm, the frequency, the intensity of these fires in
    the West, how much of it do you think we can attribute now to
    this rapidly changing climate here in the United States and on
    the planet?
        Dr. Romm. Well, you know, I think that is the question of
    the day, and I had an article in Nature, which I would like to
    get into the record on the next dust bowl. I think drought is
    the most pressing problem caused by climate change.
        Let me frame it this way: I think we know global warming
    makes extreme weather more likely and many kinds of extreme
    weather more destructive, and the analogy people have used is a
    baseball player on steroids, you know, you don't know that any
    individual home run was caused by the steroids, but if you see
    70 home runs in one season, you are breaking records you never
    broke before, then you know that, you know, and this is what is
    going on with the atmosphere, it is juiced on warming.
        Scientists knew that there were three reasons that global
    warming was going to make wildfires worse. This has been long
    known. Obviously, whenever it is hotter, it is drier, the
    Palmer Drought Severity Index is based on soil moisture, so you
    know soil moisture is driven by how much evaporates, how much
    comes down, and how much evaporates. So when it is hotter, you
    get more evaporation, so global warming makes droughts worse,
    and it makes droughts longer.
        The second thing that was known is you are going to get
    earlier snow melt. As the seasons--as spring--you know, we had
    no winter. Winter was kind of like spring this year, spring was
    like summer, and summer is like hellishness, and that is global
    warming. So when you have your spring become summer, the snow
    melt goes early. Colorado had staggering loss of ice, and it is
    actually interesting, I lived in both your district, Mr.
    Markey, at one point, and I lived in your district, Mr. Tipton.
    I worked for Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute in Old
    Snowmass, and so I know what, you know, the place looked like
    20 years ago, and I know what it looks like now. And when you
    get the earlier snow melt, many of these Western regions,
    including, you know, Colorado where I lived, doesn't get a lot
    of precipitation in the summertime. It requires the stream flow
    from the reservoir of snow, snow and ice, that is the
    reservoir, and so the second impact that global warming causes
    drought and wildfire is you lose the snow melt earlier.
        Third is that global warming actually changes the climate,
    that is why it is called climate change. It shifts the
    subtropical dry belts, and unfortunately, when you expand the
    subtropical dry belt, that hits the Southwest. We are going to
    see less precipitation, and that is the double whammy that
    States like Colorado are going to be hit by. More soil moisture
    evaporation.
        And then, finally, the bark beetle, you know the bark
    beetle, which we talked about----
        Mr. Markey. My time the gentleman yielded to me, and I am
    very appreciative of, but our time has expired. So we will come
    back again.
        Dr. Romm. We will come back to the bark beetle.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Tipton.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think to get this focus back on the topic of the hearing,
    a simple question, is the bark beetle an imminent threat? Maybe
    we can just--yes or no I think covers it.
        Ms. Wagner, can we start with you?
        Ms. Wagner. There is concern for the impacts the bark
    beetle have.
        Mr. Tipton. Is it an imminent threat?
        Ms. Wagner. I would agree.
        Mr. Tipton. Yes.
        Sir?
        Mr. Roberson. Yes, sir, on the 1.3 million acres of public
    land.
        Mr. Tipton. Yes, great. Thanks. Dan?
        Mr. Gibbs. Congressman, yes. I brought a few so folks can
    see how small it is and how it----
        Mr. Tipton. Keep them captive. Great. Thank you, Dan.
        Sir?
        Dr. Romm. The bark beetle is an invasive species. It is not
    a yes or no question. It is a long-term threat. It is an
    invasive species that has become invaded because the climate
    changed, and the climate is going to keep changing, so it is
    going to keep invading. So it is an imminent threat, and it is
    a threat 20 years from now, and it will be worse in 40.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cook?
        Mr. Cook. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Tipton. Mr. Shamley?
        Mr. Shamley. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Tipton. You know, a Senator from our State, Colorado,
    had requisitioned a study, came at the request to the U.S.
    Forest Service and said that the primary reasons that we are
    seeing the bark beetle infestation is because of the Forest
    Service actions regarding approving of timber harvesting,
    active management, lack of active management, drought, lack of
    allocation of resources to timber management, limited access to
    areas due to the inability to be able to provide access routes,
    Federal land designation, which precludes forest treatment as
    the primary contributing factors to the rampant bark beetle
    outbreak.
        So, Ms. Wagner, I guess I would like to ask the question,
    since this was a report that came out of the Forest Service,
    which I think helped identify the problem, do you believe that
    an expedited approval authority can help us actually do that,
    given the information we received out of the Forest Service in
    Southwest Colorado, that by actually getting in and thinning
    these devastated areas, we increase the water table and we
    increase the health of trees?
        Ms. Wagner. We would like to do more in bark beetle
    restoration.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you so much.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance
    of my time to my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
        Dr. Gosar. So, Ms. Wagner, what we have really is a
    pandemic. It is not just about the bark beetle; it is about
    cankers and blights as well because what we do is, it is like
    somebody here who has got the measles and we are all stuck
    around here so they are much more contagious to everything else
    around here. We have different species that have different
    requirements, like the ponderosa pine. We want to see 10 to 25
    trees per acre instead of the 600 trees. So we have a problem
    here, and we have to address it, and by allowing them to stand,
    we are just aggressively creating the pandemic, are we not?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes, we have serious concerns about insects and
    disease and their prevalence because it is droughty; it is hot.
        Dr. Gosar. So the little jar that the gentleman showed us,
    it is just a focal point for the disease if you don't get rid
    of it, because what you are doing is if there are areas that
    they continued to create the infestation, true?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes, conditions are ripe for that.
        Dr. Gosar. So the longer it stands, the bigger the problem?
        What do you think about that, Mr. Cook?
        Mr. Cook. Well, I ranch in the ponderosa pine area up to
    7,000 feet in elevation, and I see what you are talking about,
    and what I don't understand is when you have people talk about
    a drought, you have all of these trees competing for that same
    drop of water, so the forest needs to be thinned. I don't know
    why we all can't agree with that and move forward, and I think
    we would have a much healthier forest if we would just do so.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Shamley, would you agree with that?
        Mr. Shamley. Yes, I would, because I can take anybody here
    that wants to go see tours of our once great forest and show
    you whole entire hillsides, and the Forest Service personnel
    are the ones who indicated that due to it being too thick of a
    tree stands and the lack of activities in there, they became
    weakened because they were competing for water. At that point
    is when the beetle moved in.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, I want to take us back to the Rodeo-
    Chediski fire there. And what we saw is mitigation by the
    tribes, which was very interesting because do they have the
    same kind of problem on the tribal lands as we do on the public
    lands?
        Mr. Shamley. Not at all.
        Dr. Gosar. Why not?
        Mr. Shamley. Because they are treating the lands. They are
    being proper stewards, and they are thinking about
    conservation, not preservation.
        Dr. Gosar. I have to stop you there. So they are thinking
    about conservation and they are thinning the forest?
        Mr. Shamley. Yes. And creating----
        Dr. Gosar. This is an oxymoron. I really can't get this.
        Mr. Shamley. Our fire, sir, as you know as well as anybody,
    came to a halt when it hit the Apache Reservation where they do
    do treatments.
        Dr. Gosar. So let me ask you one last question. A dynamic
    forest is all old growth trees, or is it young growth, medium
    growth, and old growth trees?
        Mr. Shamley. It is a full mixture, sir.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
        Mr. Bishop. Once again, I appreciate this.
        Before I turn to Mr. Markey, I assume you have some more
    questions, before I do that, Mr. Shamley, I don't know if Mr.
    Cook is on the same flight, Representative Gosar, I know you
    have a flight. Do not think it is going to be offensive if you
    leave to go to the airport when you need to go to the airport.
        Mr. Shamley. OK, cool.
        Mr. Bishop. We are happy to have you here as long as you
    can stay, but when the witching hour hits, please feel free.
        Mr. Shamley. OK.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Markey, did you have any other questions?
        Mr. Markey. Yes, I do, thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Please.
        Mr. Markey. I am just going to come back to you, Mr. Romm.
    I think you are just trying to be reflective of what is
    happening in explaining the bark beetle and why it is now
    reproducing not once a year but twice a year, why the change in
    temperatures are causing that to happen, why it is expanding
    its footprint, hitting larger and larger areas because of
    climate change, because of the changing temperatures, and you
    are just trying to explain that scientifically as a reality
    that has led to the metastasization of the problem in the same
    way that New England, our winters are now 4 degrees warmer than
    they were in the 1970s, so the Massachusetts and Vermont maple
    trees, they are going further and further north, heading toward
    Canada, and that is just the change in climate, the change in
    temperatures. I mean, we barely had a winter last year.
        All you are doing is just pointing out the facts that the
    maple trees are going further and further north and the bark
    beetles are reproducing twice a year and able to cause more and
    more damage, and the climate is at the heart of it. It is a big
    change that is occurring.
        And so I don't, you know, I don't know why, you know, we
    just can't agree on that because it is not just the West, it is
    New England, it is a common problem that we all have to deal
    with and the consequences, you know. First of all, you can put
    a band-aid on it here and there, and you try to put together
    policies that deal with the band-aid, but you have to step back
    and look at the larger kind of climate cancer that is out there
    and say, what can we do to reduce the longer-term impacts that
    are going to be profound?
        And I think, Mr. Romm, that is what you are bringing to
    this discussion, and we thank you for that.
        Commissioner Gibbs, as a wildland firefighter, can you tell
    us how effective air tankers are in addressing wildfire
    situations like we saw recently in Colorado Springs?
        Mr. Gibbs. Congressman, I do think that the utilization of
    air tankers is important. I think it is most effective when you
    put resources on the ground for defensible space around
    communities, first of all, but if there is a large scale, you
    know, utilizing single engine air tankers or the big heavies
    are a positive. The big heavies, of course, can carry more
    slurry, but, you know, the single engine air tankers definitely
    have more versatility, they are easier to get around. Quite
    often, the big heavies cannot fly, of course, when it gets
    windy, and the single engine air tankers definitely tend to be
    more versatile, you can get more up in the air as well.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, sir.
        You know, whether it is a flash flood or a flash drought or
    flash of lightning igniting wildfires, climate change is
    increasing the risk to all parts of the country. And what
    happens in the Midwest does affect Massachusetts, it does
    affect Arizona because there is an extreme weather food tax,
    there is higher prices for food coming to every American
    because of this drought. I mean, at $7 a bushel for corn, we
    are looking at real consequences.
        Can you talk about that, the economic impact, Mr. Romm, on
    every American?
        Dr. Romm. Sure. Well, I think--and certainly every American
    is very concerned about the, you know, explosion of the
    wildfires, but I think, and I have said, I mean I have read
    much of the literature, I have written a great many articles
    on, you know, I believe that it is through food prices that
    most people are going to experience climate change because, you
    know, people can adapt. We can go in when it is hot to an air
    conditioned room, but a farm is just out there exposed to the
    weather, and there is no question, food prices have been stuck
    at levels that we haven't seen in 20 years, and, you know,
    Oxfam projects that food prices are going to double or triple.
        Mr. Markey. Can I go to Mr. Cook then quickly? Are you
    concerned about the impact that the drought has on corn and
    other grain prices in terms of the impact that it is going to
    have on your business?
        Mr. Cook. Oh, absolutely. The cost association with corn
    prices directly affects our beef cattle prices, and they move
    together, and that opens up a whole other discussion. But of
    course, any agriculture producer in the West or Midwest is
    always concerned with drought.
        Mr. Markey. Do you think climate change is playing a role
    here in this expansive drought?
        Mr. Cook. My thoughts are a little bit different than
    probably yours, Congressman, with all due respect. Our timeline
    now, what you are speaking of since the 1970s to today is about
    a pebble on the size of a sand on a beach somewhere. I mean----
        Mr. Markey. Mr. Romm, is it a pebble on the sand on a
    beach?
        Dr. Romm. No, not at all. I don't think there is any
    question that the, you know, climate change is making the
    droughts worse. I think it is very important, and I don't know
    if there is going to be another round of questions, but people
    have to understand. There is a difference between just warming
    the average temperature and changing the climate, and there
    have been two or three major studies in the last several months
    that say when you lose the Arctic ice, you weaken the jet
    stream, and when you weaken the jet stream, weather patterns
    get stuck. And, you know, there have been two or three peer-
    reviewed studies, so if you are asking why are heat waves
    lasting longer, why are highs sticking around longer, why are
    droughts longer, it's climate change driven by carbon
    pollution.
        Mr. Bishop. I am sorry to interrupt you.
        Mr. Markey. No, I appreciate it.
        Mr. Bishop. It is unfair because you had one second left
    when you were asked the question.
        Mr. Markey. No, I appreciate it, I appreciate it. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Bishop. Let me just ask one quick question on my own if
    I could of Ms. Wagner. I appreciate you being here, appreciate
    your service when you are up in the Northwest on the ground,
    and you learned your trade up there. A reference was made to
    baseball, which obviously piqued my interest, that home runs
    were a cause of steroids. Home runs are also caused of corked
    bats. So let me ask you about an alternative method here, Ms.
    Wagner.
        One of the witnesses has said that there is almost little,
    there is little empirical research to document the fact that
    lower fuel loads and reduction in ladder fuel reduces fire
    severity and causes suppression. Ms. Wagner, could you just
    describe some of the research that your agency has done with
    respect to the effects of fuel reduction on wildfire behavior?
        Ms. Wagner. Two specific research publications I can cite
    from the Angora fire in California and from the Wallow Fire in
    the Southwest. We have had our research scientists look at pre-
    and post-fire impacts and fuels treatments, we have seen a fire
    as recently as this summer on the Bridger-Teton National
    Forest, the Fontenelle, and through visual pictures as well as
    science, you can see the difference that a stand that is
    thinner that has had ladder fuels removed and how fire behaves
    when it encounters that environment. I would be happy to
    provide some of those research publications to the Committee.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that. Mr. Roberson, let
    me just ask one specific question from your testimony about
    H.R. 5960. It said in your written testimony that it adds
    mountain pine beetle infestation as areas eligible for applied
    silviculture assessments under the Healthy Forest Restoration
    Act in section 404. Section 404 does authorize the Secretary to
    conduct applied silviculture assessments on Federal lands that
    the Secretary determines is at risk of infestation by or is
    infested with forest-damaging insects. Can you simply define
    forest-damaging insects.
        Mr. Roberson. I believe that the term defines itself, sir.
    I would say that the mountain pine beetle would qualify then.
        Mr. Bishop. Actually you are correct, it does define itself
    in the statute that is already there. 402 does define forest-
    damaging insects, which does include the mountain pine beetle,
    so I guess the question I would have to ask is how is this new
    authority that would be given to you, if it is already in
    statute?
        Mr. Roberson. We believe--some of the authorities were
    specifically for the Forest Service, and this may have been one
    of those. I can get back to you on that, though.
        Mr. Bishop. Yes, I think your testimony needs to be a
    little bit clarified in that particular area.
        Mr. Roberson. I can get back to you with an answer, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let's see if there is another round
    of questions.
        Mr. Gosar, do you have any other questions you would like
    to ask? I will recognize you.
        Dr. Gosar. Ms. Wagner, when we have these heavy canopied
    forest fires, they are intense, are they not?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar. So, in many cases, they actually sterilize the
    soil, do they not?
        Ms. Wagner. Post-fire we do an assessment, and we are able
    to determine the intensity of the fire, and in some cases, yes,
    we are seeing impacts to soil.
        Dr. Gosar. So is it easier to mitigate that, or is it
    tougher when you sterilize soil?
        Ms. Wagner. No, it is tough to recover from.
        Dr. Gosar. Our topsoil out in the West is much thinner than
    it is probably back East right now, are they not?
        Ms. Wagner. There are soil types that are definitely of
    concern when they are impacted by fire.
        Dr. Gosar. OK. So let me ask you a question. So, you know,
    we also have these inabilities for roadless rules that impact
    our harvesting process. I mean, they are a core part of how we
    are going into the forest. Tell me what part of a road
    mitigation is tougher to do than sterilized soil.
        Ms. Wagner. I am sorry, I am not following your question.
        Dr. Gosar. So when we do a road, an interim road to go to
    log, how is that mitigation worse than sterilized soil? If the
    answer is not----
        Ms. Wagner. I think we have the ability to design roads and
    place roads so they are low impact.
        Dr. Gosar. I would agree definitively.
        Mr. Shamley, tell me some of these other things that you
    have been doing that drew so much attention out in your local
    or your most recent speech.
        Mr. Shamley. Well, one of the big things, of course, was
    the multiple counties and the scientists actually there were
    reveled to hear about the county stewardship. You know, we had
    to use all the forests that the county possesses to protect
    health, safety, and welfare of the residents and pass drastic
    resolutions and bring the fight all the way to Washington,
    which we did in January, to move on to the forests that look at
    either, get something done or we are going to fix it.
        Now at that point, after Tidwell ditched the meeting, our
    locals, though, and they are the only ones I can give due
    credit to, not the agencies as a whole, local fire and fuel
    teams and our local supervisor, they are the ones who worked
    with us and said, yes, you are right, that area needs to be
    treated, and, yes, you are right the west side of Greer, which
    we are targeting, was completely left off any target plans by
    the U.S. Forest Service for treatment. Now, this town already
    tried to half burn down in the Wallow Fire or not try, it did
    half burn down. The other half that we are treating to protect
    the residents and mainly our watersheds and the only actions
    that are protecting the Mexican spotted owl pack, there was no
    plans by the agency. They completely left it off any plans or
    maps.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Cook, I know there is an example of this
    integral aspect that we are talking about, that we kind of
    really mimic this that actually shows that you can mitigate and
    take care of the forest and you can also have increased
    grazing, you can also have a number of different proprieties
    that you are increasing endangered species. I think it is a
    ranch in Utah, and it may be in Mr. Matheson's, if I am not
    mistaken, the ranch that shows everything being built. But
    there is a proper balance, is there not, that actually shows
    this working?
        Mr. Cook. Absolutely. And in speaking for myself, you know,
    we monitor the spotted owls on our own ranch, we pay for the
    monitoring ourselves because the agency fails to do so. They
    will go into consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and have a biological opinion that says they will monitor the
    species. We find that doesn't happen. So in fear of litigation
    and losing our permits, we actually hire the biologist who does
    the monitoring for the agency ourselves. What we have come to
    find out is the owls, in my opinion, and what I am seeing in
    the research is that the owls do not breed and do not reproduce
    on the years that cattle are not present in that thick wooded
    forest. So we have a lot of data, a lot of science that shows
    the grazing impacts, when done in the proper methods does
    nothing but benefit the endangered species.
        Dr. Gosar. So I guess I am going to go back to the
    organism, I am a science guy, I am very astute about botany as
    well, sir. So when you have an unhealthy situation, it
    endangers everything, you know, you don't have enough light
    going to the canopy bottom, you don't have a diversification of
    different species, and therefore what it actually does is it
    hurts the spotted owl, it hurts the whole different plethora of
    species within that environment, does it not?
        Mr. Cook. It absolutely does, and that is the discussion we
    have been having with the Forest Service and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service today is cattle grazing creates transition
    zones, and around these transition zones in these overgrown
    steep forests and conifer, the cattle creek transition zones
    around the wildlife drinkers and the salt blocks and stuff, and
    we find that is what benefits the species, actually, the cattle
    being there.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I assume you were talking
    about Deseret?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. That is my district, I claim that. Thank you.
        Mr. Sablan, do you have any other questions?
        Mr. Markey, do you have other questions?
        Mr. Markey. Yes, I do, please.
        Can you bring this up here?
        You know, and this discussion about steroids, I just love
    it.
        And I just happen to have a chart; it is now 4 years old,
    but it still works for the purpose of this discussion. And so,
    I had my staff go back about 4 years ago and track the number
    of players in the Major Leagues who had more than 40 home runs
    per year. In over a period from 1920, Babe Ruth's first over-
    40-home-run period, all the way up to 2009, the average was 3.3
    players per year averaged more than 40 home runs. Mickey
    Mantle, Willie Mays, you go through every--Ted Williams, you go
    through every phase.
        Then all of a sudden, in about 1995, it started to spike up
    to 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 players hitting more than 40 home runs.
    And it stayed very high until Major League Baseball, after
    congressional hearings, finally decided they were going to test
    for steroids, artificial substances put into the bodies of
    people. No longer a better diet and corked bats and smaller
    ballparks and bigger players, but let us just check for the
    steroids. And guess what? It went right back down to 3.3
    players per year who were averaging more than 40 home runs per
    year.
        And by the way, this chart looks exactly like the spike in
    the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rising
    temperatures on the planet since the dawn of the industrial
    age, when human beings started to inject additional carbon
    dioxide into the atmosphere. And it will take a number of
    congressional hearings ultimately before we will finally come
    to realize that it is not sunspots, and it is not these other
    ingredients that the climate deniers want to attribute this
    dramatic rise to, in the same way that Major League Baseball
    did all the way from the Commissioner down to the lowliest
    ballplayer who all had a stake in this phony system that was
    put together, but rather just the reflection of the reality
    that once we get the artificial additional chemicals out of our
    system, then the climate will start to calm down, the wildfires
    will start to calm down, the droughts will start to calm down.
    But until we get the steroids out of the climate, until we
    admit that we are playing a role in this, then all of the other
    issues are just Band-Aids trying to deal with the harm that is
    being done both to the players, you know, and to the game, the
    whole planet, on an ongoing basis.
        Mr. Romm, what do you think about this? It is an eerie
    correlation; is it not?
        Mr. Romm. Yes. And it has moved beyond correlation to
    causation. And you can move beyond correlation to causation
    when you have an underlying theory. We know that carbon dioxide
    from burning fossil fuels traps heat. We know--they call them
    greenhouse gases for a reason. They didn't make up the term
    ``greenhouse gases'' because the gases don't act like a
    greenhouse. They do. And if there were no greenhouse gases in
    the atmosphere, the planet would be 60 degrees Fahrenheit
    colder, and there would be no civilization as we know it.
        I would just like to make a point. I have learned a great
    deal at this hearing. I am not an expert on short-term forest
    management. I am kind of an expert on the medium and long term.
    There is no question that trees compete for water, and there is
    no question that drought is a big problem for trees, and it
    also exacerbates the bark beetle problem because trees kill
    bark beetles by releasing sap. But I have now heard this theory
    that the solution to the drought problem is that we thin
    forests so that trees don't compete so much.
        The problem is we are on a track where your districts are
    going to see levels of soil moisture in the coming decades that
    are worse than the Dust Bowl, which was a minus 3 on the Palmer
    Drought Severity Index, which means that you are going to thin,
    there is going to be more drought and wildfire, and another
    Congressman from your district in 20 years will come and say,
    we have to thin some more. And then 20 years after that, we
    will thin until there is nothing left.
        The thinning to deal with drought is not a sustainable
    solution; it is the end of all trees in all of your districts.
    And as someone who as skied in your district and lived in your
    district and hiked in your district, I must say I love your
    district.
        Mr. Markey. Mr. Romm, I thank you.
        In the same way that we knew that utility infielders and
    substitute outfielders who went from 13 home runs to 50 home
    runs--somehow we knew they weren't Mickey Mantle and Willie
    Mays, and something must be wrong, and that the extra
    weightlifting that they were doing wasn't making them Mickey
    Mantle and Willie Mays. I think most people know there is
    something wrong, and we are contributing to it. And as soon as
    we admit it, I think--and I mean the beef industry and every
    other industry--I think we will get to the heart of the
    solutions we have to put in place.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Let me just ask one last question, and I hope I think this
    will be the end of it. You have planes to catch.
        Bobby Richardson was probably the best second baseman in
    the history of the world. I loved him. Casey Stengel once said,
    he doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't stay out at
    night, and he still can't hit 250.
        Mr. Markey. Although he was roommates with Mickey Mantle
    for 15 years.
        Mr. Bishop. That was Billy Martin. No, I am sorry, that was
    Bob Cerv and Roger Maris.
        It was the perfect non sequitur that not smoking, not
    drinking, not carousing can help you live longer, but it
    doesn't help you hit a curve ball. So I appreciate that.
        Unless there are other questions from any Members, I want
    to thank our witnesses for being here. There may be additional
    questions from Members that will be sent to you. If you do, I
    would ask you to respond in a very timely manner with that.
        Mr. Bishop. I thank you. I hope you make your flights. I
    appreciate the chance to visit with you. I do appreciate all
    the testimony that was given here today.
        Thank you very much, and this Committee will stand
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Mike Coffman, a Representative
                     in Congress from the State of Colorado

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on
    these proposals for reforming forest management policies.
        Over the past several months it has become beyond clear that we
    need a change in the way we manage our national forest lands.
        In Colorado, the Waldo Canyon and High Park fires destroyed over
    100,000 acres and 600 structures. The reported insured losses total
    $450 million. In addition, Colorado had to authorize $25 million in
    emergency relief to combat the fires.
        The stakes are too high for us to continue with current
    insufficient forest management plan. Acting with expediency to remedy
    the problem could prevent millions of dollars of costly damage to our
    communities.
        I have met with County Commissioners, Forestry Officials and
    conservation experts who have pleaded for strong, comprehensive
    solutions to combat the emergency situation of wildfires in their
    areas.
        Over the last few decades we have seen a stark rise in the number
    of wildfires in Colorado. During the 1980s there was an average of
    roughly 1200 wildfires per year, but during 2000-2009 there was an
    average of 2400 wildfires per year.
        An accumulation of regulations and environmental litigation have
    resulted in limited means available to forest officials to treat and
    prevent densely packed forests.
        Unfortunately, one of these few available measures is prescribed
    burning.
        Recently in my district, the North Fork fire took the lives of
    three Coloradans. This fire was caused by a prescribed burn that was
    used to treat unhealthy forest land.
        It is illogical to prevent fire with fire when there are
    alternative, less dangerous methods available to trim dense, dry and
    dangerous forests.
        I give credit to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003
    for starting the process of creating a more active forest management
    strategy and providing us with a framework to build on.
        However, HFRA was just the first step as our Western communities
    need us to give them more forest management tools and flexibility in
    order to mitigate the risk of out of control wildfires.
        We need a fresh approach and to build upon the positive aspects of
    HFRA.
        H.R. 6089, the Healthy Forest Management Act, is this fresh
    approach we need. This legislation will give more authority for state
    and local officials to manage federal forest lands and establish
    effective hazardous fuel reduction projects.
        This legislation will allow officials to move away from prescribed
    burns and allow our Governors and County Commissioners the necessary
    tools to protect their communities from devastating wildfires.
        This flexible local strategy will allow communities to trim densely
    packed forests, and clear the economically viable beetle infested wood,
    which will result in long-term health of our forests.
        Colorado county commissioners, forest conservation groups and
    lawmakers agree that a return to proactive forest management strategy
    will help curtail the risks of devastating wild fires.
        For this reason, I am thrilled to join my colleagues from Colorado
    in supporting the Health Forests Management Act and I ask for this
    Committee to support it as well.
        Thank you, I yield back.