[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. _, RESTORING HEALTHY FORESTS FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ACT;
H.R. 1294, SELF-SUFFICIENT COMMUNITIES LAND ACT; H.R. 818, HEALTHY
FOREST MANAGEMENT AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT; H.R. 1345, CATASTROPHIC
WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2013; H.R. _, DEPLETING RISK FROM INSECT
INFESTATION, SOIL EROSION, AND CATASTROPHIC FIRE ACT OF 2013; AND H.R.
1442, DEPLETING RISK FROM INSECT INFESTATION, SOIL EROSION, AND
CATASTROPHIC FIRE ACT OF 2013.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, April 11, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-441 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 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 Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Chris Stewart, UT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, April 11, 2013......................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Labrador, Hon. Raul R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Statement of Witnesses:
Brandt, Hon. Skip, Commissioner, Idaho County, Idaho......... 101
Prepared statement on H.R. 1294.......................... 103
Campbell, Hon. Ray, Commissioner, Okanogan County, Washington 63
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (Hastings)................. 65
Dozier, Hon. Cindy, Commissioner, Hinsdale County, Colorado.. 119
Prepared statement on H.R. 818........................... 120
Groseta, Andy, Public Lands Council, Arizona Cattle Growers'
Association................................................ 138
Prepared statement on H.R. 1345.......................... 140
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 144
Horngren, Scott, Staff Attorney, American Forest Resource
Council.................................................... 70
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (Hastings)................. 71
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 75
Kulakowski, Dominik, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of
Geography, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of
Biology, Clark University.................................. 162
Prepared statement on H.R. 1442.......................... 164
Maisch, John ``Chris,'' State Forester & Director, Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry...... 105
Prepared statement on H.R. 1294.......................... 107
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 110
Martin, Hon. John, County Commissioner, Garfield County,
Colorado................................................... 116
Prepared statement on H.R. 818........................... 117
Martin, Tommie, District 1 Supervisor and Vice Chair, Gila
County, Arizona............................................ 131
Prepared statement on H.R. 1345.......................... 133
Morris, Judy, Supervisor, District 2, Trinity County,
California................................................. 79
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (Hastings)................. 81
Robertson, Hon. Doug, Commissioner, Douglass County, Oregon.. 152
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (DeFazio, Schrader, Walden) 153
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 23
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (DeFazio, Schrader, Walden) 25
Sibold, Jason S., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Geography,
Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University...... 121
Prepared statement on H.R. 818........................... 123
Tidwell, Hon. Tom, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 818, H.R. 1294, and H.R. 1345. 29
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 173
Tuchmann, Tom, Forestry and Conservation Finance Advisor,
Office of Governor John A. Kitzhaber....................... 154
Prepared statement of Governor John A. Kitzhaber, MD, on
H.R. _, (DeFazio, Schrader, Walden).................... 155
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 19
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (DeFazio, Schrader, Walden) 21
Wood, Justin, Vice President, Fish Construction, NW, Inc., on
behalf of the National Association of Home Builders,....... 67
Prepared statement on H.R. _, (Hastings)................. 68
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 179
U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the
record on H.R. 818 and H.R. 1345........................... 7
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. _, ``RESTORING HEALTHY FORESTS FOR HEALTHY
COMMUNITIES ACT''; H.R. 1294, ``SELF-SUFFICIENT COMMUNITIES LAND ACT'';
H.R. 818, ``HEALTHY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT'';
H.R. 1345, ``CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE PREVENTION ACT OF 2013''; H.R. _,
``DEPLETING RISK FROM INSECT INFESTATION, SOIL EROSION, AND
CATASTROPHIC FIRE ACT OF 2013''; AND H.R. 1442, ``DEPLETING RISK FROM
INSECT INFESTATION, SOIL EROSION, AND CATASTROPHIC FIRE ACT OF 2013.''
----------
Thursday, April 11, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on NaturalResources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Lamborn,
McClintock, Lummis, Tipton, Labrador, Daines, LaMalfa,
Hastings; Grijalva, DeFazio, Holt, Horsford, and Garcia.
Also Present: Representatives Walden, Thompson, Gosar,
Herrera Beutler, Southerland, Mullin; Schrader and Huffman.
Mr. Hastings [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. I
will note that the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Bishop from Utah,
is normally here, but he has a conflict, which happens a lot
this time of the year. So I get the privilege of chairing this
Subcommittee today. And the Chair notes the presence of a
quorum.
The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
Regulation is meeting today to hear testimony on three bills.
Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. However, I ask
unanimous consent to include any Member's opening statement in
the hearing if submitted to the Clerk by the end of business
today.
[No response.]
Mr. Hastings. And without objection, so ordered. I also ask
unanimous consent that Members that are not on the full
Committee or this Subcommittee be allowed to sit at the dais--
and there are several Members that wanted to do that--to take
part in these proceedings.
[No response.]
Mr. Hastings. And without objection, they will be seated.
Today's hearing will consist of several panels. On the
first panel we will hear testimony from the sponsors of the
bills that I mentioned today, and we will go into that as soon
as--I see several of the Members are here, and we will start
with that.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Today the Subcommittee will hear testimony on
a number of bills to address the management stalemate that
afflicts millions of acres of our Federal forests. Amongst
those is a proposal I recently announced, the Restoring Healthy
Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This draft legislation is
intended as a starting point as we work toward a long-term
solution to provide a stable revenue stream for rural counties
and schools.
Forested counties, including many in the Northwest, have
long depended on a Federal promise of revenue from timber sales
to help fund vital services, such as education and roads. Over
a century ago, the Federal Government pledged to actively
manage our forests and provide 25 percent of their revenues for
counties that have national forest lands. The Federal
Government, in my view, has failed to uphold this commitment.
The Secure Rural School Program was designed to be a short-
term solution to continued funding after timber sales
dramatically declined due to Federal over-regulation and
harmful lawsuits. With a national debt approaching $16.8
trillion, and billions of dollars more added every day, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to finance a program that costs
nearly $400 million, while ignoring the real consequences of
poor management of our national forests.
We need a new approach right now that renews the Federal
Government's commitment to manage resources for the benefit of
forested counties and their schools. Restoring active
management of our national forests, as this legislation does,
would ensure a stable, predictable revenue stream for counties
and schools. Active management would promote healthier forests,
reduce the risk of wildfires, and decrease our reliance on
foreign countries for timber and paper goods.
One need look no further than my State of Washington to
witness the dichotomy of how poorly managed Federal forests
impact both forest health and revenues.
In my State of Washington, the Forest Service is
responsible for managing over 9 million acres of forest land
within seven different national forests. The Forest Service
harvests only 2 percent of the new growth in Washington, and
that yields about a half-a-million dollars a year in revenue.
In contrast, the State of Washington, which manages about a
quarter of that, 2.2 million acres compared to 9, they produce
about 1,200 times more revenue per acre than does the Forest
Service. So, to me, the evidence is clear: Better management
yields more and is being done right now in the States.
But even more disturbing, millions of acres of our Federal
forests are consumed by wildfire each year. Last year's
wildfires burned 9.3 million acres, nationwide. Now, to make a
comparison, the U.S. Forest Service had only harvested
approximately 200,000 acres, nationwide. This means that 44
times as many acres burned than were responsibly managed.
A further comparison. In Okanagan, Wenatchee, and Colville
Forest in Eastern Washington, in my State, more than 300,000
acres burned. That is more than was harvested, nationwide.
The overgrowth and fuels-loading of these forests will
either be reduced by catastrophic wildfire or by active
management that we could implement to remove excessive growth
and effectively and responsibly manage these forests.
So, the draft legislation and the other bills before the
Subcommittee today seek to positively reverse these trends that
I outlined. I commend my colleagues for the legislation they
have introduced to help achieve these goals. As the clock ticks
on the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools Program, and as
the wildfire season rapidly approaches, these bills would
require the Forest Service to more actively manage our national
forests.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
Today the subcommittee will hear testimony on a suite of bills to
address the management stalemate that afflicts millions of acres of our
federal forests. Amongst those is a proposal I recently announced, the
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This draft
legislation is intended as a starting point as we work towards a long-
term solution to provide a stable revenue stream for rural counties and
schools.
Forested counties, including many in the Northwest, have long
depended on a federal promise of revenue from timber sales to help fund
vital services such as education and roads. Over a century ago the
federal government pledged to actively manage our forests and provide
25 percent of revenues for counties containing National Forest Lands.
The federal government has failed to uphold this commitment.
The Secure Rural Schools program was designed to be a short-term
solution to continue providing funding after timber sales dramatically
declined due to federal overregulation and harmful lawsuits. With the
national debt approaching $16.8 trillion, and billions more added every
day, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance a program that
costs nearly $400 million in annual spending, while ignoring the real
consequences of poor management of our national forests.
We need a new approach--right now--that renews the federal
government's commitment to manage resources for the benefit of forested
counties and their schools.
Restoring active management of our national forests, as this
legislation does, would ensure a stable, predictable revenue stream for
counties and schools. Acting management would promote healthier
forests, reduce the risk of wildfires, and decrease our reliance on
foreign countries for timber and paper goods.
One need not look further than the State of Washington to witness
the dichotomy of how poorly managed federal forests impacts both forest
health and revenues.
In Washington, the Forest Service is responsible for managing over
9 million acres of forest land within seven different national forests.
The Forest Service harvests only about 2 percent of the amount of new
growth in Washington, yielding about a half million dollars last year
in revenue.
In contrast, the State of Washington, which manages about a quarter
of the amount of forest lands of those managed by the Forest Service,
produces 1,200 times more revenue per acre than the forest service. The
evidence is clear: better management yields more and it is being done
right now by states.
Even more disturbing, millions of acres of our federal forests are
consumed by wildfire each year. Last year, wildfires burned 9.3 million
acres nationwide. To make a comparison, the U.S. Forest Service only
harvested approximately 200,000 acres. This means that 44 times as many
acres burned as were responsibility harvested.
A further comparison, in the Okanogan, Wenatchee and Colville
National Forests, more than 300,000 acres of forests burned. That is
more acres than the Forest Service harvested nationwide.
The overgrowth and fuels-loading of these forests will either be
reduced by catastrophic wildfire, or active management could be
implemented to remove excess forest growth effectively and responsibly.
This draft legislation and other bills before the Subcommittee
today seek to positively reverse these trends. I commend my colleagues
for the legislation they have introduced to help achieve these goals.
As the clock ticks on the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools
Program and as the wildfire season rapidly approaches, these bills
would require the Forest Service to more actively manage our national
forests.
With that, I thank our witnesses for being here and I look forward
to their testimony.
______
Mr. Hastings. And with that, I want to thank the witnesses.
And so we will start today with the members of the Committee
who have sponsored legislation.
And I see--oh, I am sorry, Mr. Grijalva first. I forgot
about that. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And that is why I miss Mr. Bishop
on occasion.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing today. I want to thank the witnesses, as you did,
for coming, many from the West Coast and on short notice.
There is a crisis in our forests. No one disputes this
simple fact. From Arizona and Colorado to Puerto Rico and
Florida, forest fires have become a far-too-present reality.
The administrative and on-the-ground challenges that come with
managing 193 million acres of forest are not the only reason
for the severity of fires that we are seeing over the past
several years. Climate change is driving up the frequency and
severity of forest fires, and this is a reality that has not
been ignored by the Forest Service and other management
agencies.
But we have to do more. All of us sitting in this room
agree. We have to deal with forest management, but it isn't
just forest conditions that are in crisis. The institutions
responsible for the oversight and care of these national
treasures are also in the midst of a serious crisis. And I am
not just pointing the finger at the Forest Service. The crisis
of confidence in the agency responsible for managing national
forests isn't really the issue.
Chief Tidwell has been a great leader. But there are
serious budget issues and management challenges that make the
agency's work more difficult.
Congress also bears serious responsibility. As legislators,
we are also in a crisis. In the middle of the wildfire season
last year, we held several hearings on forest management.
Despite nearly universal agreement that we should extend
stewardship contracting and authorize good neighbor authority,
we failed to get those two simple things done. We failed to
have a serious conversation about the future of management and
what it should look like.
When we asked the Majority if Democrats could be included
in crafting the Chairman's bill, we were not included. Instead,
we have bills before us today that attempt to address forest
management concerns by skirting public input and mandating
timber harvest levels. These proposals jeopardize Federal
commitments to all Americans, and this is grandstanding and not
legislating.
There are wildfires burning now, and more on the horizon
this summer. The time for political posturing is over. I am
ready to sit down with my colleagues and try to work out
something that has a realistic chance of becoming law. As we
will hear today from Supervisor Morris, incredible things can
happen if you just sit down and have a conversation.
By engaging all of the concerned stakeholders, from the
timber industry to conservation advocacy groups, the Forest
Service is learning about collaboration and how it works. Maybe
it is time the people in this room learn the same lessons,
lessons that are outside the beltway, and apply those to the
work we have to do in this room.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Thank you for holding this hearing today. I want to thank our
witnesses for coming--many from the West Coast on short notice.
There's a crisis in our forests. No one disputes this simple fact.
From Arizona and Colorado to Puerto Rico and Florida, forest fires have
become a far too present reality.
The administrative and on-the-ground challenges that come with
managing 193 million acres of forest are not the only reason for the
severity of fires we've seen over the past several years. Climate
change is driving up the frequency and severity of forest fires, and
this is a reality that has not been ignored by the Forest Service and
other land management agencies.
But we have to do more. All of us sitting in this room agree; we
have to deal with forest management. But it isn't just forest
conditions that are in crisis.
The institutions responsible for the oversight and care of these
national treasures are also in the midst of a serious crisis, and I'm
not just pointing a finger at the Forest Service.
The crisis of confidence in the agency responsible for managing
National Forests isn't really the issue. Chief Tidwell has been a great
leader, but there are serious budget issues and management challenges
that make the agency's work difficult.
Congress also bears serious responsibility. As legislators, we are
also in a crisis. In the middle of the wildfire season last year, we
held several hearings on forest management. Despite nearly universal
agreement that we should extend stewardship contracting and authorize
Good Neighbor Authority, we failed to get those two simple things done.
We've failed to have a serious conservation about what future
management should look like.
When we asked the Majority if Democrats would be included in the
crafting of the Chairman's bill, we were told no.
Instead, we have bills before us today that attempt to address
forest management concerns by skirting public input and mandating
timber harvest levels. These proposals jeopardize federal commitments
to all Americans and are simply grandstanding--not legislating.
There are wildfires burning now and more on the horizon this
summer. The time for political posturing is over. I'm ready to sit down
with my colleagues and try to work on something that has a chance of
being enacted into law.
As we will hear today from Supervisor Morris, incredible things can
happen if you just sit down and have a conversation. By engaging all of
the concerned stakeholders--from the timber industry to conservation
advocacy groups--the Forest Service is learning that collaboration
works.
Maybe it is time the people in this room learn some lessons from
outside the Beltway and apply those to the work we do in this room.
Thank you
______
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his statement and I
will recognize the sponsor of H.R. 818.
Mr. Tipton from Colorado is recognized to speak on his
legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I appreciate you
for today's hearing and for including my legislation, H.R. 818,
the Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Protection Act. I
would also like to thank Commissioners John Martin and Cindy
Dozier, who were willing to make the trip out from Colorado to
be able to speak on an issue that they know as well as anyone.
I would also like to thank my fellow members of the Natural
Resources Committee, members of the Colorado Delegation, who
have dedicated their time to working with me on this critical
piece of legislation.
I also think it is important to take a moment to thank our
Nation's wildland firefighters and first responders. I had the
privilege of meeting some of these brave men and women a few
weeks ago in Craig, Colorado. I think it is important to
acknowledge the efforts of these folks and their colleagues.
Regardless of the differences we may have on forest policy, I
know that everyone on this Committee appreciates their efforts
in fighting forest fires and being able to protect property.
The Bark Beetle epidemic, rampant drought, and
deteriorating forest health conditions have increased the
propensity for devastating wildfires throughout the western
United States. According to the National Interagency Fire
Center, last year more than 9.3 million acres of land burned.
This is an area approximately the size of Rhode Island,
Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts,
combined. These fires tragically claimed 13 lives, destroyed
more than 2,000 homes, and led to hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages. While the Bark Beetle outbreak and other
hazardous forest health conditions have affected State and
private lands, hazardous conditions are most often heavily
concentrated on Federal lands, where there is a lack of active
forest management. And this has allowed the epidemic to be able
to spread to catastrophic levels.
Of the 6.6 million acres infested by the Mountain Pine
Beetle in Colorado, over 4 million acres, an area larger than
Connecticut, are on Federal forest lands. Federal efforts to
responsibly manage our forests and prevent the conditions for
fires that have raged across Colorado and other western States
have hampered an unwieldy and regulatory framework that
systematically prevents a program toward healthy forests.
H.R. 818 gives greater control to States and communities
most directly affected by these conditions, and provides a
pathway for comprehensive landscape level planning with a local
emphasis. Tools that give greater voice to local communities
and decision-making have historically been among the most
effective and broadly supported land management measures. And
this very notion is at the heart of this bill.
The community-centric focus of this legislation builds on
the bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 by
empowering States, counties, and Tribes to have a more active
role in addressing these emergency circumstances. We can
proactively manage our forests, reduce future destruction from
wildfires, and safeguard water supplies and species habitat and
promote healthy natural environments. Using the tools of the
Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which have proven to be
effective, the Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire
Prevention 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. 818 prioritizes conservation, and will help reduce the
investment required of taxpayers by making public-private
partnerships more feasible. Healthy Forest Management and
Wildfire Prevention Act is the result of years of Committee
work, meeting 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 we have talked to
agrees that more needs to be done to be able to manage our
Federal forests. This legislation is the outgrowth of that
stakeholder engagement. This is further beared out by the
groundswell of support that we have received for this
legislation from groups on both sides of the political
spectrum.
This bill allows those who are most directly impacted by
wildfire to take proactive measures to be able to address the
problems and mitigate the root cause of catastrophic wildfire.
The status quo is no longer good enough. The status quo has
given us decades of declining forest health. The status quo has
given us years of increasing catastrophic wildfire. The status
quo puts people, communities, and the ecosystems at risk. It is
time to take a stand. And it is time for action.
I urge my colleagues to join an already strong coalition of
support for this common-sense bill that takes steps to be able
to address the critical state of western forests. I am proud to
have the support of a multitude of State and national forester
associations, conservation districts, sportsmen's groups,
traditional and renewable energy developers, fish and wildlife
agencies, and numerous counties across the State of Colorado
and elsewhere in the West.
And without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be
able to request that we submit their letters of support into
the record.
Mr. Hastings. Without objection, they will be part of the
record.
[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Tipton from
the Bureau of Land Management follows:]
Statement Submitted for the Record by the U.S. Department of the
Interior on H.R. 818, Healthy Forests Management and Wildfire
Prevention Act; and H.R. 1345, Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 818, the Healthy Forests Management and
Wildfire Prevention Act, and H.R. 1345, the Catastrophic Wildfire
Prevention Act. The Department received its invitation to testify on
three bills less than seven days before the hearing, and is only able
to provide views on the two bills that had been introduced as of the
date of the invitation.
H.R. 818 and H.R. 1345 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 supports Good Neighbor and Stewardship Contracting
authorities. However, the Department cannot support measures that
expedite restoration treatments, as well as commercial grazing and
timber harvest, at the expense of appropriate environmental review and
public involvement in federal actions, and therefore opposes H.R. 818
and H.R. 1345.
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, giving Americans a role in decisions that impact lands and
resources over which Federal agencies exercise management and
stewardship responsibilities. America's economic health and prosperity
are inextricably 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, the States, and at-risk communities to
restore public forests and rangelands and mitigate the risks of
wildland fire.
Forest Restoration
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) provides
authority for hazardous fuels treatments and other forest and rangeland
restoration treatments. In FY 2012, the Department of the Interior
completed about one million acres of hazardous fuels reduction
treatments. Over 468,000 acres of these treatments were conducted by
BLM, including thinning, salvage, and prescribed burns. The mountain
pine beetle epidemic is estimated by the BLM to affect forests on up to
1.7 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 fuels
treatments. 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 2003 through 2012, the BLM offered
over 400 stewardship contracts on over 112,000 acres of BLM-managed
lands. The BLM's future strategy for stewardship projects includes
increasing the size and duration of these projects. The 2014
President's Budget proposes to permanently authorize stewardship
contracting authority for the Forest Service and BLM.
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. 818
H.R. 818 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 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. 818. 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. 818 because it restricts opportunities for
public review and environmental analysis and because it would transfer
authority to 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 Federal land
management agency. Additionally, the inclusion of a future risk of
insect infestation or disease as a criterion for identifying ``high-
risk'' areas makes the designation meaningless, as virtually all public
lands with forests or vegetation could be classified as potentially at
future risk of insect infestation or disease. The BLM opposes allowing
state Governors (or the Secretaries) to designate management treatments
on Federal lands 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, industry
representatives, recreationists, and property owners. All of these uses
could 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, which, in effect,
prioritizes this work over all other work during this time frame. 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 been projected 20 years ago.
Of serious concern, the bill (Sec. 6) also requires the Secretaries
to implement within 60 days projects proposed by a state Governor (or
Secretary) for ``high-risk'' public lands, notwithstanding the outcome
of the review, analysis, and public participation provisions of the
bill (Sec. 7) or the availability of resources. Requiring immediate
implementation of projects, without consideration or analysis of
impacts or public input, prevents an open, public process and precludes
effective 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. The shift would occur
without regard to national objectives or interests. In addition,
requiring immediate implementation of these 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, other leasing and
permitting activities, and existing priority restoration work.
The bill also limits environmental analysis of emergency hazardous
fuels reduction projects and opportunities for public input into agency
decisions on those projects through the NEPA process. In particular,
the bill limits agencies' alternatives analysis under NEPA to the
proposed agency action, a ``no action'' alternative, and any
recommendations of an at-risk community's community wildfire protection
plan. Moreover, the bill categorically excludes eligible wildfire
prevention projects from NEPA analysis in certain circumstances, an
exclusion that the Department believes may be too broadly applicable on
public lands.
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 severely curtail the BLM's
ability to manage for resources protected by federal law.
H.R. 1345
H.R. 1345 reauthorizes and expands Stewardship Contracting and Good
Neighbor Authority and provides that 25 percent of stewardship contract
timber sale receipts be paid to counties. The legislation also requires
the implementation of eligible wildfire prevention projects in forests
and in threatened and endangered species habitat. The bill provides for
a reduced period for environmental analysis for such projects, and
establishes expedited administrative and judicial review. 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. 1345, because it limits public involvement in
the land use planning and environmental analysis processes.
Analysis
The goals of H.R. 1345 are to provide tools for reducing wildfire
potential and to mitigate the risk of catastrophic damages from
wildfire. The BLM supports the extension of Stewardship Contracting
Authority, but would like to discuss with the committee the impact of
requiring 25 percent of stewardship contracting receipts be paid to
counties. In addition, changing the requirement to obligate
cancellation costs upfront sets up a process different than other
contracting activities and could potentially lead to an inability to
pay if unobligated funds are inadequate to cover cancellation costs at
the time of cancellation. The BLM supports the extension and expansion
of Good Neighbor Authority.
However, the Department does not believe that H.R. 1345 will help
achieve the intended mitigation efforts as the bill does not reflect
BLM's most current methods for conducting assessments and determining
management practices. It would curtail 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.
The bill also amends the purpose of the FLAME Act to provide that
FLAME funds shall be available not only for large or complex fire
events but also for burn area responses, including flood prevention.
Expanding authorized use of FLAME funds would reduce the amount of
funds available for fire suppression. In addition, there are other
programs that support burned area rehabilitation activities.
H.R. 1345 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. 1345, if enacted, could result in the loss of suitability for
wilderness designation in WSAs that the BLM has managed for
nonimpairment 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 60- and 90-day deadlines for
environmental analysis provided for in the bill would limit the BLM's
ability to perform important analyses that inform its decisions and
would not permit a considered response to all substantive comments
received during the mandatory public comment period for draft
environmental impact statements.
The bill also eliminates the alternatives analysis, which lies at
the heart of NEPA and is critical in informing agency decisions. In
addition, the bill categorically excludes eligible wildfire prevention
projects from NEPA analysis in certain circumstances; the Department
believes such a categorical exclusion may be too broadly applicable on
public lands. 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.
Furthermore, the bill provides a procedure for agencies to seek
approval of alternative arrangements from the White House Council on
Environmental Quality in cases where a categorical exclusion is
unavailable for a proposed eligible wildfire prevention project. Under
existing regulations, agencies can work expeditiously with CEQ in
emergency situations where potential impacts appear significant. This
provision in H.R. 1345 is therefore not needed and may, in cases where
emergency circumstances exist and environmental impacts of a proposed
wildfire prevention project are not believed to be significant, prevent
agencies from rapidly completing an Environmental Assessment for the
project, thereby delaying on-the-ground action.
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott R. Tipton, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado
Thank you Chairman Hastings for holding today's hearing and for
including my legislation, H.R. 818, the Healthy Forest Management and
Wildfire Prevention Act. I also want to thank Commissioners John Martin
and Cindy Dozier who were willing to make the trip out from Colorado to
speak to an issue they know as well or better than any. I would also
like to thank my fellow members of the Natural Resources Committee and
members of the Colorado Delegation who have dedicated their time to
working with me on this critical legislation.
I would also like to take a moment to thank our Nation's wildland
fire fighters and first responders. I had the privilege of meeting some
of these brave men and women a few weeks ago in Craig, Colorado. I
think it is important to acknowledge the efforts of these folks and
their colleagues. Regardless of the differences we may have on forest
policy, I know that everyone on this committee shares this
appreciation.
The bark beetle epidemic, rampant drought, and deteriorating forest
health conditions have increased the propensity for devastating
wildfires throughout the Western United States. According to the
National Interagency Fire Center, last year more than 9.3 million acres
of land burned. That is an area approximately the size of Rhode Island,
Delaware, the District of Columbia and Massachusetts combined. These
fires tragically claimed thirteen lives, destroyed more than 2,000
homes and led to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
While the bark beetle outbreak and other hazardous forest health
conditions have affected state and private lands, hazardous conditions
are often most heavily concentrated on 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 by the mountain
pine beetle in Colorado, over 4 million acres--an area larger than
Connecticut--are on federal forest lands. Federal efforts to
responsibly manage our forests and prevent the conditions for the fires
that have raged across Colorado and other Western states have been
hampered by an unwieldy regulatory framework that systemically prevents
progress toward healthy forests.
H.R. 818 gives greater control to states and communities most
directly affected by these conditions, and provides a pathway for
comprehensive, landscape level planning with a local emphasis. Tools
that give greater voice to local communities in decision making have
historically been among the most effective and broadly supported land
management measures, and this very notion is at the heart of this bill.
The community centric focus of this legislation builds on the
bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 by empowering
states, counties, and tribes to have a more active role in addressing
these emergency circumstances, we can proactively manage our forests,
reduce future destruction from wildfires, safeguard water supplies and
species habitats, and promote a healthy natural environment.
Using the tools in Healthy Forests Restoration Act which have
proven to be effective, the Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire
Prevention 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. 818 prioritizes conservation and will help reduce the investment
required of taxpayers by making public private partnerships more
feasible.
The Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention Act is the
result of years of committee work, meetings with the Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management and other agencies, meetings 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 manage our federal forests. This legislation
is the outgrowth of that stakeholder engagement. This is further bared
out by the groundswell of support that we have received for this
legislation from groups on both sides of the political spectrum.
This bill allows those who are most directly impacted by wildfire
to take proactive measures to address the problem and mitigate the root
causes of catastrophic wildfire. The status quo is no longer good
enough. The status quo has given us decades of declining forest health,
the status quo has given us years of increasingly catastrophic
wildfires, the status quo puts people, communities and ecosystems and
risk. It's time to take a stand, it's time for action. I urge my
colleagues to join an already strong coalition of support for this
common sense bill that takes steps to address the critical state of
Western Forests.
I'm proud to have the support of a multitude of state and national
forester associations, conservation districts, sportsman groups,
traditional and renewable energy developers, fish and wildlife
agencies, and numerous counties across the state of Colorado and
elsewhere in the West, and without objection I request to submit their
letters of support for the record.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman yields back his time.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Arizona,
Mr. Gosar, the sponsor of H.R. 1345. The gentleman is
recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman, for holding today's hearing
on the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act and a variety of
other proposals to promote active forest management.
There is an emergency situation in our communities, and we
must act. Due to redistricting in my State, I have represented
nearly all of rural Arizona over my past 2\1/2\ years in
Congress. Those areas contain over 48,000 square miles of land
administered by the Federal Government, including 14,000 square
miles of forest lands in Coconino, Apache Sitgreaves, Prescott,
Tonto, and the Kaibab National Forest.
The region is the epicenter of our Nation's forest health
emergency. Over the last 20 years, the frequency of fires and
the magnitude of the acreages burned have increased strikingly.
In the 1960s, a fire of several thousand acres was considered
large. Today we measure the destruction in hundreds of
thousands of acres. The five largest wildfires in my State's
history have been in the last 10 years. They are destroying our
national treasures and livelihoods.
The fires are burning so hot they are sterilizing soil.
Much of this damage will take decades to naturally repair
itself, if ever. In 2 of the aforementioned Arizona fires, we
have lost over 20 percent of the Mexican Spotted Owl nests that
exist in the world.
We could talk for hours about the circumstances that have
led to this emergency situation. In fact, we have spent hours
in this Committee conducting much-needed oversight. But we are
all here today to talk about potential solutions.
The current Federal system continues to prioritize fighting
fires. Although the need to suppress fires is never going to go
away, we must shift our priority toward proactive management of
our public lands. If we don't, we are going to bankrupt our
Federal and local governments, lose the natural treasures many
of us hold dear, and cause a rural way of life to go extinct.
That is why I support Arizona's Collaborative Landscape-
Scale Restoration Project, commonly known as the Four Forest
Restoration Initiative, or 4FRI, and have introduced the
Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act to help.
First, I would like to briefly touch on the 4FRI. This is
the first of its kind. Large-scale treatment will reduce
damaging wildfire impacts as well as provide forest jobs,
markets for wood products, and ecological restoration. It
focuses on 2.4 million acres of Ponderosa Pine forest in
Arizona's national forests, 50,000 acres per year over a 20-
year span. This unique collaborative project has garnered my
support, as well as many of my colleagues in the Arizona
Delegation, like the Ranking Member, our Governor, the affected
counties and cities, and an unprecedented range of
environmental groups and industry partners. I am committed to
doing anything needed here in Congress to ensure the 4FRI's
success.
This leads me into the legislation we are considering
today, H.R. 1345. Instead of relying on the Forest Service to
pay all of the cost for restoration and thinning, the 4FRI
recognizes the fiscal reality of today, and allows the Feds to
partner with private industry to restore proper forest healthy.
But, as you know, the agency's authority to enter into this
public-private partnership expires this September. It is also
important to note that 4FRI is one of the Forest Service's
flagship collaboration projects. Many others and States that
badly need large-scale treatment hope to pursue similar
initiatives. My bill renews and reforms this important tool so
that these types of initiatives are primed for success.
These landscape-scale restoration projects are a key
component of our long-term plan. But we have an emergency
situation now. Projects that will conclude two to five decades
from now, if they aren't litigated to death, will not alleviate
today's immediate danger.
That leads to the other components of my legislation. It
provides the land-management agencies a variety of other tools
to conduct smaller projects now. It expands the Good Neighbor
Authority, a tool that allows the Feds to partner with State
foresters to treat our forests. Since 2000, Colorado has used
this authority to carry out over 40 projects. Utah was granted
similar authority in 2004 and has used it to carry out 15
projects on 2,800 acres of public land.
The pilot was a success, and should be expanded to all
States. It provides a variety of alternative expedited
arrangements to streamline thinning and grazing projects needed
in immediate at-risk areas like our forest communities,
critical water delivery, and electrical infrastructures, and
our schools. While long-term active forest management will
protect all of us over the long run, we have to protect our
people and our assets today. My bill provides for that
immediate relief.
H.R. 1345 has garnered bipartisan support here in Congress,
cosponsored by 14 Members from 10 different States.
Additionally, it has strong support among stakeholders,
including the Cattlemen, the Natural Resources Conservation
Districts, and the Farm Bureau. I would like to submit a
comprehensive letter of support for the record.
Mr. Hastings. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
[NOTE: The list of documents retained in the Committee's
official files can be found on page 174.]
Dr. Gosar. Our forests and natural resources are a way of
life in Arizona. I remain saddened by what has happened to our
constituents that have been adversely affected by wildfire.
That suffering is avoidable, if we look forward, work
collaboratively in stewardship, and address the desperate
forest maintenance crisis and other natural resources-related
issues facing our State. Remember, ``no'' is no longer an
answer. It is time to have so-called skin in the game for
everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue,
and I look forward to working with you on my bill and other
proposals that will restore the environment, improve public
safety, save the taxpayer dollars, and put people back to work.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arizona
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing on the
Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act and a variety of other proposals
to promote active forest management. There is an emergency situation in
our communities and we must act.
Due to redistricting in my state, I have represented nearly all of
rural Arizona over my past two and a half years in Congress. Those
areas contain over forty-eight thousand square miles of land
administered by the federal government--including fourteen thousand
square miles of forest lands in Coconino, Apache-Sitgreaves, Prescott,
Tonto and Kaibab National Forests.
The region is the epicenter of our nation's forest health
emergency. Over the last twenty-years, the frequency of fires, and the
magnitude of the acreage burned, has increased strikingly. In the
1960's a fire of several thousand acres was considered large. Today we
measure the destruction in hundreds of thousands of acres. The five
largest wildfires in my state's history have all occurred in the last
ten years. They are destroying our natural treasures and livelihoods.
The fires are burning so hot, they are sterilizing soil. Much of
this damage will take decades to naturally repair itself, if ever. In
two of the aforementioned Arizona fires, we have lost over 20 percent
of the Mexican spotted owl nests that exist in the world.
We could talk for hours about the circumstances that have led to
this emergency situation--in fact we have spent hours in this committee
conducting much needed oversight. But we are all here today to talk
about potential solutions.
The current federal system continues to prioritize fighting fires.
Although the need to suppress fires is never going to go away, we must
shift our priority towards pro-active management of our public lands.
If we don't, we are going to bankrupt our federal and local
governments, lose the natural treasures many of us hold dear, and cause
a rural way of life to go extinct.
That is why I support Arizona's collaborative, landscape-scale
restoration project, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative or 4FRI,
and have introduced the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act.
First I'd like to briefly touch on the 4FRI. This first of its kind
large-scale treatment will reduce damaging wildfire impacts, as well as
provide forest jobs, markets for wood products, and ecological
restoration. It focuses on 2.4 million acres of ponderosa pine forests
in Arizona's national forests--50,000 acres per year over a 20-year
span.
This unique collaborative project has garnered my support, as well
as many of colleagues in the Arizona Congressional Delegation like the
Ranking Member, our governor, the affected counties and cities, and an
unprecedented range of environmental groups and industry partners. I am
committed to doing anything needed here in Congress to ensure the
4FRI's success.
This leads me to into the legislation we are considering today--the
Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act (H.R. 1345).
Instead of relying on the Forest Service to pay all of the costs
for restoration thinning, the 4FRI recognizes the fiscal reality of
today and allows the feds to partner with private industry to restore
proper forest health. But as you know, the agencies' authority to enter
into these public-private partnerships expires this September. It is
also important to note that the 4FRI is one of the Forest Service's
flagship collaboration projects--many others in states that badly need
large-scale treatment hope to pursue similar initiatives. My bill
renews and reforms this important tool so that these types of
initiatives are primed for success.
These landscape-scale restoration projects are a key component of
our long-term plan, but we have an emergency situation now. Projects
that will conclude two to five decades from now, if they aren't
litigated to death, will not alleviate today's immediate danger.
That leads to the other components of my legislation. It provides
the land management agencies a variety of other tools to conduct
smaller projects now.
It expands ``the Good Neighbor Authority--a tool that allows the
feds to partner with State Foresters to treat our forests. Since 2000,
Colorado has utilized this authority to carry out over 40 projects.
Utah was granted similar authority in 2004 and has used it to carry out
15 projects on 2,800 acres of public land. The pilot was a success and
should be expanded to all states.
My bill also provides a variety of alternative expedited
arrangements to streamline thinning and grazing projects needed in
immediate at-risk areas, like our forest communities, critical water
delivery and electrical infrastructures, and our schools.
While long-term active forest management will protect all of us
over the long-run, we have to protect our people and our assets today.
My bill provides that immediate relief.
The Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act has garnered bipartisan
support here in Congress--cosponsored by 14 members from ten different
states. Additionally, it has a strong support among stakeholders
including the Cattlemen, the Natural Resources Conservation Districts,
and the Farm Bureau. I would like to submit a comprehensive letter of
support for the record.
Our forest and natural resources are a way of life in Arizona. I
remain saddened by what has happened to our constituents that have been
adversely affected wildfire. That suffering is avoidable if we look
forward, work collaboratively in stewardship, and address the desperate
forest maintenance crisis and other natural resources-related issues
facing our states. No is not an answer. It is time to have so called
skin in the game from everyone.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your leadership on this issue. I look
forward to working with you on my bill and the others proposals that
will restore the environment, improve public safety, save the taxpayer
dollars, and put people back to work.
______
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
DeFazio, who, along with his two colleagues from Oregon--did I
say Idaho? I knew it was Oregon. They have bipartisan
legislation on something that is unique. As a matter of fact,
from forest lands, the O&C issue in Oregon. So the gentleman
from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to you and
Chairman Bishop for this opportunity by granting the request to
myself, Representative Schrader, and Walden for a legislative
hearing on the O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act discussion
draft.
This Subcommittee will spend most of its time today talking
about challenges facing national forest lands, lands managed by
the Forest Service. But my testimony in this afternoon's panel
will focus on a unique set of lands that are found only in
Western Oregon. The O&C lands are not national forest lands,
not managed by the Forest Service; they are managed by the BLM.
They are lands that were revested to the Federal Government.
They were previously privately held. They are governed by a
unique statute, the O&C Act of 1937, which mandates these
lands--again, only found in Western Oregon--will be managed for
a permanent sustainable timber production for the benefit of 18
Oregon counties, you know, substantially different than the
mandate that is put upon the forest lands by our national
enabling statutes.
They are legally unique. They have been at the center of
tremendous controversy, lengthy and ongoing litigation: one
case before the Supreme Court, two more are pending right now
in the D.C. Circuit Court. And they could well end up before
the Supreme Court again. These lands are unique and they
require a unique solution. And that is what Representative
Schrader, Walden, and I have written.
In short, our bipartisan solution would designate younger,
previously managed timber stands for sustainable timber
production to be managed by a public board under Federal laws,
as they apply to private and State forests. The rest of the O&C
lands, old growth, sensitive lands not suitable for logging,
would be transferred to the Forest Service, set aside for
conservation. All the lands would remain in Federal ownership.
But there is one point about this that I think should
achieve broad support beyond Oregon among my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, which is when this legislation is fully
implemented, it will save the Federal Government up to $100
million a year, which is what we are paying today not to manage
the O&C lands through the Department of the Interior. And we
would pay an additional $10 million a year for the privilege of
managing these lands.
The discussion draft before the Subcommittee today has been
publicly available for more than a year. I have been taking
public comments on that. I have discussed it publicly at dozens
of town halls. I have met with a very diverse array of
constituency groups to hear their perspectives, learn their
concerns, and discuss possible modifications.
The Governor of our State moved forward and established a
stakeholder group of conservationists, industry, and county
commissioners, to study this problem, and they came up with a
range of seven options. Bottom line, we have had plenty of
study, it is time to move forward with some action.
The timing is very important. I have a number of counties
in Western Oregon that are on the brink of insolvency. They
cannot afford to provide for State-mandated critical services:
law enforcement, jails, other things. I have very large rural
counties with no rural law enforcement, none whatsoever. They
are forming posses to try and take care of themselves. And
there are incredible levels of poverty in these counties, over
20 percent chronic unemployment. One-fifth of the people in
Jackson and Josephine are eligible for and receiving food
stamps.
We need to provide for a sustainable solution that serves
our forests, our communities, and our counties better. And that
is what we have attempted to do with this discussion draft. It
acknowledges the reality, I think, and offers a realistic plan
for helping the county solve some, not all, of their
challenges, this is not a panacea for these counties, it will
never take them back to the revenue levels they had in the
past, but it will give them enough to meet some of these basic
mandates.
We also have major conservation victories in here to
permanently protect the remaining old growth, to protect clean
water, healthy fish populations, and to preserve some
absolutely remarkable areas, the Rogue River area, Devil's
Staircase, Chetco, in addition to the old growth.
The discussion draft is not a perfect bill. There are parts
I would change. There are parts that Representative Schrader
and Walden would change. There are provisions the conservation
community, the timber industry, the counties, Tribes,
recreation community would change. That is why we are having a
hearing. That is the legislative process. I look forward to
discussing ways to improve and strengthen the discussion draft
with the witnesses.
The bottom line is doing nothing is not an option. It is
time for action. It is time to stop talking about principles
and concepts, and start moving forward with specific
legislative ideas. That is the legislative process. You put
something forward, you hear concerns, you modify it, and then
you move toward enacting a law.
It is time to have this conversation, and I appreciate the
opportunity the Chairman has given to us today to begin that
conversation in earnest.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon
I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop for this
opportunity and for granting my request--and the request of Rep.
Schrader and Rep. Walden--for a legislative hearing on the O&C Trust,
Conservation, and Jobs Act Discussion Draft. This is an important and
timely opportunity for the Oregon Delegation, for rural communities and
counties in Western Oregon, and for moving forward in finding a long-
term solution for the statutorily unique O&C Lands.
Today, the subcommittee will spend most of its time talking about
management challenges facing national forest lands--lands managed by
the Forest Service. But my testimony and this afternoon's panel will
focus on a unique set of lands found only in Western Oregon--the O&C
Lands. The O&C Lands are not national forest lands and are not managed
by the Forest Service. They are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.
O&C Lands are governed by a unique statute--the O&C Act of 1937.
The Act mandates that these lands--again, found only in Western
Oregon--be managed for permanent, sustainable timber production for the
benefit of 18 Oregon counties. This is a different mandate than
national forest lands. By law, these counties also receive 50 percent
of revenues produced from the O&C Lands instead of 25 percent of
revenues produced from other federal forests.
The O&C Lands are legally unique and have been at the center of
expensive and complex legal challenges--including a case that was heard
before the U.S. Supreme Court--for more than a century. Today, there
are two pending cases in the D.C. Circuit Court relating specifically
to the O&C Lands--both of which could also end up in front of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The O&C Lands are geographically unique. They are scattered
throughout Western Oregon in a ``checkerboard'' pattern where a square
mile of O&C land--the black square on a checkerboard--is intermingled
with a square mile of private land--the white square on a checkerboard.
You can imagine the management challenges associated with this
configuration.
The unique O&C lands require a unique solution. That's exactly what
Rep. Schrader, Rep. Walden, and I have produced. In short, our
bipartisan solution would designate younger, previously managed timber
stands for sustainable timber production to be managed by a public
board and under federal laws as they apply to private and state
forests. The rest of the O&C Lands--old growth and sensitive lands not
suitable for logging--would be transferred to the Forest Service and
set aside for conservation. All lands would remain in federal
ownership.
Here's something this committee, and Congress more broadly, should
really like about our bipartisan proposal: during a time of crushing
federal debt and deficits our proposal would save the federal
government $110 million every year, or more than $1 billion over a
decade. And instead of providing federal support payments to 18 Oregon
counties, our proposal would help make Western Oregon counties self-
sufficient and actually require the public board to pay the U.S.
Treasury $10 million per year for the privilege of managing a portion
of the O&C Lands. That's a pretty good deal for the American taxpayer.
The discussion draft before the subcommittee today has been
publicly available for more than a year. I have accepted public
comments on that draft for more than a year. I have talked about the
proposal publicly at dozens of town halls I held over the last year.
And I have met with a diverse array of constituency groups to hear
their perspectives, learn about their concerns, and to discuss possible
modifications.
Governor Kitzhaber also convened a stakeholder group to discuss and
study this issue in greater depth. While the group could not come to a
consensus on a final plan, the governor produced a substantive report
that provides detailed analyses of multiple policy options. Bottom
line: there has been no shortage of studies, robust debate, and public
dialogue on this issue and the seeds of a long-term solution are in the
governor's report and the bipartisan O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs
Act.
The timing of this hearing is also important. Right now, multiple
counties in my district and in Western Oregon are approaching
insolvency and will not be able to provide basic state-mandated
services to its residents--such as law enforcement. Many of these
counties have real unemployment at or above 20 percent. Poverty is
widespread and crippling. Consider, for example, that in Josephine and
Jackson counties alone more than 65,000 people--or one out of every
five people in the two counties including children--are on food stamps.
The hard truth is that the federal government will not be able to
bail these counties out, at least not at a funding level needed to
sustain basic services in rural Oregon. The Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act has expired. The last payments have
been sent out--and even sequestered. While we need to reauthorize the
critical program--a program I have strongly supported and worked hard
to extend--these support payments are not a sustainable, long-term
solution for Western Oregon.
The bipartisan solution I negotiated with Rep. Walden and Rep.
Schrader acknowledges this reality and offers a realistic plan for
helping rural Oregon counties solve some--not all--of their financial
and economic challenges--challenges that have major consequences for
public safety, education, transportation, and other critical government
services and functions.
Our proposal would also offer major conservation victories to
protect the values that Oregonians care about: clean water, healthy
fish populations, and preservation of some of the most remarkable
natural features in the State of Oregon such as the iconic Rogue River,
Devil's Staircase, the Chetco River and a million acres of mature and
old growth forest.
I will be the first to admit the discussion draft is not a perfect
bill. There are parts that I would change. There are parts
Representatives Schrader and Walden would change. There are provisions
that the conservation community, the timber industry, the counties, the
tribes, and the recreation community would change. That's why we are
having this hearing. I look forward to discussing ways to improve and
strengthen the discussion draft with the witnesses.
The fact is, there is no silver bullet to solve this complex set of
challenges. But consider this: has there ever been a legislative
solution for the O&C Lands that is bipartisan, would help the 18 O&C
Counties provide critical government services like keeping criminals in
jail and sheriffs on the roads, that would create thousands of private
sector jobs, and responsibly protect the environment all while saving
the federal government $1 billion? The answer is no. Not until the O&C
Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act.
It is time for action. It's time to stop talking about
``principles'' and ``concepts'' and to start moving forward with
specific, legislative ideas. And it's time to have a serious, robust
conversation about the difficult choices Congress will eventually have
to make. Thank you, Chairman, for allowing that conversation to move
forward in this Committee.
______
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
I will recognize another gentleman from Oregon, Eastern
Oregon, Mr. Walden.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank you for holding this hearing, and to Mr. Grijalva, as
well.
This is really important and timely. I am encouraged by the
Committee's keen interest in identifying long-term solutions
for our Federal forest counties and the hard-working people who
live there. I recognize my colleagues from Oregon, Peter
DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, for working together with me and
others, as we work to deal with this problem. We all agree that
the status quo serves no one well.
Later today you will hear from Commissioner Doug Robertson,
Chairman of the O&C Counties Association, and Tom Tuchmann with
the Governor's office. I am very pleased the Committee called
on these two individuals, given their combined wealth of
knowledge on the issues before us today. It is time for real
change.
Let me be clear about what our forested communities face.
And my colleague and friend from Southern Oregon has talked
about this. Since 1990, the timber harvest from Federal forest
lands in Oregon has dropped by more than 90 percent. Sixty
percent of Oregon's forest lands are owned by the Federal
Government, but contribute only 12 percent to the State's total
timber harvest. The economic picture in Oregon's rural forested
communities is just as bad.
Of the 14 forested counties I represent, 10 currently face
double-digit unemployment. Eight of these counties over the
last 5 years have had an average poverty level of 14 percent or
greater. How could we let this happen to our rural forested
communities? There appears to be a direct connection between
the loss of mills and jobs and the substantial increase in
poverty.
Harney County in 1989 had 3 operating mills and a poverty
level of 10.6 percent. The county no longer has a single mill,
poverty level is 18.6 percent, 60 percent of the school
children in the county qualify for free or reduced lunch--60
percent. Harney County has seen the effects of one large
catastrophic wildfire after another, and a total loss of their
mill infrastructure. All this while surrounding them are
hundreds of thousands of acres of Federal forests in desperate
need of treatment, treatments that could provide a community
with family wage jobs to people who really need them, and
better habitat and less cost as we treat forest fires. This is
ridiculous, and I am unwilling to say that we cannot fix it.
The Oregon Employment Department understood this connection
of the loss of mill infrastructure and impact on the community.
In 2007, after mills closed in John Day, Wallowa, and Hines, a
report was issued which said the job losses across these three
communities was the equivalent to 26,000 people losing their
jobs in the more metropolitan area of Oregon. What would the
outcry be if suddenly the Portland area companies like Intel or
Nike just simply shut down? Well, just ask people who live in
John Day, Wallowa, or Hines. They will tell you. It is
devastating.
I think we can all agree the status quo just doesn't work,
and won't work, going forward. Our communities don't even want
the status quo. They don't want the hand-out that has made them
dependent on the Federal Government. They want jobs. They want
healthy forests. They are tired of the catastrophic fire and
bug infestations, they are sick of the budgeting uncertainty.
They want to take care of themselves.
The O&C counties sent the Oregon Delegation a letter to
this effect on March 11th. I would like to enter it into the
record, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
[NOTE: The list of documents retained in the Committee's
official files can be found on page 174.]
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Other Oregon county governments are
crying out for change. And I would like to enter into the
record a letter sent by the Association of Oregon Counties this
week.
I would also like to now enter into the record a report
prepared in December of 2012 for Governor Kitzhaber which
contains some remarkable and telling facts about the current
ecological and economic conditions of forest lands and
communities.
Across Southern, Central, and Eastern Oregon there are
approximately 19.8 million acres of forest land. Approximately
9.2 million is available for active management. Seventy-eight
percent of this ground is significantly at risk of crown fire,
78 percent is ready to go up in smoke with crown fire, a most
devastating type of wildfire. Forest management activities like
commercial timber harvest, stewardship contracts, and watershed
restoration are conducted on 1.4 percent of the entire 9.2
million acres. That is 129,000 acres a year, 1.4 percent is all
we are treating.
Given the paltry amount of activity, it is not surprising
that nearly one in five people in the study area live in
poverty, the highest rate in Oregon. Not only are the forests
unhealthy, so are the rural forested communities, and it does
not have to be this way.
I highlight all of these points, because this is exactly
the same story which is playing out across western forests.
President Theodore Roosevelt, the father of our great forest
system, would be horrified at the condition of our forests and
our rural communities. And I assure you he would charge forward
with a fix to this problem, as we are proposing.
It is clear the status quo is not working, and we need to
get our rural communities working again. Momentum is building
for change, from county commission chambers to committee rooms
in the State legislature to these very halls of Congress, we
can do this. We can put people back to work in the woods. We
can create prosperous communities and healthy forests. We can
provide certainty for teachers and law enforcement officers,
and we can better manage these forests. This is our opportunity
to make Federal forest policy work for Oregon and our county
and our country, and I look forward to being part of the
effort.
And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you so very much for scheduling
this hearing, and the incredible work you are doing on this
issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Greg Walden, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Oregon
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva,
This is an important and timely hearing and I'm encouraged by the
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks Forests and
Public Lands interest in identifying a long-term solution for our
federal forest counties and the hardworking people who live there.
I recognize my colleagues from Oregon, Representatives Peter
DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, for working with me and many other
Oregonians who agree that the status quo serves no one well.
Later today you will hear from Oregon's Douglas County Commissioner
Doug Robertson who also chairs the Oregon & California Counties
Association (O&C Counties) and Tom Tuchmann, Oregon Governor John
Kitzhaber's Forestry and Conservation Advisor. I am very pleased that
the Committee called on these two individuals given their combined
wealth of knowledge on the issues before us today. It's time for real
change.
Let me be clear about what our forested communities face--since
1990 the timber harvest from federal timber lands in Oregon has dropped
by more than 90 percent--in fact 60 percent of Oregon's forestland is
owned by the federal government but contributes only 12 percent to
Oregon's total timber harvest. The mortality rates are above 19 percent
on federal lands and we have endured hundreds of thousands of acres
lost to wildfire, bug infestations, and disease. That's not a healthy
picture.
The economic picture in Oregon's rural forested communities is just
as bad. According to the Oregon Employment Department, of the 14
forested counties I represent, 10 currently face double digit
unemployment. If this wasn't shocking enough, consider that eight of
these same counties over the last five years have had an average
poverty level of 14 percent or greater. How could we let this happen to
our rural forested communities?
Remember from 1980 to today, Oregon went from 405 open mills to
just 106 open mills--a 74 percent decrease in capacity available to do
work in the woods. We went from 45,778 mill jobs to 15,706 in that
time--a 66 percent drop.
There appears to be a direct connection between the loss of mills
and jobs and the substantial increase in poverty--consider this, Harney
County in 1989 had three operating mills and a poverty rate of 10.6
percent. The county no longer has a single mill and a poverty rate of
18.6 percent. According to the Oregon Department of Education, nearly
60 percent of school children in the county qualify for free and
reduced lunch.
Harney County have seen the affects of one large catastrophic
wildfire after another and a total loss of their mill infrastructure
while hundreds of thousands of acres of forest surrounding them are in
desperate need of treatment . . . and hundreds of people in the
community are in desperate need of a good, family wage job.
This is a ludicrous situation and I am unwilling to say that we
can't fix this!
The Oregon Employment Department understood this connection to the
loss of mill infrastructure and impact on the community, when in 2007
after mills closed in John Day, Wallowa, and Hines, a report was issued
which said the job losses across the three communities was the
equivalent to the Portland metro area of suddenly having over 26,000
additional people out of work. What this means is that a job in one of
Oregon's rural forested community has the potential local economic
impact as 139 jobs in one or Oregon's metropolitan areas.
What would the outcry be if suddenly Portland-Beaverton-based Intel
and Nike just shut down . . . what would the impact be on schools,
business, churches..the community? Well just ask people who live in
John Day, Wallowa, and Hines . . . they will tell you it's devastating.
I think we can all agree that the status quo doesn't work, and
won't work going forward.
Our communities don't even want the status quo. They don't want the
handout that's made them dependent on the federal government. They want
jobs. They want healthy forests. They're tired of the catastrophic fire
and the bug infestation. They're sick of the budgeting uncertainty that
comes with not knowing if Uncle Sam will pay his fair share.
The O&C Counties sent the Oregon delegation a letter on March 11
that I would like to enter into the record. In it they make statements
like ``The O&C Counties are not interested in legislation that only
pretends to solve the problem'' . . . are ``seeking meaningful relief
from the unacceptable status quo'' . . . and that they (the O&C
Counties) ``remain steadfastly supportive of the O&C Lands Trust,
Conservation and Jobs Act'' as currently proposed by myself and
Representatives DeFazio and Schrader. Counties and forested communities
are calling on the congress to provide them the ability to pursue the
American ideal of self-reliance once more.
I would like to now enter into the record a report prepared in
December for Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and members of the Oregon
legislature titled the ``National Forest Health Restoration--An
Economic Assessment of Forest Restoration on Oregon's Eastside National
Forests'' which contains some remarkable and telling facts about the
current ecological and economic conditions of forest lands and
communities.
It is important to note the diverse and knowledgeable group that
made up the steering committee--Association of Oregon Counties; Ochoco
Lumber Company; Office of Governor John Kitzhaber; Oregon Business
Council; Oregon Department of Energy; Oregon Department of Forestry;
Oregon Forest Resources Institute; Oregon Solutions; Oregon State
University; Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board; Sustainable Northwest;
The Nature Conservancy; and the Forest Service.
As stated from the report ``The purpose of this study is to provide
an accurate economic impact assessment of forest health restoration on
Oregon's eastside National Forests.'' The basic takeaways of the report
are that reduced forest management activity in eastern, southern, and
central Oregon has decreased timber supply and hurt many families.
The report clearly states that between 2006 and 2011, annual food
stamp use and welfare payments in these areas tripled to nearly $300
million, and in 2010, Oregon distributed $470 million in unemployment
insurance claims to 29,000 people in the study area.
The report underscored the fact that in these rural forested
communities, nearly 1 in 5 people live in poverty, the highest rate in
Oregon. Not only are the forests unhealthy, so are these rural forested
communities. It doesn't have to be this way.
Oregon's county governments are crying out for change. I would like
to enter into the record a letter sent by the Association of Oregon
Counties this week which states:
``We are faced with two dire problems in the vast stretches of
Oregon dominated by national and O&C forests:
1. The forests are sickly, crowded, dead, dying, and burning
up; and
2. Surrounding and dependent communities are in deep economic
dysfunction.
Both problems can be addressed through active management of our
federal forests.''
To underscore this call for change, consider that across southern,
central, and eastern Oregon that there are approximately 19.8 million
acres of forestland--11.3 million of which is administered by the
Forest Service.
Approximately 9.2 million acres of this ground is available for
management or, in other words, not excluded by congressional action
from forest management activities. A key fact in the Governor's report
is that 78 percent of this 9.2 million acres, or 7.1 million acres, are
at significant risk of crown fire, a most devastating type of wildfire.
Remarkably, the Forest Service is only able to conduct forest
management activities--commercial timber harvest, stewardship
contracts, watershed restoration, hand piling, etc--on 1.4 percent of
the entire 9.2 million acres--just 129,000 acres each year. Are you
kidding me!
We all know that each year the federal government spends a
tremendous amount of money on fighting wildfires. The Governor's report
stated:
``From 2007 to 2011, large fires annually burned an average of
56,000 acres of national forestland in eastern Oregon, which cost $43.6
million, on average. Based on these five-year averages, the USFS spends
an estimated $780 per acre on expenses related to fire suppression each
year. These costs include the cost to suppress and contain the fire as
well as any rehabilitation of fire suppression activities.''
According to the Oregon Department of Forestry, over a 20 year
period from 1980 to 2000 wildfires in eastern Oregon burned
approximately 553,000 acres with an average fire size of 26,000 acres.
Over the last 10 years wildfires in the same area has burned a total of
1 million acres averaging 93,000 acres.
Now here's the real kicker--from 2007 to 2011, fires east of the
Cascades larger than 100 acres burned an estimated 279,000 of federal
forest lands costing $218 million in suppression costs. The Governors
report sums up this situation, stating:
``At current levels, the USFS spends $40.8 million dollars each
year to treat 129,000 acres. Based on the average fire suppression cost
of $780 per acre, the USFS would incur approximately $100 million in
fire suppression costs each year if 129,000 acres were left untreated
and burned by wildfire. The difference between the cost of implementing
restoration and incurring fire suppression costs represents a potential
$59.2 million annual savings for the USFS. In other words, for every $1
the USFS spends on forest restoration, the agency avoids a potential
loss of $1.45.''
Remember, the current forest management footprint across southern,
central, and eastern Oregon is only conducting projects on 1.4 percent
of the 9.2 million acres. As outlined in the report, ``in order to
treat all the available acres at least one time during a 20 year time
period, the Forest Service will need to reach an annual pace of 5
percent.'' No part of the study area even comes close to conducting
projects at this level.
In fact, if we doubled the amount of acres treated every year to
258,000 acres, we would still fall 202,000 acres less than what is
needed to achieve a 5 percent accomplishment rate of 460,000 acres a
year!
I highlight all of these points because this is the exact same
story which is playing out across our western forest reserves.
President Theodore Roosevelt, the father of our great forest system,
would be horrified at the conditions of our forest and rural
communities. I assure you that he would charge forward to fix this
problem.
It's clear the status quo isn't working. We need to get our rural
communities working again.
I would like to enter into the record a joint Oregon Senate-House
legislative resolution (SJM10) sponsored by Republicans and Democrats,
including the state Senate President and Speaker of the Oregon House.
The resolution urges Congress to transfer management of Oregon and
California Railroad grant lands to newly established board of trustees
consisting of representatives from local government, environmental
organizations and timber industry.''
Momentum is building for change--from county commission chambers,
the committee rooms of the state legislature, and the halls of
Congress. We can do this. We can put people back to work in the woods.
We can create prosperous communities and healthy forests. We can
provide certainty for teachers and law enforcement officers. We can
better manage our forests.
This is our opportunity to make federal forest policy work for
Oregon. I look forward to being a part of this effort.
______
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I
will recognize another gentleman from Oregon, from the
northwestern part, north-central-western part of Oregon. You
know where you are from, anyway.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Schrader, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Schrader. You did a great job, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
the opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of this
bipartisan proposal that my colleagues and I have put forth. I
will try and keep my remarks fairly brief, and ask that my full
testimony be submitted for the record.
Mr. Hastings. It will be made part of the record.
Mr. Schrader. The financial problems our counties are
facing in Oregon are unlike anything we have seen in recent
history. The likelihood of bankruptcy for my rural timber-
dependant Oregon counties is closer than ever, as we have
heard, some facing possible bankruptcy within the year. Other
parts of the country are recovering, and unemployment rates are
dropping. The unemployment rates in many rural counties, as you
have heard, including Oregon, remain in the double digits.
Unemployment isn't the only problem that they are facing.
Due to extreme budget cuts, counties are unable to pay for
basic services their citizens rely on, like public health,
education for the children, and basic public safety. One of our
rural counties, as Congressman DeFazio alluded to, Josephine
County, the citizens have actually resorted to arming
themselves--some have never worn a gun before--because of
increased thefts and looting that has gone on in the counties
because they have had to cut back their public service--their
public safety agency so dramatically.
In Polk County, in my district, they have also gone through
another round of cuts to law enforcement officers and
prosecutors. The county is currently at a minimum staffing
level for county jail and sheriff patrol, no longer able to
provide 24-hour service. And sheriff deputies are now being co-
opted by the county judges to assist in court proceedings,
rather than be on patrol, so the judges can meet their needs.
These examples are not unique, though, just to these two
counties. Budgets are being cut, workers being laid off,
schools are closing, crime is increasing. We cannot expect
these communities to live with this uncertainty any longer.
With a 90 percent decline in timber harvest on public land
since 1990, our forests have become increasingly unhealthy.
Without active management, forests have become overgrown,
leaving them extremely susceptible not only to the catastrophic
wildfire Congressman Walden alluded to, but disease like Swiss
Needle Cast and Sudden Oak Death, and insect infestation from
Bark Beetles.
These extreme events can and often result in diminished
water quality, habitat loss, and significant harm to our
environmental and ecological attributes the forest ecosystem
needs to be sustainable. While most western States hold a
significant amount of public land, the unique Oregon and
California grant land system, commonly known as O&C lands, are
only found in Oregon. These lands have a unique mandate very
different than a lot of BLM lands. In the 1937 Act, it states
that the timber land shall be managed for permanent forest
production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and
removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield for
the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply.
Fifty percent of the revenue generated off these lands goes
directly to county payments, which the O&C counties had
heretofore relied on for their livelihoods. The problems facing
O&C lands which are currently under BLM jurisdiction, that have
been managed more like National Forest system rather than their
original intention, deserve a unique solution. That is what we
are asking for here. I appreciate the opportunity to be part of
this bill.
Our proposal received endorsements, as you have heard, from
the Oregon State Senate, the Oregon House of Representatives,
and the Governor's office. Based on a recent model I asked
Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Committee to run, our proposal would
only harvest less than half of what the lands are capable of
producing, which is still a third less than the average harvest
levels back in the 1990s. The bill we have proposed will
protect nearly half of the lands for old growth, critical
habitat for species and aquatic protections for fish and
drinking water, along with additional protection for Oregon's
special places, such as the Molalla River in my home district.
We think this is a great, balanced approach, fair, end to
the timber wars, and hopefully the resurrection of rural timber
counties across this country, and particularly in our State.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schrader follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Kurt Schrader,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning
on behalf of the bipartisan proposal my colleagues and I have put
forth.
The financial problems our counties are facing are unlike anything
we've seen in recent history. The likelihood of bankruptcy for my rural
Oregon counties is closer than ever, some facing possible bankruptcy
within the year. While other parts of the country are recovering and
unemployment rates are dropping, the unemployment rates in many rural
counties, including Oregon counties, remain in the double digits.
Unemployment isn't the only problem counties are facing. Due to
extreme budget cuts, counties are unable to pay for basic services
their citizens rely on, like public health, education for our children,
and public safety.
In the case of one rural Oregon County, some residents living in
Josephine County have resorted to arming civilians for a community
watch program because so many law enforcement officers have been laid
off and so few jail beds remain open for those officers still at work.
Another example is in Polk County, Oregon, which is in my district,
where they recently went through another round of cuts to law
enforcement officers and prosecutors. The county is currently at a
minimum staffing level for the county jail and sheriff patrol and is no
longer available to provide 24-hour service to its citizens. Sheriff
Deputies are being required by county judges to assist in court
proceedings rather than being on patrol in lieu of staff layoffs.
These examples unfortunately are not unique to those two counties.
Budgets are being cut, workers are being laid off, schools are closing,
and crime is increasing. We cannot expect these communities to live
with this uncertainly any longer.
The problems facing Oregon are not solely revolved around county
funding. With the 90 percent decline in timber harvest on public lands
since 1990, our forests have become increasingly unhealthy. Without
active management, forests have become overgrown, leaving them
extremely susceptible not only to catastrophic wildfire but disease
like Swiss needle cast and sudden oak death, and insect infestation
from bark beetles. These extreme events can and often do result in
diminished water quality, habitat loss, and significant harm to other
environmental and ecological attributes the forest ecosystem needs to
be sustainable. These issues not only threaten the vitality of public
lands themselves, but also the surrounding private forest lands, rural
communities, and environmental treasures that deserve special
protection.
Not only does the decline in timber harvest effect the health of
our national forests, but also creates strain on local mills and timber
companies. Too many mills have had to face closure due to the dwindling
amount of harvest available off public lands. Many small business mills
do not own their own forest land and rely solely on public lands to
purchase timber to keep their mill operating. Jobs in the woods are few
and far between, adding to the unemployment rates in rural American.
While most western states hold significant amounts of public land,
the unique Oregon & California Railroad Grant Lands system, commonly
known as O&C lands, are only found in my home state of Oregon. These
lands have a unique mandate within the O&C Act of 1937 which states
that the timberlands shall be managed for permanent forest production,
and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity
with the principle of sustained yield for the propose of providing a
permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating
stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local
communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.
Fifty percent of revenue generated off of these lands goes directly to
county payments, which the O&C counties rely on for their livelihoods.
The problems facing O&C lands, which are under currently under BLM
jurisdiction but have been managed more like a National Forest System
rather than their original intention, deserve a unique solution, which
is what my colleagues Congressman DeFazio and Congressman Walden and I
have proposed.
Our proposal has received endorsements from the Oregon State Senate
and Oregon State House of Representatives, the Oregon State Sheriffs
Association, the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon State Treasurer Ted
Wheeler, 15 Oregon Counties, along with Oregon specific and national
timber associations. Governor Kitzhaber has expressed support for a
sustainable solution which is why he created an O&C Committee comprised
of county officials, timber industry representatives, and key members
of the conservation community to work together to find common ground
and sustainable solutions to the problems our state is facing.
Based on a recent model I asked Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Committee
to run, our proposal would only harvest less than one-half of what the
lands are capable of producing when modeling the harvest using Oregon
Forest Practice Act management criteria, which is still one-third less
than average harvest levels prior to 1990. The bill we have proposed
would protect nearly half of the lands for old growth, critical habitat
for species, and aquatic protections for fish and drinking water, along
with additional protection for Oregon's special places such as the
Molalla River in my home district.
Increasing harvest and county funding while protecting
environmental quality and special places are not mutually exclusive
ideas. While there may be no perfect solution that will satisfy every
stakeholders concern, I believe we all can agree that the status quo is
no longer acceptable. We must act to ensure our counties are
financially stable, our communities are secure, and our schools are
productive. We must act to ensure our forests are healthy and managed
in sustainable ways so they will be available to current and future
generations. We must act to create and bring back jobs that have been
lost over the past two decades and to ensure mills have enough timber
supply to stay in business.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And last I will recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Labrador, who is the sponsor of H.R. 1294.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL R. LABRADOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Grijalva, for convening this hearing today. I would like
to welcome a distinguished guest that we have from Idaho today
who will be on the next panel, Commissioner Skip Brandt, who is
testifying at this hearing. Commissioner Brandt has been a
critical component to the legislation from its initial
inception.
Mr. Chairman, the concept of H.R. 1294, the Self-Sufficient
Community Lands Act, was brought to me by a bipartisan group of
county commissioners in my State. We worked closely with them
to develop this legislation, and I believe it will prove to be
a viable solution to the Secure Rural Schools, SRS, program.
In Idaho the economies of rural communities once relied
upon the timber industry for job creation and tax revenues.
Over the last several decades, radical environmental groups
have hindered the ability to develop timber from our public
lands. Counties that were once dependent upon timber receipts
to fund schools, roads, and daily operations were left desolate
and broke. I am pleased to introduce legislation to help
counties make up for lost timber revenue and help replace the
SRS program.
In a time of record deficits, we must stop providing short-
term fixes to our financial woes, and concentrate on a long-
term solution. Rural timber communities in Idaho have been
operating in an environment of uncertainty for decades. Many
public lands have been inaccessible due to Federal policies and
tedious litigation. We must find a long-term solution to
empower rural counties and remove the uncertainty these
communities are facing by allowing local management of forest
lands.
If you compare the stewardship of State lands in Idaho to
adjoining Federal lands, the difference is astonishing. This
past fire season shows the disparity. In 2012, a record fire
year, 20 percent of the national acreage burned was in Idaho.
Of the approximately 1.5 million acres burned in Idaho, only
4,674 acres burned on State-managed lands. The remainder was on
Federally managed lands.
As we look to the reauthorization of county payments to
SRS, the House continues to push for firm management of our
public lands as a factor in the equation. I commend the
Chairman for his work on this issue, and I look forward to
working with you as we advance legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Labrador follows:]
Statement of The Honorable. Raul R. Labrador,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, for convening this hearing today.
I would like to welcome two distinguished guests from Idaho,
Representative Lawrence Denney & Commissioner Skip Brandt who are both
testifying at this hearing. Representative Denney sponsored a similar
resolution to my bill which successfully passed the Idaho Legislature.
Commissioner Brandt has been a critical component to the legislation
from its initial inception.
Mr. Chairman, the concept for H.R. 1294 the Self-Sufficient
Community Lands Act, was brought to me by a bipartisan group of county
commissioners in my state. We worked closely with them to develop this
legislation and I believe it will prove to be a viable solution to the
Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program.
In Idaho, the economies of rural communities once relied upon the
timber industry for job creation and tax revenues. Over the last
several decades, radical environmental groups have hindered the ability
to develop timber from our public lands. Counties that were once
dependent upon timber receipts to fund schools, roads, and daily
operations were left desolate and broke.
I am pleased to introduce legislation to help counties make up for
lost timber revenue and help replace the Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
program. In a time of record deficits, we must stop providing short-
term fixes to our financial woes and concentrate on a long-term
solution. Rural timber communities in Idaho have been operating in an
environment of uncertainty for decades. Many public lands have been
inaccessible due to federal policies and tedious litigation. We must
find a long-term solution to empower rural counties and remove the
uncertainty these communities are facing by allowing local management
of federal forests.
If you compare the stewardship of state lands in Idaho to adjoining
federal lands, the difference is astonishing. This past fire season
shows the disparity. In 2012, a record fire year, twenty percent of the
national acreage burned was in Idaho. Of the approximately 1.5 million
acres burned in Idaho, only 4,674 acres burned on state managed lands,
the remainder was on federally managed lands.
As we look to the reauthorization of county payments [SRS], the
House continues to push for firm management of our public lands as a
factor in the equation.
I commend the Chairman for his work on this issue and I look
forward to working with you as we advance legislation.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I
want to thank all the Members for their opening statement on
this. If there is one thing I have heard from all of the
sponsors of the proposed legislation we have today, either
directly said or alluded to, was that time for talk has ended,
time for action is now. I just want to advise Members that, as
Chairman of the Committee, I certainly want to move legislation
because I too believe that the time for action is now.
With that, I am going to deviate just a bit from our
schedule and ask Chief Tidwell from the Forest Service to come
forward.
He has not submitted testimony on all of the bills, but I
think it would be worthwhile, in view of some past events, like
the event yesterday of the budget as one issue, for Chief
Tidwell to testify.
And so, I would like to welcome you here. You have
testified in front of this Committee before, and you know how
the rules work.
Your full testimony will be made part of the record. And I
would like to keep your oral remarks to 5 minutes. When the
green light is going you are doing very well. When the yellow
light comes on it means--well, as Chairman Bishop says, it is
like going through a red light or traffic light, you speed up
before the red light comes on.
So, at any rate, Chief Tidwell, welcome to the Committee,
and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to present the views of the Administration regarding
H.R. 818, H.R. 1294, and H.R. 1345.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest from this
Subcommittee to help us address the problems, the conditions we
have on our national forests. And I agree with many of the
goals of the bills being addressed today concerning restoring
our forest resiliency to withstand disturbances from wildfire,
Bark Beetle, and other disturbances, while reducing the threat
of wildfire to communities. However, the Administration opposes
all three bills.
Now, we have been clear on the challenge to restore the
resiliency and the forest health on over 65 million acres of
our national forest, and this is why last year we started our
accelerated restoration strategy to increase restoration by 20
percent by 2014, which includes increasing key outputs such as
timber harvest to 3 billion board feet, addressing hundreds of
miles of stream restoration, and overall improving watershed
improvement.
It is essential that we restore and maintain the watershed
health that 60 million Americans rely on every year for clean
water, to maintain the quality recreation settings that 173
million visitors enjoy every year, and continue the multiple-
use benefits from our national forests and grasslands that
contribute over 36 billion to our GDP and support over 450,000
jobs.
While my written testimony provides specific comments on
the introduced bills, I believe the best opportunity to
increase restoration of our national forests is by focusing on
the following.
We have identified there are 12 million acres of national
forest where we need to use timber harvest to restore the
resiliency. We need to maintain the support for our
collaborative processes, like the CFLR projects that commit
resources to restore over a million acres. I think we have to
require public involvement to ensure successful implementation
of these projects. We need to be consistent with the forest
plan direction that is based on what the public--how the public
wants their national forest managed.
I would ask for your support for the replacement of our
appeals process with the objection process that we are
implementing that I believe better supports collaboration,
provides for more meaningful public involvement, and expedites
project decisions.
I want to thank you for your support for reauthorizing
stewardship contracting that many of these bills address.
Without any question, stewardship contracting can help provide
the certainty that the industry needs to justify new
investments while creating dependable economic activity that
right now supports over 7,000 jobs.
I also appreciate the support for landscape-scale analysis,
and Mr. Gosar, for your support for the 4FRI initiative. It is
an example where--looking at doing the analysis on over 750,000
acres with 1 EIS.
Another example is what we are doing on the Black Hills,
where we are using an adaptive EIS that we just completed to
address what we need to do, the work that we need to do on
248,000 acres with just 1 EIS.
The other thing I want to thank you for is your interest to
expand the Good Neighbor Authorities, which I believe will help
us build more capacity, be able to do more integrated projects
along larger landscapes.
And the other thing I want to strongly encourage you to do
is to continue the support for multiple-use management of the
public's national forests. Now, I fully understand the
importance of providing stable, guaranteed county payments. And
that is why the Administration supports reauthorization of
Secure Rural Schools and the Community Self-Determination Act,
that will provide this mandatory funding, especially in this
time where we have some of the lowest stumpage values on
record. It is essential that I think we be able to continue
this to continue to provide the bridge that has been so
essential to our communities and our counties.
We are making good progress on accomplishing our
restoration goals that are so essential to restore the millions
of acres of national forest, to reduce the threat of wildfire
to our communities, while maintaining these quality recreation
experiences. And I look forward to working with the Committee
to support restoration of our national forests and support
dependable economic activity that is essential for rural
communities.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and
I will be pleased to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]
Statement of Thomas Tidwell, Chief, Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) regarding H.R. 818, the ``Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire
Prevention Act of 2013'', H.R. 1294, the ``Self-Sufficient Community
Lands Act'', and H.R. 1345 ``The Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act
of 2013''.
USDA will not be testifying today on the draft bills ``Restoring
Healthy Forest for Healthy Communities Act'', ``O&C Trust, Conservation
and Jobs Act'', and ``Depleting Risk from Insect Infestation, Soil
Erosion, and Catastrophic Fire Act of 2013''. USDA reserves the right
to provide written testimony after the bills are introduced.
The Forest Service agrees with many of the goals of the bills being
addressed today. We support protecting forest lands from excessive
impacts of wildfire, bark beetle, and other disturbances. Many of the
restoration initiatives and programs we are implementing are designed
to address these concerns.
The national forests and grasslands were established to protect the
land, secure favorable conditions of water flows, and provide a
sustainable supply of goods and services. National Forest System (NFS)
lands are managed using a multiple-use approach with the goal of
sustaining healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems while addressing
the need for resources, commodities, and services for the American
people. Rural and urban communities depend on the forests for a variety
of resources, commodities, and services, but for the rural communities
in particular, national forest management can impact local economic and
social conditions. With our many partners, the Forest Service is
working to maintain the functions and processes characteristic of
healthy, resilient forests and watersheds, and through delivery of our
programs, maintain and enrich the social and economic environment of
our local communities.
Our forests are important to all of us, and people understand that
forests provide a broad range of values and benefits, including
biodiversity, recreation, clean air and water, forest products, erosion
control, soil renewal and more. Forests, which cover a third of the
country's landmass, store and filter more than half of the nation's
water supply and absorb 20 percent of the country's carbon emissions.
Our mission of sustaining the health, resilience, and productivity of
our nation's forests is critically important to maintaining these
values and benefits. Restoring the health and resilience of our forests
generates important amenity values. A study by Cassandra Moseley and
Max Nielson Pincus has shown that every million dollars spent on
activities like stream restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, forestry
or road decommissioning generates from 12 to 28 jobs. For example,
implementation of projects under the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program--which relies heavily on stewardship contracting--
has created or maintained 1,550 jobs through 2011.
The Forest Service recognizes the need for a strong forest products
industry to help accomplish forest restoration work. The best
opportunity for reducing the cost of these restoration treatments is
through timber harvest and stewardship contracting.
The benefits of maintaining a robust forest products industry flow
not only to local communities and the nation but also to the Forest
Service itself as the agency relies on local contractors and mills to
provide the workforce to undertake a variety of restoration activities.
The industry's workforce is larger than either the automotive or
chemical industries, currently employing nearly 900,000 workers.
Fortunately, recent upturns in the housing market and lumber prices
have contributed to higher demand and prices for sawtimber. The
capacity exists within current infrastructure to meet this increased
demand for lumber through adding extra shifts, reopening mills, and
gains in efficiency. The higher demand and prices for timber will
enable the Forest Service (FS) to complete more restoration treatments.
Stewardship contracting is a critical tool that allows the Forest
Service to more efficiently complete restoration activities.
Permanently reauthorizing stewardship contracting and expanding the use
of this tool is crucial to our ability to restore landscapes
collaboratively at a reduced cost to the government by offsetting the
value of the services received with the value of forest products
removed. In fiscal year 2012, approximately 25 percent of all timber
volume sold on NFS lands was under a stewardship contract. Under the
stewardship contracting authorities, the Forest Service has carried out
watershed and wildlife habitat improvement projects, invasive species
control and removal, road decommissioning, and hazardous fuels
reduction activities.
To accomplish more effective vegetation management, the Forest
Service is fostering a more efficient National Environmental Planning
Act (NEPA) process by focusing on improving agency policy, learning,
and technology. These NEPA process improvements will increase decision-
making efficiencies and public engagement, resulting in on-the-ground
restoration work getting done more quickly and across a larger
landscape. In addition to the Forest Planning rule, the agency has
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 maintain decision making transparency for the
public and 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 Assessments (EAs),
iterative Environmental Impact Statement documentation (EISs),
expanding categories of actions that may be excluded from documentation
in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact
Statement (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 is implementing a landscape-scale adaptive
approach for treating current and future pine beetle outbreaks. We are
also implementing the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) project
in the Southwest, as well as other landscape-scale forest restoration
projects such as the 5-Mile Bell project in Oregon. The Draft EIS for
the first 4FRI area covers about one million acres. All of our efforts
are aimed at becoming more proactive and efficient in protecting the
nation's natural resources, while providing jobs to the American
people.
The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is another
important strategy in addressing the nation's wildfire problems by
focusing on three key areas: 1) Restore and Maintain Landscapes, 2)
Fire Adapted Human Communities, and 3) Response to Fire. This
collaborative process has the benefit of 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. We are now moving into Phase III where a tradeoff
analysis of national risk will be conducted. We expect one result will
be 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 for restoring landscapes.
Using these tools, and more, we are working toward accelerating our
restoration activities on the ground to restore the functions and
processes characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems. Our goal is
to sustain and restore ecosystems that can deliver all the benefits
that Americans want, need, and deserve. Due to changing climate, we may
not be able to restore them to their original condition, but we can
move directly toward resilience and health directly on the lands we
manage, and indirectly through collaboration with others on state and
private lands. The Forest Service recognizes that increasing the pace
and scale of restoration and active management of the National Forests
is critically needed to address these threats to the resiliency of our
forests and watersheds and the health, prosperity, and safety of
America's forest-dependent communities.
H.R. 818 ``Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention Act''
The Department opposes H.R. 818.
The purpose of H.R. 818 is to address the bark beetle epidemic,
drought, deteriorating forest health conditions, and high risk of
wildfires on NFS land and public land under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management in the United States. The bill contains
provisions that would:
Provide a Congressional declaration that the bark
beetle epidemic, drought, and deteriorating forest health
conditions on NFS lands and public lands are an ``imminent
threat'' within the meaning of section 36 CFR 294.12(b)(1) in
effect since 2002. That regulation provided for road
construction or reconstruction in an inventoried roadless area
upon a determination that ``a road is needed to protect public
health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of flood,
fire, or other catastrophic event that, without intervention,
would cause the loss of life or property.''
Allow a Governor to designate high-risk areas of NFS
and public lands, outside of Wilderness and National Monuments,
to address deteriorating forest conditions and future risks,
after consultation with county governments and affected Indian
tribes.
Allow the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary
of the Interior to designate high-risk areas of NFS and public
lands, outside of Wilderness and National Monuments, to address
deteriorating forest conditions and future risks after
consultation with Governors, county government, and with
affected Indian tribes.
Provide for the use of emergency hazardous fuel
reduction projects in areas designated as high-risk.
Require the Secretary to implement emergency
hazardous fuels reduction projects within 60 days of the date
the Secretary receives the proposal from the Governor.
Provide that emergency hazardous fuels reduction
projects in designated high-risk areas shall be subject to the
expedited procedures in Title I of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003, including expedited
requirements for environmental analysis under NEPA, pre-
decisional administrative review, and the application of these
expedited procedures to high-risk areas that are outside the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
Establish a categorical exclusion from the
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under NEPA for hazardous fuels
projects in high risk areas within 500 feet of utility or
telephone infrastructure, campgrounds, roadsides, heritage or
recreation sites, schools or other infrastructure.
Expand Good Neighbor Authority nationally and include
the Bureau of Land Management.
Extend Stewardship Contracting from 2013 to 2017 and
increase maximum contract length to 20 years.
Consistent with the purposes of H.R. 818, USDA supports Forest
Service efforts to increase the amount of forest restoration work on
NFS lands. USDA opposes the enactment of H.R. 818 except for sections 8
and 9, which respectively expand Good Neighbor Authority and
reauthorize Stewardship Contracting Authority. For those sections, we
support the expansion of the Good Neighbor Authority and
reauthorization of stewardship contracting, but have some minor
technical suggestions. However, the Department cannot support a bill
that would remove the authority vested in the Secretary of Agriculture
to manage NFS lands by authorizing Governors to designate high risk
areas of NFS lands and propose projects for those areas, and requiring
projects to be implemented within 60 days of the date on which the
proposal is finalized. Many conditions, including weather, economics,
contractual requirements, availability of workforce, and other
priorities can influence the timing of a project. We also have concerns
with other provisions of H.R. 818 including the effect of the bill on
designated roadless areas, as well as the costs of implementing the
bill.
H.R. 1294 ``Self Sufficient Community Lands Act''
While USDA appreciates the Committee's interest in collaborative
management of NFS lands, the Department opposes this legislation.
H.R. 1294 would:
Require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish
community forest demonstration areas comprised of NFS lands at
the request of a Board of Trustees appointed by the Governor of
the State in which the lands are located.
Provide for the establishment of a community forest
demonstration area if the Secretary determines that the area
contains at least 200,000 acres of NFS land and that the State
has a law or regulatory structure providing for forest
practices applicable to State or privately owned forest land.
Provide that the Board of Trustees would manage NFS
lands that are established as community forest demonstration
area in accordance with the bill and applicable State law.
Provide that Federal laws would apply but only to the
extent that laws would apply to State administration and
management of forest lands. Treatments, such as timber harvest,
would be subject to Federal environmental laws only to the
extent that State lands are subject to those laws.
Provide that receipts from activities would be
retained by the Board and be used to fund administration and
management of the community forest demonstration area and that
any remaining funds would be distributed to counties.
USDA supports efforts to increase the amount of forest restoration
work on NFS lands. I, and past Chiefs have testified on numerous
occasions that this work is one of our highest priorities. However,
USDA opposes this bill because it would remove the authority vested in
the Forest Service to manage NFS lands by authorizing a Board of
Trustees nominated by the Governor to manage the land and resources of
the community forest demonstration areas under laws and regulations
applicable to management of State forest lands.
While USDA appreciates the provisions allowing time frames to be
extended for public involvement, ultimately we support the right of
citizens to be involved in the management of their forests as
demonstrated in our new Forest Planning Rule.
USDA appreciates state and local community interest in the
management of the National Forests. However, this bill limits the
ability of American citizens to participate in an open decision making
process and leaves many fundamental questions of responsibility
unanswered.
H.R. 1345 ``Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013''
The Department opposes H.R. 1345.
USDA supports the purposes of H.R. 1345 to address the risks to
forest health, public safety, and wildlife habitat posed by wildfire.
In general, we support Title I of the bill, which would reauthorize and
amend the Stewardship Contracting Authority and the Good Neighbor
Authority. We would like to work with the committee to address some
technical concerns. In addition, we would like to discuss the impact of
the requirement of paying 25% of stewardship contracting receipts to
counties. Furthermore, changing the requirement to obligate
cancellation costs upfront sets up a process different than other
contracting activities and could potentially lead to an inability to
pay if unobligated funds are inadequate to cover cancellation costs at
the time of cancellation. Expanding authorized use of FLAME funds would
reduce the amount of funds available for fire suppression. In addition,
there are other programs that support burned area rehabilitation
activities. We do not support Title II of H.R. 1345, which would
provide for an expedited process for carrying out certain projects.
Specifically, the Department opposes this bill because it would remove
the authority vested in the Secretary, shortchange the environmental
review process, cut out public engagement and collaboration, give the
agency targets it can't accomplish, and override roadless protections.
Specifically, Title I contains provisions that would:
Extend the Stewardship Contracting Authority from
2013 to 2023; increase maximum contract length to 20 years;
change the funding obligations to cover the cost of the
cancelling or terminating a contract; and require that 25
percent of the receipts from a contract or agreement be paid to
the county in addition to payments made under PILT.
Extend the Good Neighbor Authority nationally and
authorize the Bureau of Land Management to utilize the
authority.
Amend the purpose of the FLAME Act to provide that
FLAME funds shall be available not only for large or complex
fire events but also for burn area responses, including flood
prevention.
Title II contains provisions that would:
Require the Secretary to implement eligible wildfire
prevention projects in at-risk forests and in threatened and
endangered species habitat. Eligible wildfire prevention
projects would include livestock grazing and timber harvests.
Provide that an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would only need to study,
develop, and describe the proposed action and the no action
alternative. Without this language, NEPA would require the
development of other reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.
Require completion of an EA within 60 days of
commencement of preparation and an EIS within 90 days; projects
would be deemed compliant with NEPA if these deadlines were not
met.
Provide that an EA under the bill would be deemed to
be sufficient for purposes of NEPA for 10 years if the eligible
wildfire prevention project involves livestock grazing and 20
years if the project involves timber harvest.
Establish a Categorical Exclusion from the
requirement to prepare an EA or EIS for certain eligible
wildfire prevention projects.
Require the Secretary to pursue alternative
arrangements under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations if the county in which the eligible wildfire
prevention project is to be carried out declares an emergency
because of wildfire or the threat of wildfire; establish
procedures for requesting the alternative arrangements; direct
the Secretary to carry out the project without regard to NEPA
if CEQ fails to comply with the 15-day deadline for submitting
the alternative arrangement; and provide that actions taken
would not be subject to notice and comment or judicial review.
In addition, we have concerns the provisions of Title II that
provide for timelines for environmental analysis and timelines and
requirements for alternative arrangements. More specifically:
Section 203(a)(1) requires either an EIS or an EA for
the proposals, leaving out the possibility for using existing
categorical exclusions.
Section 203(a)(3) sets deadlines that make it
impossible to comply with NEPA on most projects and would in
effect result in the projects being exempted from NEPA.
Section 203(a)(4) would deem an EA to be sufficient
for 10 or 20 years depending on the type of project and despite
the changes that may likely occur within that timeframe that
would otherwise trigger the need to update the EA.
Section 203(f) requires the Secretary to request
alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental
Quality and lays out a number of requirements for that request.
The request alone would take field resources otherwise
committed to the emergency situation when alternative
arrangements may not even be necessary. Additionally, given the
timeframes imposed by the bill for completing and EA or EIS,
alternative arrangements may not be necessary.
SUMMARY
The Department recognizes the important role of the timber industry
in maintaining rural communities; particularly in light of the urgent
forest restoration needs many areas face with the beetle epidemic and
the ongoing needs to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire
effects--especially in the wildland-urban interface. The Department
wants to work closely with the Committee on these bills to enhance our
ability to get more restoration work done.
This is also why the Forest Service is investing considerable
effort in finding ways to maximize the effectiveness of our
collaborative management procedures: in streamlining our implementation
of NEPA to anticipate the needs of large landscapes and watersheds; in
maximizing the use of special authorities such as pre-decisional
administrative review and stewardship contracting; and in exploring
ways to make more efficient use of scarce budgets. Collaborative
efforts such as these must be fostered and broadened if local
communities are to reap increasing benefits from their National
Forests.
In summary, the Forest Service continues to work toward
accomplishing restoration objectives, providing information, research
and quality recreation experiences, all linked to healthy rural
communities. I want to thank the Committee for its interest,
leadership, and commitment to our national forests and their
surrounding communities. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Chief Tidwell, for your testimony
today. You mentioned a common issue in your testimony about
Secure Rural Schools. And my first question--I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes for questions.
A few weeks ago I, along with 30 of my colleagues, in a
bipartisan manner, sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack and the
acting director of OMB regarding the Forest Service's, March
20th letter asking SRS recipients to refund $18 million that
was already paid to those counties. Can you explain the legal
justification for that action?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, after
numerous discussions with some of our attorneys, is that,
according to the Control Budget Act, that it applies to all the
outlays that would occur during this fiscal year. And because
even--we make the payments, we try to get them out in December,
this year we got them out in January--because they were made
during this fiscal year, that that sequester bill applies to
those payments.
I regret that we had to send that letter out. The one thing
that we did do is offer to the counties that do have Title 2
funding to give them the option to use Title 2 funding so there
wouldn't be any impact on the schools and roads programs. I
regret having to do that. I wish there was another way around
it. And I tell you, I pursued every avenue I could find to be
able to find a different solution. But with that----
Mr. Hastings. Well, I am not sure I totally agree with your
response. And, by the way, for the record, I have yet to
receive a response from Secretary Vilsack. If you have any
influence on the Secretary, tell him in a public hearing I
asked you to ask him to respond in writing why he did exactly
what he did.
I just find it absolutely ironic, when we hear testimony
from Members that represent counties that receive these
payments, and the hardships they are facing, this to me is a
classic example of this Administration trying to illicit as
much hardship on something that they proposed 2 years ago,
namely the sequestration. I mean you knew it was coming.
So, I guess my message is you will carry a message back to
the Secretary saying I would like to have a response in a
timely manner. If you would do that.
One other issue. The budget came out yesterday, and
obviously we are going through that budget. In looking at the
budget, we see that there is virtually, on every line item, on
virtually every line item, multiple-use management was reduced
in the proposed budget. And yet, the land acquisition part was
increased by 10 percent.
Now, when you have a huge backlog in management of our
lands, how--I guess explain that. Explain the multiple use part
of it, which is part of what management is all about, was
decreased virtually across the board, and acquisition was
increased. Explain that.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could have
asked for a higher amount of funding. But everyone in this room
is aware of the----
Mr. Hastings. Well, no. You asked for a higher amount of
funding in land acquisition. When we are talking here--and it
is well know, it is well recognized that the active management
of forest lands are not adequate, and yet that is all cut. Why
would you put an emphasis on more acquisition and less on
management is what my question really is.
Mr. Tidwell. OK. The request, the budget request for land
acquisition, is based on what we hear from the public. In
almost every one of these cases, by acquiring these key parcels
from willing sellers, we actually reduce the cost of
administration. It allows us to do more landscape-scale
projects, it reduces all the time and expense we have to deal
with boundaries.
The other part of why we had to request a lower amount of
money in so many of the budget line items you mentioned is that
to be able to meet the agreement to have the 10-year average
for fire suppression, we had to move $134 million from other
programs to put it into our suppression account. That is where
we had to make the shifts to be able to continue that agreement
that we have for the 10-year average. But those are the reasons
why you see the reductions. And the land and water conservation
funding request is based on what we are hearing from the public
about how important that program is.
Mr. Hastings. Well, Chief Tidwell, you based your answer on
hearing from the public. Haven't we heard from the public that
our forest lands are badly managed, and yet you are cutting
them? I mean why would you make a determination that buying
more is more important than managing what you have? That is
really what the question is.
My time has expired and I will recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, many of the bills before the Committee today are
based on an assumption. The assumption is that appeals and
litigation are an impediment to the Forest Service doing more
work on the ground. The solution to this problem, as presented
in some of these bills, is to curtail NEPA and the Endangered
Species Act protections.
My questions is what percentage of Forest Service projects
are appealed and litigated, and the second one, does that
figure include projects that are not eligible for the post-
decision appeal process, projects that are not subject to
appeals because they are carried out under categorical
exclusion?
Mr. Tidwell. With the projects that are subject to appeals,
on average there are about 6 percent of those projects
appealed. And on average, about 2 percent of our projects are
litigated.
I want to stress that reflects the collaborative efforts
that are going on across the country to be able to work out
agreement on the type of work that needs to be done so we can
actually successfully implement that work.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask you about Mr. Labrador's
legislation, H.R. 1294. A basic question, because it is part of
the premise of the legislation or rationale. What is the
difference between managing national forests and managing State
forests?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the national forests are managed based
on a set of laws that have been passed that reflect, I believe,
how the public wants those lands to be managed, and to provide
assurances about how they would be managed. The key thing there
is with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, because one of
the things that drives--for us to find that mix of uses, that
balance of uses on our national forests that reflect everything
that the public would like to see off of those lands.
We are not managed to maximize revenues. Some States
definitely have that responsibility to do what they can to
generate revenues for school trust lands. And so, that is one
of the differences. But it is driven by what we hear from the
public and our forest plans. It is what is reflected in the
laws that govern these lands. And that is how we try to carry
out the management, based on what we believe is how the public
wants these lands managed.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. And what portion of the national forest
land would qualify as commercial forest land if the metric for
commercial timber land is land capable of producing 20 cubic
feet per year?
Mr. Tidwell. Congressman, I will have to get back to you
with the exact number. We do have that from our plans, and I
will have to get back to you.
But there is a significant amount of our national forests
that produce that amount of growth every year without any
question. It is one of the reasons why we recognize we need to
do more work out there. That is why we are moving forward to
actually restore more of these lands. And if you look at what
is going on in the country today, there is more and more
support for us to work through these collaborative processes to
actually implement projects.
That is one of the reasons why I put out that accelerated
restoration strategy. And it was without any expectation of a
budget increase. It was because what we are seeing across the
country, where people want to come together, reach agreement on
the type of work that we can go forward with, and you are
seeing it with these large landscape projects.
I mean we used to spend a lot of time looking at 1,000
acres here, 2,000 acres there. Today we recognize we need to be
looking at hundreds of thousands of acres with one analysis to
be able then to move forward, do what needs to be done on that
land to be able to restore those forests.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Last question. Does the Forest
Service support allowing commercial logging in roadless areas
or national monuments?
Mr. Tidwell. No, we do not.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Tidwell. As I mentioned earlier, we have over 12
million acres of roaded national forests, where we know we need
to use timber harvest to restore those lands. I will tell you.
That is more work than under any scenario we can get
accomplished in the foreseeable future. That is what we need to
focus on, is to be able to get that done, to be able to move
forward, to restore that, to produce the saw timber that can
come off of those lands. That is where I feel that we need to
continue to be focused on.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Tidwell, thanks
for being here. Would you agree that responsible treatments in
our forests reduce fire severity, or mitigate insect
infestation?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. We have numerous examples--and you have
seen them in your State--where, by thinning out these forests,
we can reduce the severity of the wildfire, and make it a lot
easier for our brave fire fighters to get in there and suppress
these fires and keep them from coming into our communities.
Mr. Tipton. So that responsible treatment is a positive
move that we need to be making.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. Can you tell us how much was spent last year on
fire suppression versus mitigation?
Mr. Tidwell. We spent $1.4 billion last year with fire
suppression. I would have to get back to you with the actual
number, but it was probably more around--about maybe $600 or
$700 million on restoration efforts. But I will get back to you
with the accurate number.
Mr. Tipton. So, effectively, what that is telling us is we
have it backwards, given your previous comment. We need to be
spending more on the front end, in terms of actually going in,
treating these forests, to be able to reduce the threat of
fire, to be able to protect our habitats, to be able to protect
the species, to be able to protect our watersheds. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Tidwell. It is. And if you look at what has happened
over the last 12 to 14 years, you have seen a significant
reduction in the number of employees that we have that do the
restoration work, that put up the timber sales--in some cases,
they are up to almost 49 percent reduction. You have seen the
funding go down over 30 percent over the last 10 years. The
reason for this is to be able to meet the 10-year average. We
have to continue to shift funds from these other key programs
to be able to have the funds available for----
Mr. Tipton. Let's keep that funding in mind for just a
moment. But I would like to be able to move to another question
I would ask.
We have a pilot project in Southwest Colorado, Pagosa
Springs.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. We have proven that going in and being able to
manage these forests and to be able to treat it--we have
actually increased ground water, the trees recover to a healthy
state within 2 weeks, according to the forester that I visited
with. And moving dollars into those areas, you would agree,
would be the better thing to do?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Now, going back to the budget end of it,
following up on Chairman Hastings' question in terms of land
acquisition, why would you make the choice, then, to spend more
on land acquisition--because I didn't hear the answer to this--
saying you heard public comment, when public comment is saying,
``Protect our forests, make healthy habitat,'' and work with
that, work with those dollars? Why are the choices not made in
that direction?
Mr. Tidwell. The budget request reflects a balance of all
the things that we hear from the public about the different mix
of benefits----
Mr. Tipton. Don't you have a job, though, truly, to manage
the forests? If they burn, there is nothing to manage.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, that is one of the reasons why we have
increased our request for suppression, increased our request
for preparedness----
Mr. Tipton. And increased your acquisition. That is really
the point.
Mr. Tidwell. And we have also----
Mr. Tipton. From a management decision, shouldn't we
prioritize, in tough economic times, where those dollars are
really going? And rather than asking for more land to manage
when we are saying we can't manage the land we currently have,
let's apply those dollars to truly manage the forests that we
have.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, our budget request is a balanced
approach. It is something we are putting forward for your
consideration.
The other thing I would want to point out, we have also
increased the request in our integrated resource restoration
budget line item that provides the funding to do the
restoration work, too.
Mr. Tipton. And----
Mr. Tidwell. So, it is a balanced request for your
consideration.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that. But I think we are still
continuing to go around the issue. Tough economic times,
families, businesses are all facing strategic decisions that
have to be made. And this doesn't seem to be a good strategic
plan, when the evidence that is coming out of the Forest
Service itself indicates that we ought to be moving to actually
get in, treat these forests, to be able to address the Bark
Beetle kill, and to be able to protect these individual areas.
And so, I would really encourage you to revisit that
particular portion of what you are doing, in terms of the
budget requests, as we move forward.
And on the collaborative process, would you believe it is
an important thing to get these county commissioners and our
States involved when we are talking about public process?
Mr. Tidwell. I do. In fact----
Mr. Tipton. Great.
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. Some of our most successful
collaboratives are when we have had the county commissioners
dedicate, devote their time to be part of those collaborative
efforts.
Mr. Tipton. Great. We will look for your support on H.R.
818, my bill. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
participated in the--I mean, Chief--the passage of HFRA. And as
far as I know, it has been implemented with very little
controversy, despite the controversy during its adoption.
But given the fact you have that tool, what is the greatest
restraint on you conducting forest health fuel reduction
projects? Is it environmental law constrains, given the fact
you have the HFRA tools, or is it budgetary constrains?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it is a capacity issue right now, and
that is----
Mr. DeFazio. So it is a budgetary constraint. You don't
have enough money to do the projects, projects that you could
do under the existing laws with no changes, particularly if you
used the authority of HFRA. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, and that is why we are moving forward to
look at ways to be able to expand markets, to be able to create
more economic value in this material so that, like with the
stewardship contract, we can then use that value to be able to
get more work done.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Have you looked at--and I have spoken with
previous people in your position and previous Administrations
about providing for longer-term contracts, particularly if you
are looking at biomass utilization off of these forests. It
would probably take longer than 10 years for someone to fully
amortize their investment in a biomass facility, but that would
also lower your per-acre treatment costs, because they get some
value out of what is being removed. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, we are interested in looking at the
possibility of--if we can get stewardship contracting
reauthorized, to be able to look at opportunities to extend
that, because of the points you just raised.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And have you heard anything from EPA, we
had a little bit of a tussle with them. They started off in a
misguided attempt to classify biomass the same as coal. Kind of
odd. And now they have pulled back. Have you heard anything
about when they are going to put forward a decision on biomass?
Mr. Tidwell. I have not.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. Just one other question. What
is the average cost per acre of treatment, manual treatment, as
opposed to burning?
Mr. Tidwell. You know, it depends on----
Mr. DeFazio. Terrain and--yes.
Mr. Tidwell. You know, a range is probably anywhere from
$200 to $300 an acre.
Mr. DeFazio. Really? That low? Because I saw a study on the
Klamath that said it would be $2,000 an acre.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, you asked for an average.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, OK. All right. Depending upon the terrain
and the forest and what has to be removed.
Yesterday we saw the President's budget, and they
rhetorically extended the Secure Rural Schools payment.
Unfortunately, either there is a misprint or a disconnect,
because the table doesn't have a number for extension. It has
zero. There is no mention of it in the actual number tables,
but there is a rhetorical commitment. Can you straighten that
out for me? I mean is the Administration proposing an extension
that says they are proposing a 5-year extension, but there are
no numbers in the budget?
Mr. Tidwell. It is my understanding that, yes, we support
reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools for a 5-year period.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, at an unspecified number with an
unspecified revenue source?
Mr. Tidwell. The only specification, as I understand, we
are supportive of mandatory funding for this program, so that
the counties do not have to worry about it each year, whether
there is going to be funding made available.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. We will need a little more clarification
about that, because I was very puzzled when I read the budget,
and I read the rhetoric, and I said, ``That's great,'' and I
looked at the table and I went, ``Oops.'' So we need to get
some consistency there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. Will the gentleman yield just for a moment? I
would just like to make a point. I suppose at some time the
argument could be made that our national forest was the basic
raw material for coal, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
want to just thank you for this hearing today. As someone who
has a national forest in their district, this topic is
critically important to me. I am amazed that in the
Apalachicola National Forest we harvest less than 7 percent. We
have small rural counties that are dying.
And, Mr. Tidwell, I want to say thank you for coming to my
office and meeting with me. I want to be very clear today. I
think you mean well, and I think you are a very nice man. And I
feel sorry that you have to step before us today and tote the
water for an Administration who just doesn't get it. And so I
want to separate you personally from the way I feel right now,
because it would be wrong of you to think that my aggravation
is directed at you. I don't know what they pay you, but it is
not enough.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Southerland. OK? To do this job. I mean, you have
Secretaries that won't even answer our letters--talk about
thumbing their noses at the American people. This is an
embarrassment. And I wish that I could take you down to these
poor rural counties, real people, real people that are trapped.
And, quite honestly, you are the cause. Not you, but this
Department is the cause. OK? They don't want to depend on you.
Just a few moments ago you made a statement they want to
know that this money is coming--no, no, no. They want to
control their future. They want to take ownership. They don't
want you to control their future. Let them work. Get your foot
off their neck. It is sinful, what I am seeing.
And the one thing that this hearing has done today is it
has shown me that there is agreement on both sides of the aisle
on this issue. These people don't want a handout, they want a
future. This is sinful, and it is so aggravating to me. And I
come in here over and over and over again in the last 2\1/2\
years, and you want more. To whom much is given, much is
expected. And what these people want is they want to make a
bright future for themselves, their children, and their
grandchildren. And they are trapped in these rural counties,
and they go to bed every night praying that lightning does not
strike. Because if it does, what little bit they have is going
to be taken away from them.
This is a disgrace in every way. I have questions that I
need to ask you. But you know what? Nothing seems more
important than bringing the heart of my people to this
Committee and letting you know. The questions? They are
technical.
This Administration says they care about people. Quit
talking about it and show us. Let our people work. They are
willing to put calluses on their hands. Let them control their
future in a responsible way. And I want you to hear my heart,
and I want you to hear the heart of the people that I love, I
have been living in this district, our family has been living
in our district for 200 years. It is home. Hard-working, God-
fearing people. Benevolent, giving, loving. And my heart breaks
for them, and it breaks for every district in this country who
have people just like our people.
I want to know that you all get it. And again, this is not
directed to you. You are a nice man. I am separating you--you
are toting the message here. And I have to tell you something,
man. I don't know how you do this, but it is not working. It is
not working. And that is a statement, that is not a question.
And, Mr. Chairman, I had to get that off my chest and
express my heart. And I think that is indicative and a
reflection of all of our hearts around the country. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his----
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond, please.
Mr. Hastings. Go ahead.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Southerland, I do hear you, and I
understand that. I mean that is where most of our people, our
employees, they live in rural America. I understand the
challenges. It is one of the things why our folks are working
so hard to be able to get more work done. It is one of the
reasons why that even without--understanding the need to have a
flat or declining budget for a lot of good reasons, we have
been able to increase the amount of work that we are getting
done. We have been able to increase our efficiencies, reduce
our fixed costs. And that over this time, even with declining
budgets, we have also reduced the average cost to get a timber
sale out at the same time. It is because our employees, I can
tell you they care just as much as you do to be able to----
Mr. Southerland. Now, Mr. Tidwell, let me ask you this. I
know of a company that comes into the national forest to bid on
property, and they want to do an assessment, OK? They want to
cruise to get a cost. They are not allowed to cruise that
timber on a four-wheeler, because your people say that that is
going to damage the forest.
Now, it is on a block of timber that we are going to cut
and we are going to have loader skidders and bunchers on there,
but they have to walk in order to cruise that timber? Now, I
got to tell you. That would just stick in my craw.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. I feel
the passion, but we do have a lot of Members that want to ask
questions.
Mr. Southerland. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Nevada, Mr. Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to my
colleague, as he indicated, many of us on this Committee
represent very diverse districts and have degrees of experience
with the Forest Service. And, Chief, I want to thank you for
being here and for, Mr. Chairman, this legislation, because I
think it provides for the opportunity for a lot of these issues
to be debated.
I represent a large part of rural Nevada. And our national
forest unit, the Humboldt-Toiyabe, is very different from
forest units in places like Washington State or Oregon and
Idaho. So, I have to ask as it pertains to my district, what is
the outcome for counties in Nevada if they are unable to
produce sufficient revenue from timber sales because of the
uniqueness of our forest compared to others that might be
targeted in this legislation?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, in your State and your
district, the revenues that are produced off those national
forests come from recreation, grazing, and mining. And there is
very--a little bit of timber harvest that is driven by the need
to be able to restore Sage Grouse habitat, et cetera. But those
are not timber-producing forests that you have in your
district.
Mr. Horsford. And so, what would the effect to the rural
counties be if the legislation applies broadly to a county in
rural Nevada that wouldn't have the same benefit as a place
like Washington State or Oregon and Idaho or others in the
country?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, if you are referring to some of the
bills that are being discussed today, it would have little
effect in your county with the need to reauthorize, address
Secure Rural Schools, that would be able to continue the level
of payments, similar to what your counties have received in the
past.
Mr. Horsford. And that is the KV Fund, correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it is actually the Secure Rural Schools.
The KV Fund is a fund that we use that is part of the receipts
from timber sales that we use to be able to do work, any type
of work from restoration work to be able to come in and do that
type of work. So it is an authority that we have had for many
years, part of our timber sale contracts.
Mr. Horsford. So, just so I understand, only 25 percent of
the revenues under the proposed legislation generated would go
to rural counties. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, that is under the 25 percent fund that we
have been operating under before we had the Secure Rural
Schools Act.
Mr. Horsford. And then the remaining would go to KV Fund or
the Salvage Sale Fund. How much of those proceeds support rural
communities?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, those funds, they support rural
communities because they create jobs. Because of the work that
needs to be done, it creates jobs. So that is where the
support--and also then gets the restoration work done that is
on the national forest.
And then there is a portion of the timber receipts that
also go back to the treasury.
Mr. Horsford. But is it directly allocated to the rural
communities, or does it indirectly benefit those communities, I
guess is my question.
Mr. Tidwell. The portion of the receipts that go into the
KV Fund, it would be an indirect benefit to the counties. The
25 percent of the funds are what goes back to the States, and
they distribute it to the counties.
Mr. Horsford. All right. I want to just ask just about the
whole outdoor recreation industry, generally. It directly
supports about 6 million jobs and contributes over $646 billion
annually to the U.S. economy, including about $40 billion to
State and local revenues. These businesses also employ a range
of skilled workers, including sport and commercial fishermen.
According to the National Forest Service, visitors spending
in nearby communities supported over 200,000 jobs. But people
do not want to recreate in industrial, clear-cut areas. So how
do you reconcile that conflict?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we deal with that through our forest
planning process, where the public has the opportunity to be
able to express their desires about how different parts of the
forest need to be managed to be able to find that balance the
areas where we need to manage for commercial timber harvest, or
where we need to manage more for certain recreational quality
settings, so that we can support that full balance of uses out
there. And a lot of it is driven by what the public wants, how
the public wants their national forest managed.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to
sit in here. And, really, I have more of a statement than I do
a question. I have already had the displeasure of speaking with
the U.S. Forest Service multiple times in Atlanta. And I can
tell you every time I hang up the phone I am more frustrated
than I was when I picked up the phone. And mainly it is because
of their lack of understanding.
If I am understanding it correctly, the U.S. Forest Service
was designed to protect our forests for the next generation and
preserve it for our kids to enjoy. And instead, what they
continue to do is hold our forests hostage. And now they are
starting to hold our communities hostage by demanding
repayments of the SRS. And our communities are already
strangled enough.
In these hard economic times, it seems as though--that the
U.S. Forest Service has completely thrown that out the window.
And now it is demanding our schools to repay something that
they are already using. The money has already been given to
them. They are already using the money, they are depending on
the money. Because of the lack of management that the U.S.
Forest Service has done with the forests surrounding these
communities because of their bad decisions, now they are
continuing to hold our schools hostage.
My frustration comes in from the fact that there is no
common sense that goes into the U.S. Forest Service. And I know
that is a rarity inside Washington, D.C. But as you stated, Mr.
Tidwell, the gentlemen working for the U.S. Forest Service live
in these communities. Well, if that was true, then they should
have a little bit of common sense. And that has completely been
washed out.
I went to a park recently in Shady Lane, which is outside
of Heavener, Oklahoma, that half the park flooded, half the
park flooded once in 50 years. And the U.S. Forest Service has
it shut down. And when I went to that park, a convoy of U.S.
Forest Service employees showed up. I showed up there with
three people, and all of us rode in my truck. A convoy of
individuals showed up all driving brand new Ford Explorers. And
now they are asking for 10 percent--or more money to acquire 10
percent more forest land which they are not even funding--or
they are not even managing properly right now. And now you are
asking our schools to repay the money when you guys have
mismanaged your money to begin with.
When does it stop? The insanity continues to go farther and
farther down the line. And if they continue to hold--if the
U.S. Forest Service continues to hold our communities hostage,
and they are continuing to hold my kids hostage, my kids'
future hostage, and most people's in here's kids hostage, I can
tell you it is going to become my mission to expose the U.S.
Forest Service at every turn.
If you can't manage it, then give it back to the States. I
am so tired, as a land owner myself, having the Federal
Government walk on our properties and walk on the lands that
generations that I come from--I am Cherokee. I understand how
to take care of our lands. We take pride in our lands. And yet
we can't even take care of the community we live in because of
some people in Atlanta making bad decisions. Common sense does
play a part in it. And if Atlanta can't make the decisions,
then give those that work in those areas the authority to make
common-sense decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman yields back?
Mr. Mullin. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. OK. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question. The Chief started to respond to a very passionate
series of remarks we heard earlier about the Forest Service and
its view toward rural America. I too think you are a nice guy,
Chief Tidwell, so I want to give you a chance to finish the
remarks that you started before you were interrupted. And I
will yield the balance of my time for that purpose.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you for that. I wanted to also
stress besides the U.S. Forest Service, throughout the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack has made it very
clear that the reason we come to work every day is to do
everything we can to help rural America. And you will see many
of the programs in USDA are focused on that. And specifically
with the Forest Service.
When you look at the things that we have been trying to
move forward with--and I will just share, Mr. Chairman, I tell
you, I have been doing this for 35, 36 years. And I have seen
so many different approaches. And where we are today, over the
last few years, about being able to embrace these collaborative
efforts, to be able to bring people together and reach
agreement and then move forward with the type of work that
needs to be done on these national forests, this is the first
time where I have actually been able to feel good about, yes,
we are going to be able to move forward and we are going to be
able to do it in a way with understanding the budget situations
we are in in this country.
So, we have to find different ways to build capacity to be
more efficient. And I will tell you. Through these landscape-
scale approaches that we are implementing today, you see that
is increasing our efficiencies and that we are moving forward
and getting more work done. I wish that we didn't have the
softwood markets that we have had to deal with the last few
years. Luckily, they are starting to increase. If that
increases, it will allow us to be able to have more value from
our stewardship contracts, would allow us to get more work
done. So there are several things that are lined up for us.
But I think, throughout my career, this is the first time
when I felt positive that we can really move forward and
address the conditions on our national forests and put people
back to work.
There is just no question we need the timber industry. If
we lose the timber industry, there is nobody to do the work.
And where we have tried to restart that, to re-establish that
industry, it is so expensive. So we are focused on doing
everything we can. That is why, if you look at our track record
over the last 5 or 6 years, we have done everything we could to
be able to re-appraise timber sales, to be able to extend
timber sale contracts, to make sure we are doing everything we
can to keep that industry in place. Those are some of the
differences.
It was mentioned earlier about why are national forests
managed differently from States. Well, that is one of the
things that is different, is our timber sale contract. It is
based on sharing the risk with our purchasers. And I understand
the States have their contracts. And together it provides a
balance, because our purchasers know that they have a much
longer period of time. And so they--based on where the market
is, they can determine when they need to harvest that timber.
That is one of the reasons why we have 4.5 billion board feet
under contract today, is because--partly because of the poor
market conditions. I am optimistic that we will see a lot more
of that harvested this coming year, which will create more
jobs, create more revenues, and hopefully allow us to be able
to build on these collaborative efforts.
So, thank you for your time.
Mr. Hastings. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Huffman. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. Chief Tidwell, you mentioned collaborative
efforts. And I recall when I first got here there was a huge
collaborative effort in Northern California called the Quincy
Library. And the beauty of that, if I recall, was that it was
locally driven. Both sides--and there were some huge
differences locally, both sides--they came together and came up
with an agreement that was undone by litigation by a national
group.
Now, I just make that point because I think what we have to
have is some clarification in statute to make sure that
agreements like the Quincy one respects the local response,
which I think the Quincy library one was.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, who has Quincy in his
district, as a matter of fact.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for recognizing that, as well. I would associate with some of
the comments made by Mr. Southerland here. You are in a tough
position here, Mr. Tidwell, but I do appreciate your being here
and trying to help us work through this process here.
We did have a good visit recently with some of your
personnel in the Quincy area, and so we are working on that as
a new Member here, to have this outreach and see what can we
accomplish as conditions aren't likely to change a whole lot
with politics and all that very soon. We need to be successful.
But I can certainly echo some of the great amount of
frustration, not just as members on this panel here, but from
our constituents, as well. So when you speak of a balanced
approach--and I would really hearken back to one of the worst
fire seasons we had in California, North California, back in
2008, where a big source of it was in Trinity County, for
example, here, an area I had the opportunity to represent for a
couple years in our State Senate and was in its congressional
district until it shifted to my colleague from the other side
of the aisle, and California has that now.
But those folks were pleading for help, for long-term fire
suppression. The Town of Weaverville, for example, practically
burned in an area of, say, you know, 12 years ago, and then
just a few years later, because nothing had been done with
those public lands there to take care of the salvage and the
brush and all that other waste that comes after a fire. It
comes back through and burns again in 7 years. You can fly over
the checkerboard of public versus private land, or even, in
some cases, land that is managed by California, and see a
dramatic difference post-fire, say 5 to 7 years of basically
the private property has been recovered, it has been salvaged,
it has been planted back. It is starting to look pretty good
again, versus our Federal lands, which are still basically the
same mess they were right after that previous fire, due to many
reasons.
I wonder. Why aren't we having a much more concerted effort
to put aside the nonsense and only have an opportunity to do
salvage, do it within that first 6 months or that first year,
where there is still value out there, and the people in the
private sector can come in and help make that a better
situation, instead of the next tinderbox whenever--in just a
few short years it may happen again.
So, again, there is no balance out there. The people--this
is 2008. I was a Sacramento legislator at the time. And the air
that summer was brown all summer long, even 150 miles away from
the Trinity County fire. I could point to my colleague. See all
that? That is the poor forest management going on up in my
neighborhood there, as well as the people that live there, the
air quality. Their kids couldn't go outside even in my
neighborhood, which is about 100 miles away, to play and do
things in the summer air, like you normally would.
And when it is 10 times the impact in Trinity County, I
mean it is just flat unhealthy for all the different types of
people there, lower-income folks, Tribes, everybody there that
doesn't have a lot of options to move away because the Federal
Government is not doing its job.
And it is not going to come from an endless amount of money
in the treasury to try and fix this. The Federal Government
doesn't have the money to be out managing land. It needs to get
the private sector as a partner to go out and help do this
under carefully prescribed timber harvest plan measures,
which--in California we have a timber harvest plan. I don't
think they actually read it, I think they just weigh it
compared to other surrounding States. But we have managed to
move legislation on that. Again I thank my colleague on helping
move that through our State committee. And I think it was on my
birthday, I think, even we did one of those.
But we have to do much better with getting the private
sector, getting the local people, and having the true balance
of the people that have to live and deal with this, rather than
somebody thousands of miles away that thinks it is ideal
somehow to be advocating for buying more land that can't be
managed when we have so much that isn't managed now. It is
really the height of insanity that people out here have to live
with their poor communities, and the risk of their town burning
down, and certainly of the health risk.
So, I guess that is more of a statement, too. But we do
want to work with the locals there, and we are going to have
that positive dialogue. But we have got to have some real
things come from the top down on doing much, much better,
getting more sales out there to the private sector that can
make this happen. We want timber products, we use wood products
in California. Why should they not come from California or from
their area of origin, instead of imported from out of the
country?
So, this is what we need big help on. And I will be patient
for a while, but I might start getting a little more fired up
like some of my colleagues here, because it is affecting my
people and, really, all Americans. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. LaMalfa. I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. I
recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Daines.
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chief
Tidwell, for coming here today.
I just spent 3,000 miles traveling around the State of
Montana, and I represent the second largest congressional
district in America, behind Don Young's Alaska.
We used to have 30 saw mills in our State; we are down to
8. I am a fifth-generation Montanan. I grew up in the 1970s and
1980s when we had the beetle kill there. And then I saw our
timber harvests on Federal lands drop 90 percent since those
times back in the 1970s and 1980s. There aren't too many saw
mills left in my State to visit. But I went and visited most of
them over the last 2 weeks, traveling around the State.
Seventy percent of the harvestable timber that we have,
looking forward, is on Federal lands in Montana. In fact, I was
up--to Congressman Southerland's comments, I was with a family
in Northwest Montana, as we are staring at these forests that
are burning in the summer time. High unemployment rates,
poverty levels, the testimony from the two gentlemen from
Oregon was--I could have inserted the word ``Montana.'' I mean
that is our story right now in our State. This young couple
looked at me and they said, ``Steve, we have poverty with a
view,'' as they stare at our timber that they can't harvest.
My son plays high school football. In all my years growing
up in Montana we canceled high school football games on Friday
night lights because of air quality as we watched the forest
burn.
I am encouraged with your statement that you think there is
hope in terms of some efforts to address what has been going
on, and maybe in your 35 years of experience. But we are
running out of logs. Last Friday I was at a saw mill. The only
logs they had left they were cutting at this mill were burned
logs from a forest fire last summer in Pine Creek that they got
off of private land. They could hire 200 people tomorrow if
they had the timber.
I grew up in the home construction business. My dad is
calling me up--he is still building at 74 years old--saying,
``Steve, lumber prices are at an 8-year high. What is going
on?''
An elk hunter showed me a picture--I saw it in one of the
mills--that had a--you see the section line running through the
forest in Montana--it was from last year--of a dead and dying
forest on Federal lands, red from the beetle kill, and then a
managed forest that was just on the other side on some State
land that was healthy and vibrant.
So, as that as background, what are some of the biggest
barriers--I mean the biggest barrier to the United States
Forest Service to more actively manage our forests in the
timber communities?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, first of all, I spent
several years in the northern region, lived in Missoula. And
you know, I have been to all those mills myself. And I will
tell you. The folks there in Montana have been doing a great
job to be able to move forward under these restoration
principles, and we were making some very good progress up
there. And then we did have a situation where we had a lawsuit
that we lost, and had to go back and rework some of our
projects there, and we are going to be able to move forward
with those.
I think the biggest barrier is--once again, is being able
to continue this focus of bringing people together. And I know
that we got a challenge in your State, and we are committed to
be able to address that and continue to move forward. But we
also have leaders in Montana, the folks that have stepped up to
be able to show a better way.
I think of the Blackfoot Challenge that you probably have
heard about, about a group of folks that have come together to
be able to show there is a way to be able to move forward and
be able to manage timber, be able to graze livestock, and at
the same time take care of grizzly bear, bull trout, whatever
else. That is the thing we need to continue to work on.
The thing that--and I appreciate your comment about the--it
is encouraging to hear the price of lumber is going up. But we
haven't seen that yet ourselves, and that is OK, because we do
everything we can to be able to get the work done. And if that
means keeping our stumpage values as low as possible, we are
going to do that to be able to move forward with it. But those
increased markets will help.
Mr. Daines. Thank you. And I am running out of time. And
can I just follow up with a question on that? And I think you
were circling one of the issues that I think is very important,
and that is litigation from extreme environmental groups that
are shutting down timber harvests. And I saw it firsthand with
a rule that came down from a judge, they had these small
extreme groups that have three or four people that hire an
attorney, and they are shutting down the harvest. Ninety
percent of the timber sales scheduled in Fiscal Year 2012 east
of the Continental Divide are in litigation.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we did have an adverse ruling up there
in Montana on a timber sale where--but once again, the majority
of our projects go forward. The majority of our decisions.
There are very few lawsuits, with an understanding that when we
do get an adverse ruling it often affects more than just that
one project. And that, because of what the judge rules, we then
have to address those issues and the next environmental impact
statement. So there are additional impacts that go beyond just
that one litigation.
The other thing I wanted to point out----
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. We
have a number of Members. Maybe the same question will be
asked, Chief. I appreciate that.
Mr. Labrador from Idaho.
Mr. Labrador. Welcome, Mr. Tidwell. I know that, as an
Idahoan, you do care about the forest. But I share the
frustration that many of the members of this Committee--and,
actually, it looks to be on a bipartisan basis--I share the
same frustration everybody has here.
You keep talking about how the Forest Service, and you in
particular, are doing everything you can to help rural America,
and ``We want to help.'' But it sounds to me like you want to
help in a different way than rural America needs your help. You
want to send us money. We don't need your money. We need you to
get out of the way so we can make our own money. And I think
that is what maybe you don't seem to understand, and the people
in this Administration don't seem to understand. We don't need
government dependence.
See, when I talk to the county commissioners and the
residents of these communities, they are sick and tired of
waiting for that check to come to their communities, because
they know that if they could manage these lands, if they could
take care of these lands, they could actually make the money
that would make the money that is coming from the Federal
Government unnecessary.
So, as an Idahoan, and as a proud Idahoan that I understand
you are, can you understand why the people of Idaho are
frustrated that we stay--they seem to think that the Federal
Government is just wanting to give a hand out to them, instead
of the Federal Government getting out of the way so they can
actually make their own future and their own destinies? Can you
address that a little bit?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, right in your district
there with the Clearwater Collaborative is an example of the
difference that we are making by allowing people to come
together, including our county commissioners there that have
helped provide leadership on that collaborative that is making
a difference. There is more work, more restoration, there is
more saw timber that has been coming off of that forest over
the last couple years because of that.
We understand we need to get more work done. I understand
the benefits, the jobs. By supporting reauthorization of Secure
Rural Schools, I believe it does provide a bridge in this time,
especially with where the market is right now.
Mr. Labrador. But SRS was supposed to be a temporary
program. And now we are trying to make it a permanent program,
and that is what this Administration and, frankly, other
Administrations have done in the past.
And I am glad you brought up the Collaborative, because I
want to remind this Committee that we had a hearing several
weeks ago on forest management. And we talked about my trust
proposal and we also talked about the collaborative process.
And I support the Clearwater Collaborative process. But in a
question that I asked to the Nez Perce tribal chairman, Silas
Whitman, I asked him what the collaborative process had
actually done for Idaho. And he indicated that we had not yet
seen any appreciable revenue result from the collaborative
process. You keep touting it, but we haven't seen any
appreciable result. And this is not me speaking, this is not
even somebody who agrees with me on my policy. He disagreed
with my proposal. But he said that he had not seen any
appreciable revenue sources.
How can you present, continue to present the collaborative
process as the answer, when they are not really helping people
on the ground yet? There are no jobs being created because of
the collaborative process.
I want to continue with the collaborative model, but
clearly we need more. In Idaho--and I know the answer is pretty
close to zero, how much we have received. And the national
forest system, how much revenue is generated? How much revenue
in the national forest system is actually generated from the
collaborative process?
Mr. Tidwell. I don't have the numbers from each of those
efforts. I can produce----
Mr. Labrador. Well, you keep touting it here as the answer.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I can tell you about, overall, on the
national forest, there is about $800 million that is generated.
A lot of that comes from mineral royalties.
But I want to stress that our focus of our management is to
be able to care for the national forests and manage it in a way
that the public wants these lands cared for under multiple use.
If we had the direction----
Mr. Labrador. With all due respect, you keep saying that
the public wants this. When you talk to the public on the
ground, what public are you talking to? Are you talking to
Washington, D.C.? Are you talking to the people of Idaho, to
the people of Montana, to the people of California? Because
when you talk to the people on the ground, they want to manage
their lands, and they want to control their destiny.
Mr. Tidwell. And that is why I think you are seeing the
success out of the Collaborative that for years--for years, we
were getting hardly anything done on those forests. Once we
were able to bring that group of people together, the local
people together they have been able to reach agreement about
the type of work that has to be done.
I will get back with you about the shifts and the program
outputs that have occurred since we have started that
Collaborative, because it is my understanding, especially after
being up in that region and being in those communities, that
there has been an increase. But if that is not the case, I
definitely will get back to you on that.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this important hearing. And, Chief Tidwell, thank you
for being here. You are getting a lot of questions, some hard
questions, but we appreciate your answering and your being
here.
I represent Colorado Springs, and the Waldo Canyon fire was
a horrific tragedy last year: 350 houses were destroyed, 2
people died. And I would like to first ask you what lessons
learned are there for the Forest Service that would help us,
going forward, to either prevent a fire like that happening, or
spreading so quickly after it does take effect?
Mr. Tidwell. Well Congressman, I appreciate your engagement
out there during the fire, and then also your continued
interest on the restoration of that area.
But the fire we had there is just indicative of the
conditions that we have on the landscapes that--our fire
seasons are 60 to 70 days longer than what they used to be, we
have record temperatures every year, record low relative
humidity. So what we are seeing is that when these fires get
started, that if we do not suppress them during our initial
attack, that they quickly become established and become very
large fires. And then it is very difficult to suppress those
fires.
What we learned from there is another example of the need
to be able to do the restoration, to do the thinning,
especially around our communities, so that when a fire like
that does burn into a community, it gives us a chance for our
firefighters to be successful and be able to stop it.
As you saw with that fire, that was the fire that was
actually spotting out in front of itself a \1/4\ to \1/2\
mile--in some cases over a mile out in front of itself in
establishing the fire. Those are the conditions that we have to
deal with today. So it is essential that we do everything we
can on the national forests adjacent to these communities, and
then also on our private lands, to be able to work with the
land owners so that they, too, are doing everything they can.
And then the other thing we always learn is that when the
sheriff gives the order for evacuations, we have to help our
folks, our communities, understand they need to go. It is just
so essential.
So, those are some of the tough lessons that we continue to
learn and want to apply in the future.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Now, that brings me to H.R.
818, Scott Tipton's bill. And I see a lot of good in that bill.
I know the Forest Service agrees with part of it. But what you
don't agree with is maybe the most important part, and that is
closer collaboration between Governors and local communities
and the Forest Service.
And apparently you object to that part of the bill, and I
would just like to ask you why.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we are not going to be supportive of
legislation that removes the authority vested in the Secretary
of Agriculture for management of the national forests. I mean
these are national lands.
If there are things that we are not able to get
accomplished, that is what I want to focus on, is to be able to
move forward with that. I don't want to set up unrealistic
timelines that are not going to be possible to be met.
I also don't want to feed the controversy, the conflict,
over natural resource management of these national forests. I
have dealt with that my entire career. And once again, like I
said earlier, this is the first time that I have really felt
that there is a change in this country about the understanding
of the type of work that needs to be done on our national
forests. And that is what I want to continue to move forward
with.
So, those are some of the reasons that I want to work with
the Congressmen on all these bills, to be able to move forward
with what I think are some key concepts, and take advantage of
this opportunity that I believe that, once and for all, we can
reframe the debate around the management of our national
forests, and do it in a way that will not only produce more
jobs, more revenues, but it will improve the conditions of
these lands that so many of our communities depend on.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I have to agree with that part of what
you are saying. But I was hoping that after the Hayman fire in
the early 2000s in Colorado we had learned more about the need
for mitigation and thinning. And yet I don't see enough steps
being taken to accomplish that.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we did learn from those situations, and
we have continued to treat millions of acres every year. The
challenge that we have is that, as I have already mentioned,
and been very clear, there is tens of millions of acres that we
need to do some restoration on. And that is why we need to
continue to be able to move forward with our accelerated
restoration strategy that I think is proving to be able to
demonstrate that we can get more work done.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. Well, thank you for being here. I will
continue to want to work with you as much as possible. I do
hope that with H.R. 818 we can get more of an agreement on
that, going forward. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend,
colleague, and neighbor from Northern California said that he
was going to be patient with you. That is what I felt 4 years
ago. And for 4 years I have been to this dance over and over
and over again: smarmy assurances that you are very sympathetic
of the situation, you are very cognizant of the economic damage
that is being done, and you are going to do everything possible
to alleviate that, and nothing happens. A year goes by, we hear
the same testimony, and nothing happens. A year goes by, we
hear the same testimony, and nothing happens.
Three or 4 years ago I gave a speech on the House floor,
just a 5-minute speech, reflecting what I had been hearing from
my constituents. I was absolutely stunned that 24 hours after
this obscure 5-minute speech on C-SPAN we got over 500
unsolicited emails from around the country saying, ``Right on.
And by the way, you ought to hear what they are doing to us in
our neighborhood.''
Your management of the Forest Service, I think, has been
just appallingly negligent. A forester years ago told me, ``You
know, all that excess timber is going to come out of the forest
one way or the other. It will either be burned out or it will
be carried out. But it will come out of the forest.'' When we
carried that excess timber out, we had healthier forests and a
thriving economy.
Since we have seen this management philosophy that I can
only describe as benign neglect, we have seen a devastated
economy, and we have seen much more frequent and ferocious
forest fires, not just because of the damage this policy has
done, but because of other highly questionable judgment calls
that the Forest Service has made.
Congressman Lamborn mentioned the fires in his area. To
that I would add the Reading fire that the Forest Service
deliberately allowed to get completely out of control. The
local fire authoritiy's absolutely appalled by the terrible
judgment being administered under your jurisdiction.
And this itself is part of a much bigger picture of neglect
and negligence. We are watching road access close throughout
the national forests, mining efforts obstructed, just efforts
to open up old mines that can produce some new revenues for
these communities. Cattle grazing being forced off the lands,
inflated fees that are forcing the abandonment of family cabins
that have been held for generations, charging exorbitant new
fees or closing down long-established community events upon
which many of our small and struggling mountain towns depend
for tourism.
I am out of patience. It seems to me that a good first step
are the bills that are presented before us today. A far better
step would be a fundamental change in the attitude of the
Forest Service management from top to bottom and, failing that,
a change of the personnel from top to bottom. That will
obviously have to wait on a future election.
But I cannot begin to emphasize the enormous economic
damage that you have done to these communities. I cannot begin
to over-emphasize the damage that you have done to our Nation
by the policies that you have pursued.
I appreciate all of your assurances, once again, that you
are really trying very hard to change these policies. But after
4 years, I don't see it.
I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman yields back his time. I
recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Tidwell, I really
want to tell you thank you so very, very much, because you have
been one of the stewards all the way through, trying to help
out, mitigate issues of a bureaucracy that is pandemic in its
size. I just have to share that with you. You have been there
the whole way, and I want to applaud that.
A couple questions. Hopefully we can keep them short in our
answers, so we can get to a number of them. I am a science guy,
so I set standards and parameters. You know me. And we want to
set the bar and see where we have to strive for.
First of all, the authorization of the stewardship
contracting tool in my legislation is critical to the future
success of the 4FRI in Arizona, correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. So the Department is going to need this to
implement the later stage of that project. Is that not true?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. OK. In your testimony the Department expressed
concern about my language pertaining to cancellation cost of
the stewardship contracts. Former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl had
worked on this issue before he retired, and it is an issue I am
hearing a lot about from the industry, the stakeholders, and
even some of the Forest Service folks in the field. What can we
work together on to fix this problem? And kindly keep it brief.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your interest
in helping us with that issue, and it is one of the things we
continue to work on.
One of the things right now, we are required to be able to
set aside the cost of a cancellation if that is needed. And
like with the 10-year contract, we have to set up the full 10--
--
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. You understand this. So it is one of the
things that we need to work on to be able to find the
flexibility, so that this does not limit our ability to do the
stewardship contracting.
So, this is something--I would like to work with you on
some ideas about how we can maybe move forward to address this
issue.
Dr. Gosar. Sounds good. I would also like to touch briefly
on the alternative arrangements with the CEQ portion of my
bill. We have previously discussed these types of alternative
arrangements for a landscape-scale project like 4FRI, which was
the motivation for this section.
If the Secretary was given the authority to request a type
of alternative arrangement at his discretion, rather than
requiring it, do you think this would be helpful and be
utilized?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we currently have the authority to
request alternative arrangements. And in a couple of situations
we have over the years. But what I have also found, that even
when we do that and we are granted that, we still have to go
out and do the necessary surveys out on the land, do the
inventory before we go through with the project. And so, often
it doesn't really accelerate it.
I look at a situation that we had following Hurricane
Katrina a few years ago. In that region, they moved forward and
harvested an additional 300 million board feet, and did all
that work in, I think, in less than 12 months without 1 appeal,
1 piece of litigation, by using our current authorities. And
that was a situation we looked at. Well, is there a need for
these alternative arrangements?
So, that is the thing that--with alternative arrangements,
it is a good tool, and it is available for us under certain
situations, but it still doesn't eliminate the things that we
need to do to make sure that, as we move forward with the
project, that it is a good project.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I am going to pitch you, then, something
that may help us. We have been working with Embry-Riddle and
Prescott and the unmanned aerials. And we worked with infrared.
And I will tell you, it is staggering. Doing aerial photography
with an unmanned, you can actually, with infrared, tell if a
tree is dying. And it starts building the trust.
So, we can do vast amounts of acreage, decide on templates,
we can actually have environmental groups sitting there and
actually authorizing this. Some of the things that we have been
talking about in the past, where we have a discussion where we
need to thin maybe bigger timber, but have to have the sign-off
from all the parties. Here is something in real-time that can
happen that speeds up the delivery, it actually works, it is
scientifically based. And I would hope it would be something
you would work with us on and even come out to visit. It is
staggering.
Students actually did this. They did a command center. It
is pennies on the dollar from what we have done in the past. So
the opportunity is there. But we need to speed this up. So I
would hope that we could get that done.
The second part is--and you know the urgency. I mean I want
to reiterate real carefully the story of Springerville,
Arizona. When I came to Arizona 28 years ago, it was a vibrant
community. There were cattlemen, there were forests. I mean you
cannot tell me in the environmental community we did not take
care of that land. I mean it was vibrant. Today, a little over
a year-and-a-half after the largest forest fire in Arizona
history, we had yet to salvage one log, not one log here. It
has got to work. Something has got to change.
And you see the frustration here. And I know you are the
messenger. And I've got to tell you, everything that you did
over the last 2 years, I want to compliment you, because you
have done the lion's share. The problem is the pandemic of the
endemic problem of the bureaucracy in between. So I would hope
that you would listen, start utilizing some of this authority
if you have it, because this forest fire season is going to be
an emergency situation.
And you know what? Last, but not least, I said it in my
statements. Who won here? When you look at 20 percent of the
endangered Spotted Owl's habitat being lost in Arizona alone in
the world, who won?
And when we look at the schools, it is about time--I am
tired of it. I am tired of the Federal Government paying us
off. I want to sue saying, ``You know what? I get less than
one-half of the money for schools west of the Mississippi than
those in the East.'' I want to stand up for the schools and the
proper management of our forests.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the----
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to sit in on this important hearing. Chief, it
is good to see you. I enjoyed our relationship working
together. I certainly respect your leadership. Also thoroughly
respect, though, the issues and difficulties that you have. So
I have some specific questions I just want to get to.
One is you talked a lot about public input, and about how
that is driven. I have some concerns with the process. Maybe
you could help alleviate my concerns in terms of definition of
``public.'' My experience with the Allegheny National Forest,
we have folks who are ``part of the public input'' that live
from hundreds to thousands of miles away from the Allegheny
National Forest, and all they want to do is to shut it down.
And so, my question for you is pretty straight-forward. Do
you prioritize public feedback to honor the original agreements
when this land was taken out of the private sector and put into
the public sector as national forest, in the input? Is the
input of directly impacted local communities more heavily
weighted in the public input process?
Mr. Tidwell. Congressman, there is no weighting going on.
We don't prioritize----
Mr. Thompson. OK, good. Then why not? Because my
predecessors 87 years ago, 88 years ago, the Allegheny National
Forest--and I know it is puny compared to some of the ones you
have worked at, 517,000 acres compared to out West--but when
they sat at the table and there was a public trust of
confidence that the Members of Congress then, the local folks
working with--that the local communities would always be
vibrant and healthy, just as our forests will. Why do we not
more heavily weight?
Because what we are talking about here are the negative
consequences and impacts on these communities. And that is a
part of the original agreement. Why not? And how can we help
you with that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Congressman, these are national forests,
and everyone has----
Mr. Thompson. But those were taken out of local
communities. And there was a trust and a document and a
confidence with those local communities. OK.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I would like to stress, though, that
especially through these collaborative--I mean we get comments
from people throughout the country. But the comments that we
get from folks that are local, understand the situations, it is
usually a much more informed comment that actually helps us to
be able to move forward, versus a comment from somebody that
has never been to your forest.
So there is no priority setting, but it is more about what
is the comment that is actually----
Mr. Thompson. OK. Well, and let me move on to my next
question, but just saying that there needs to be a weighting of
priorities. That is a responsibility and a promise that we need
to fulfill.
I have to tell you, in my opinion, working in the Fifth
District, when it comes to public input, it is the radical
environmentalists who are nowhere close to living in the Fifth
District that lawyer up. It seems like at least they have more
influence in the process than the local folks.
Now, you noted that funding was a problem. And I understand
that. But then I am just baffled at this President's budget,
which is not just a 10 percent increase in land acquisition, it
is a 12 percent increase to the legacy fund, where we are
looking at a 15 percent in timber harvesting.
So my question is just pretty simple. Who had influence in
that decision, and who made that decision?
Mr. Tidwell. We submit our request, our budget, and it goes
into the Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. Thompson. So was that the request that you specifically
made to the----
Mr. Tidwell. I support the----
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. To the President?
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. President's request.
Mr. Thompson. I know you support it, but you just said that
you submit--and I appreciate that, because with your experience
they should be listening to you. I don't think they are. But I
have a lot of respect for you, Chief, starting as a fire
fighter, you understand this. You lived in many of these
communities. Who influenced that? Was it you? Was that a
specific input and recommendation that you made to the
President's budget?
Mr. Tidwell. I support the LWCF, by acquiring those lands
we can reduce our administrative costs.
And I wanted to point out that it is a $5 million increase.
At the same time, with our integrated resource restoration, we
had a much larger increase in our request in that fund to be
able to get more work done. So, I think we need to keep this in
balance.
Mr. Thompson. Well, Chief, I didn't manage forests for 30
years, but I did manage rehab and hospitals. And every time I
added an apartment it added overhead costs that were new costs
that were incurred. And when you are adding new land, it makes
it a challenge.
And I know I don't have time for my third question, but it
really had to do with do we have the capacity--I am going to
ask, anyway--do you have the capacity to be able to manage
these forests in a healthy way? You talked about 12 million
acres, so one simple question. The 12 million acres you are
going to be able to do. And in your own words, you don't think
you will have the resources, the ability to really address
that.
How much acreage, total, does the U.S. Forest Service
manage?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we manage 193 million acres in total.
And each year we have been doing close to 4 million acres of
restoration work. A lot of that is through the use of fire, but
also with mechanical treatment.
The key for us to be able to do more work is to continue to
find more efficiencies that we have been able to put in place
over the last few years, and at the same time to be able to
make this more economical.
The other thing that we have been working on is our green
building initiative. I mean in this country there is an
opportunity to be building commercial buildings that go way
beyond four stories with wood.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, U.S. Forest Labs are doing a great job
with that.
Mr. Tidwell. We have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. I will pass, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. We have two other Members. This issue
obviously has very, very broad interests, and we have two other
of our colleagues that are not members of this Committee that
have been waiting patiently, and I am going to allow them an
opportunity to participate. And the first one will be my
colleague from the State of Washington, Mrs. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be
brief, because I have a couple points to make. And I am--
actually, I sit on the Interior Appropriations Committee, which
is where we have met and will continue to meet. But this is of
extreme interest to me.
Just over a year ago, the Forest Service released a report
entitled, ``Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation
in our National Forests,'' in which the Agency committed to
increasing timber sales to 3 billion board feet. The
President's budget proposal, which you support and have called
``balanced'' now several times, reduces that number to 2.38
billion board feet. Isn't this a step backward? And is this
your idea of balance?
Mr. Tidwell. The projection in the timber harvest there is
based on the level of funding. Just like--and last year we
didn't have the level of funding to accomplish what we did.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am going to stop you on that one,
because we have had this conversation in Appropriations, where
you have asked for more funding for fire suppression, which I
support. I am with you on that. You are fighting enormous
fires.
But doesn't this beg the question that if--one of the
things about the Forest Service that is unique, and over the
past 20, 25 years, the Forest Service has supplemented its own
budget through timber sales, timber harvest. I guess I would
say that one of the areas, if you are talking about budget
constraints, harvesting board feet is one of the ways that you
bring money into the Forest Service. So why would this be the
area you cut back, especially when you have used that number in
this hearing? As other Members have brought this up to you, you
keep saying ``3 billion, 3 billion, 3 billion,'' when you know
yesterday the President cut that number down.
Mr. Tidwell. Those are based on our projections, based on
the current cost for us to put up a timber sale. But based on
what we have been able to do in the past, and as we move
forward with implementing more efficiencies, I am optimistic
that we will be able to exceed that.
The other thing that is factored into that is what happened
this year. We had a significant reduction in the funding that
was available for this year. The planning for next year's
timber sales are done this year. So there is going to be an
impact in 2014, based on this year's budget. So that also
factors that in.
That being said, we are committed to be able to continue to
move forward. But with a reduction, for instance, a reduction
in the funds for this year, there is an impact to that. Next
year I request--and 2014 is actually an increase----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I am aware of your budget
request.
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. In our integrated resource
restoration.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. You make those requests, and I believe
you will probably be coming back before the Appropriations
Committee to make those requests, and I will bring this point
up again then. When you harvest more timber, it is not just a
benefit to your budget, it is a benefit to the communities, as
we have heard here. But it is also a benefit to the
environment. That is the one thing that has been completely
absent in this conversation.
I don't know how often you have been out to Washington
State to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. But the Northern
Spotted Owl, for which we created a lot of these rules and
regulations, is actually declining under your current forest
policy. Three percent per year. And rather than going and
saying, ``Why, is there something scientifically we should do
to restore this ecosystem,'' we are doubling down on this
horrible forest policy.
So, I guess I would also like to ask you--and this is very
important to me--would you be willing to come out and tour some
pieces of the Gifford Pinchot in my district?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, I would like to do that.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. We will take you up on that.
And one final thing. I think it is really important. You
made the comment in response to a couple folks, you said, ``If
there are things not being accomplished, I want to focus on
that.'' You said, ``I don't want to feed the conflict.'' I
would strongly urge you to look at these pieces of legislation
and recognize us--the Members on both sides of the aisle are
tired of waiting. And it is not just your Administration, we
have had problems under every Administration. But you look over
the last 15, 20 years, we can't wait any more.
So, we have put these ideas on the table in good faith, and
we are going to move forward with them. I would actually urge
you, rather than sit down and say, ``the Administration
blanketly opposes these three pieces of legislation,'' I would
like you to find those things that you support within them and
sit down and say that first. And then perhaps as this
legislative process moves forward, we can find a place to work
together.
Because I, like everyone here, have rural communities that
are dying on the vine. And they are dying as they are watching
their resources die with them. And it is horrible. It is
something this generation of policy-makers, Congress, or the
agencies, we are going to carry that burden. And I hope it
keeps us up until we fix it.
So, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentlelady for her questions and
her input on this. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Griffith.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. This
has been very educational for me to sit in on this Committee,
and I do appreciate it. And I know you have to be getting
tired. It has been a long morning.
That being said, I do have some concerns a little bit
different than some of the others. I learned a lot about the
West today. I have concerns because I represent Southwest
Virginia and the Allegheny Highlands of that area. I represent
22 counties. I have 17 counties: Allegheny, Bland, Carroll,
Craig, Dickenson, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Pulaski,
Roanoke, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe,
that all have national forest lands in them and who are now
being requested to have money taken back from the SRS program.
And while we are not looking for a hand-out, I do think
there was a deal made. And I don't know about the western
lands, but certainly the eastern lands, there was a deal made
that they would share in the benefits of preserving our forest,
and that means that they have to have the ability to have some
reasonable timbering.
When I hear of industries in the area that say they can
find the wood products they need but they are going further and
further out, and that raises the cost of their product, which
then makes their product less competitive, not only in the
national market, but in the international market that raises
concerns for me.
I am also concerned about the schools in the area, because
some of my counties are very small in population. They might
have a lot of trees, but they don't have a lot of people. And
as a result of that, when you all ask, as a part of the cut-
backs that every agency is having to look at, that you take
that money out of the schools of a rural county with 4,000
people, that is a serious blow. And one of the letters that I
have signed on to has requested that you all give us some legal
authority for that. I hope you will respond to that at another
time.
But I do hope you recognize these are not just western
issues. A lot of these issues are also in the east. And it is
difficult. When you hear folks say--because my district also
has a section of it that has had its industry based on mining
of coal--and then you hear folks say, ``Well, you have to
transition to something else,'' well, we can't use our forests
and we can't use our minerals, what are we going to transition
to? And, as a result of those kinds of attitudes--and it is
mostly coal; I don't want to say it is the Forest Service--but
Dickenson County that I mentioned before, over the last 30
years, their school-age population has dropped by two-thirds.
We are depopulating in eight of my counties. This is not a good
thing. Our communities are suffering, and you all can help.
And then I would say that, in listening, I heard you say--
and I appreciate the comments of folks that I respect to say
that you are trying to solve the problems, and I do appreciate
that. But I also heard you say that you all were trying, and
that you were working with the communities and so forth. But a
lot of my folks, while they have some good people that they are
working with, there are a lot of roads being closed down that
they are used to hunting.
Remember I said there was this deal that was made
initially? Well, it may not be true for most of the country,
but my people remember, because their granddaddy took their
daddy who took them hunting on the lands that they now can't
get to because they are closing down roads.
Now, my folks aren't saying, ``Look, we don't recognize you
all have a money problem.'' But one of the things you may want
to look at is the fact that I have had people who have told me
they will be glad to go out and grade the road if you don't'
think it is graded right, or if you all don't think it is
proper. And I know you have some liability issues. They would
sign waivers. These are good, old-fashioned eastern mountain
people. They will get the job done. You give them the ability
to do it, they will go out there and make sure that road is
open for hunting, I guarantee it. So see if you can work on a
program for that to help us, as well.
And then I would have to say to you I am very, very
concerned that these communities that need the money from--
whether it is from the current program or the historic program
doesn't matter. But if we are going to have a county that is
maybe 50 or 60 percent national forest lands, we can't just say
``Hey, we are taking that money back that we gave you already
and we are not going to help you support your schools.''
So I hope you will keep all that in mind as you go forward.
And I appreciate the fact the Committee Chairman let me be here
today, and I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for participating, and
I thank him for his questions.
Chief Tidwell, maybe you didn't anticipate that you would
be here for an hour-and-a-half, but as you can see, there is a
great deal of interest in the subject at hand. And there is a
great deal of concern about how the Federal Government has
managed our national forests. That came out in spades.
And as I made an observation in my remarks, and other
Members made an observation in their remarks, particularly
those that were sponsors of the bill, the time for talk has
ended, the time for action is now.
And to pick up on what Ms. Herrera Beutler said, it would
be more advantageous and more beneficial to Americans that live
in these counties if we work together, rather than, obviously,
saying, ``We don't like this or that,'' stake in the ground,
that is it.
So, I hope that you would take that into consideration,
because we are going to move forward with legislation, and we
obviously want to do it with as much input as we possibly can,
because I, too, believe the time for action is here.
So, with that, Chief Tidwell, thank you for coming, and you
are excused from the panel. And while Chief Tidwell is leaving,
I will like to ask the next panel to come forward: Ray
Campbell, who is a commissioner in Okanogan County, Justin Wood
from the National Association of Home Builders, Scott Horngren
from the American Forest Resource Council, and Judy Morris from
Trinity County in California.
I want to, by way of introduction, introduce a colleague, a
constituent of mine, Commissioner Ray Campbell from Okanogan
County in Washington. A newly elected commissioner, he was
elected last November, but he is a long-time resident of the
Methow Valley part of Okanogan County, I know a lot of people
don't know where Okanogan County is, but it is the largest
county in Washington, and it is a very diverse county. So I
very much appreciate your being here.
For purposes of introduction, I want to yield to my
colleague from Washington, Mrs. Herrera Beutler, for the
purpose of introduction.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am
really pleased to be joined by someone from my home area. It is
my pleasure to introduce Justin Wood. Justin and his father-in-
law run a small home-building business in my neck of the woods,
just outside of Vancouver. And it is in the shadow of the
Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Southwest Washington, which
is where Chief Forester Tidwell just said he is going to come
out and tour. I am pretty excited.
Justin has been building homes for more than 13 years, and
through the tough times, which tells you they know what they
are doing. A lot of the folks who kind of popped up in that
time who we lost, Justin's family and his business was not one
of those. So he knows the industry, and is very familiar with
the challenges that are faced within the industry, and is the
Vice President of Fish Construction, and a national director of
the National Association of Homebuilders. He knows, as well as
anybody, the importance of our forests in the everyday life of
millions of Americans. I expect he will speak to us today a
little bit about housing and the important role it plays in our
recovery, and the need for access to these resources that we
have at our fingertips.
So, Mr. Wood, welcome, and thank you for making the long
trip across the country. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentlelady, and I want to
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman, who also
has a constituent that he would like to introduce. Mr. Huffman,
you are recognized.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and
the Ranking Member, for including a witness from Trinity
County, and for the courtesy of extending to me the opportunity
to introduce her.
Supervisor Judy Morris is with us today from Weaverville in
Trinity County. And there is no easy way to get here from
Trinity County. So I am especially grateful that she drove many
hours to get to an airport and then flew to various places
around our country, and eventually to Washington on very short
notice to join this panel.
She has represented District 2 on the Trinity County Board
of Supervisors since 2009. The Board of Supervisors is
important in Trinity County because they have no other local
government. They have no incorporated cities. So the county
supervisors really have a lot of important work to do.
Trinity is a rural, forested county that is mostly
comprised of Federally managed forests. Seventy-six percent of
the land is Federal, which means they rely on the relationship
with State and Federal land and resource management agencies in
very important ways.
She is also a small businesswoman, as well as a public
servant, so she understands that stewardship of our natural
resources is critical for local communities. And, as she will
tell you, the future of Trinity County and places like it
depends on our responsible and sustainable management of these
lands. At a time when I think we hear too much pitting of the
environment versus the economy, Supervisor Morris is going to
talk about collaboration and about a success story, which I
believe can be a model to guide our deliberations on these
issues.
Weaverville is home to the Weaverville Community Forest, a
13,000-acre territory managed by the U.S. Forest Service and
BLM for which Supervisor Morris herself has really been a
champion. The Community Forest is showing how the responsible
use of our natural resources can be good for the environment,
the economy, and local communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman. And, Mr. Horngren, I
feel very badly nobody is making an introduction of you in such
a way. But rest assured the quality of your testimony will not
be diminished by a lack of special----
Mr. Horngren. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. For those of you that are here for the first
time, first of all, your full statement will be made part of
the record. I would ask that you keep your oral remarks within
the 5 minutes, and you have the timing lights in front of you,
5 minutes. The first 4 minutes is the green light, and you are
doing very well. When the yellow light comes on, it means that
you have 1 minute left, and try to wrap up as much as you can.
Or, as my colleague, Mr. Bishop says, get through the red
light--or the traffic light as quickly as you can before the
red light comes on.
So, that is kind of the ground rules. And with that, Mr.
Campbell, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAY CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER,
OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and members of
the Committee.
Mr. Hastings. Move the microphone closer to you.
Mr. Campbell. My name is Ray Campbell. I am County
Commissioner from Okanogan County, Washington, part of the
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Our county alone has 1.9
million acres of U.S. forest land. I am grateful for this
opportunity to share my views on behalf of the national forest
counties.
Each of the bills before the Committee today are
significant for my county in Washington State. They
fundamentally address the failures of the U.S. Forest Service
to actively manage our national forests, and they offer real
hope to our historic timber-based communities for the first
time in a generation.
The Hastings draft, upon which I will focus, specifically
proposes to put in place an emphasis on healthy forest
management by requiring the timber to be cut in a time certain
within identified areas of each national forest, where
sustained growth is the most prolific. If enacted, the Hastings
Active Management Forest bill will ensure continuation of our
Secure Rural Schools payments until the new reforms are fully
implemented, and our rural communities once again receive
access to economic opportunity.
I grew up in Okanogan County in an era when the U.S. Forest
Service was allowed to manage their national forests in a
productive, economically, and environmentally sound manner at
which time the revenues generated from the harvesting of their
renewable natural resources fully paid for the management of
the forests, along with providing the funding, as they were
required to, to the States and on down to the counties, which
helped in the survival of our local communities here.
The harvesting provided a secure industry for our counties
at that time, along with the solid, high-paying jobs there. The
mill that is operating in our county right now is the only one
there. It is in the upper end of Okanogan County. By the way,
Okanogan County is the largest county in the State of
Washington. We are a northern tier county, we border Canada.
There are four northern tier counties east of the Cascade
Mountains. We are all timber-producing counties, encumbered--
now I call it encumbered by national forests there.
At one time we had seven saw mills in the State of
Washington, excuse me, in Okanogan County, and several small
operations, and a variety of logging companies harvesting
timber for mills and other employment created by lumber
distribution wholesale and resale business. It is safe to say
that the past timber-related jobs in Okanogan County numbered
into the thousands.
I would like to ask members of the Committee to recognize
that this proposed fundamental paradigm shift to restore the
health in the economy of our national forests is modeled after
a very successful State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources management plan. The lands owned by the people of the
United States still hold the potential of generating revenue
far beyond their current levels, and are capable of reducing
the tax burden of all of our citizens, if they are but managed
properly. This draft bill will help bring that about. There is
no issue more important to our country's public land counties
than this one.
In closing, I want to emphasize again the successful track
record of the accomplishments achieved by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, in contrast with the abysmal
record of the Federal Government there. The DNR has
administrated responsibility for over 2.1 million acres of
trust land, and provides for a fiscally responsible continued
yield program of sustainable tree harvest.
In 2011, State trust lands yielded a harvest of 560 million
board feet of timber, which generated $220 million in revenue.
By contrast, national forest lands in Washington yielded 129
million board feet, generating a revenue of only $638,000 on
9.3 million acres. Incredibly, the State produces 500 percent
more actual timber revenue on less than one-quarter of the land
base held by the U.S. Forest Service.
Thank you for this opportunity to support the community's
effort on behalf of our national forest counties. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ray Campbell, Okanogan County
Commissioner, Okanogan County, Washington
Good Morning, Chairman Hastings, Subcommittee Chairman Bishop,
Ranking members Markey and Grijalva and members of the committee.
My name is Ray Campbell. I am a County Commissioner from Okanogan
County, Washington, home of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Our
county alone has 1.5 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land.
I am grateful to Congressman Hastings for this opportunity to share
my views on behalf of National Forest counties.
Each of the bills before the Committee today are significant for my
county and for Washington state because they fundamentally address the
failures of the U.S. Forest Service to actively manage our National
Forests, and offer real hope to our historic timber-based communities
for the first time in a generation.
The Hastings draft, upon which I will focus, specifically proposes
to put in place an emphasis on healthy forest management by requiring
timber to be cut in a time certain within identified areas of each
National Forest where sustained timber growth is the most prolific. If
enacted, the Hastings Active Forest management bill will assure
continuation of our Secure Rural Schools payments until the new reforms
are fully implemented and our rural communities once again receive
access to economic opportunities.
I would ask members of the Committee to recognize that this
proposed fundamental paradigm shift to restore the health and economic
vitality of our National Forests is modeled after the very successful
state of Washington DNR approach to forest management.
The lands owned by the people of the United States hold the
potential of generating revenues far beyond their current levels and
are capable of reducing the tax burdens of all of our citizens, if they
are but managed properly which this draft bill will help bring about.
There is NO issue more important to our countries' public lands
counties than this one.
Let me briefly, in the time allotted, express why along with a few
recommendations:
1) The Status Quo is unacceptable; the current trend of
increased spending on fire suppression and less spending on
management needs to be reversed. 74% of USFS holdings are in
serious fire danger. We need to make the commitment to change
the management paradigm. If we actively manage the land, the
value of the resources will create the revenue to do the job.
This will also create revenue for the federal treasury, state &
local economies.
2) National Forests are too dense resulting in unhealthy
trees, which are susceptible to fire, insect infestation and
disease. This threatens communities, fish & wildlife habitat,
recreational opportunities, water quality and quantity & air
quality.
3) Healthy Forest management will result in our U.S. Forest
Service managed lands becoming a beneficial and integral part
of our rural economies.
4) Fire damaged landscapes need to be restored. Catastrophic
fires emit 40-100 metric tons of pollutants per acre. If left
to rot after the fire, emissions are 3 times that amount.
5) We can actively manage our forests or continue to leave
them alone. The last 20-30 years has demonstrated leaving them
alone is not working.
6) This conflict has been going on too long. We need to set
aside conflict and take this opportunity to restore the health
of our rural communities and national forests.
7) States, like Washington state, have fiduciary
responsibilities to their taxpayers to not only protect the
environmental values of state forests but through wise
stewardship to generate revenues for the benefit of the schools
of the state. It is time the federal government, likewise
managed the American taxpayer's land accordingly. I am not
saying we need to cut 14 billion board feet (bbft) nationally
as we did twenty plus years ago, but last year's 2 (bbft) is
woefully low. Surely, there is an achievable middle ground.
8) Americans, living in the rural timber counties of the
western states, have come to know that lands owned by the
federal government are capable of producing far more revenue to
reduce their tax burden from the timber resources on the land
than is currently the case. The fact that private and state
foresters can conduct timber sales at far less cost than the
U.S. Forest Service is no excuse for the professional bean
counters at Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the
Congressional Budget office (CBO) to assume that
environmentally sound forest management cannot similarly be
efficiently accomplished on National Forests. We may simply
have to retrain Forest Service employees how to efficiently
conduct a sale or absent that, have others with proven track
records of efficiency do the job.
9) Buried within the SRS reauthorization signed into law on
October 3, 2008 was language which changed the historic statute
(U.S.C. 500) how 25% revenues are shared with counties.
Specifically the Act changed annual 25% revenue sharing
requirements to the annual average of 25 percent of all amounts
received for the applicable fiscal year and each of the
preceding 6 fiscal years from each national forest. Section
403(b)(1-2) of PL 110-343 should be repealed to ensure
increased revenues from future production on NFS lands provide
immediate benefit to local governments. Counties nationwide
recommend the following language be added to any bill reported
out of this Committee:
Excerpt from Section 403(b)(1-2) of PL 110-343
(b) FOREST RECEIPT PAYMENTS TO ELIGIBLE STATES AND
COUNTIES.--
(1) ACT OF MAY 23, 1908.--The sixth
paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE''
in the Act of May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) is
amended in the first sentence by striking
``twenty-five percentum'' and all that follows
through ``shallbe paid'' and inserting the
following: ``an amount equal to the annual
average of 25 percent of all amounts received
for the applicable fiscal year and each of the
preceding 6 fiscal years from each national
forest shall be paid''.
(2) WEEKS LAW.--Section 13 of the Act of
March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the ``Weeks
Law'') (16 U.S.C. 500) is amended in the first
sentence by striking ``twenty-five percentum''
and all that follows through ``shall be paid''
and inserting the following: ``an amount equal
to the annual average of 25 percent of all
amounts received for the applicable fiscal year
and each of the preceding 6 fiscal years from
each national forest shall be paid''
10) Counties surrounded by National Forests long for this
paradigm shift and are ready to embrace it, but they must have
bridge funding through continued SRS payments at 2008 levels,
not at ever declining levels, until such time as the National
Forests are once again, positively open for active forest
management. The Hastings bill and each of the other bills
before us today, move us in that direction.
Before closing, I want to emphasize again, the successful track
record of accomplishment achieved by the State of Washington's
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and contrast it with the abysmal
record of the federal government.
DNR has administrative responsibility over 2.1 million acres of
land trusts and provides for a fiscally responsible continued yield
program of sustainable tree harvests.
In 2011, state trust lands yielded a harvest of 560 million board
feet (MMBF) of timber, which generated $220 million in revenue. By
contrast, National Forest lands in Washington state yielded 129 million
board feet (MMBF) generating revenue of only $638 thousand on 9.3
million Acres or one fifth of what the state produced on a quarter of
the land base.
Incredibly, the state produces 500% more actual timber revenue on
less than one quarter of the land base of that held by the U.S. Forest
Service.
This comparison is even more striking when you look at the relative
dollars generated per board foot; that is $308 per MBF on state land
vs. $5.00 per MBF on Forest Service Land.
Most telling of all: The entire U.S. National Forest system
consists of 193,000,000 acres and in 2011 produced a paltry
$180,000,000 of revenue for taxpayers. This is less that $1 per acre of
revenue to the Federal Treasury--when potentially these forests across
America could produce thousands of dollars per acre for taxpayers.
Thank you for this opportunity to support this Committee's efforts
on behalf of the nation's National Forest counties.
______
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Commissioner Campbell.
Mr. Wood, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN WOOD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME
BUILDERS, FISH CONSTRUCTION, NW, INC.
Mr. Wood. Chairman Hastings, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking
Member Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Environmental Regulation, thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today. And thank you,
Congresswomen, Herrera Beutler, for your kind introduction. My
name is Justin Wood, and I am Vice President of Construction
for Fish Construction, Northwest, based in Portland, Oregon.
Fish Construction is one of the more than 140,000 members
of the National Association of Home Builders. Today I will
direct my testimony to the relationship between Federal forest
management policies and affordable housing.
NAHB research shows lumber and wood products account for 15
percent of the cost of construction for a single-family house.
From framing lumber to hardwood floors and kitchen cabinets, to
windows, closets, and patios, lumber is a critical component to
the residential construction industry.
At Fish Construction, my father-in-law and I build
approximately 15 to 25 homes per year, of which over half of
our homes are sold to families making less than the median
family income. In my career, lumber has always been one of most
volatile-priced products. We see wide swings over a short
period of time, which has a direct effect on the affordability
of our houses. For small home builders like Fish Construction,
price volatility can have a dramatic impact on our business,
and lead to fewer homes constructed.
The prices of lumber have soared, as the housing recovery
has gained momentum in 2012. For example, prices of oriented
strand board, an engineered wood product, are up 92 percent.
The price of OSB composite was $238 last April. This year it is
$483. Framing lumber is also seeing price increases upwards of
28 percent.
The rising cost of materials drives up the cost of
construction, which, in turn, drives up the price of a new
home. The impact is of particular concern in the affordable
housing sector, where relatively small price increases can have
an immediate impact on low to moderate-income home buyers. NAHB
research shows that, for every $1,000 price increase of a
median-priced new home, over 232,000 families can no longer
afford that home.
Global demand for lumber has also grown, especially in
China. And U.S. exports have doubled in the last 5 years. As
the housing industry continues to recover, there will be
additional upward pressure on prices, unless additional supply
can be brought into the market.
Federal forests supply a mere 2 percent of the wood used by
the forest products industry, and it is important for Congress
to take a deep look at what barriers the Administration is
facing in pursuit of increased harvesting on our Federal lands.
I grew up in Battle Ground, Washington, which is a small,
rural, suburban town outside of Vancouver, near the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest. My parents' home is in the forest
foothills of the Cascade Mountains, just a few miles from the
national forest. One observation I can share is that my family
and neighbors do a good job of following county recommendations
in trying to keep their canopy of trees and undergrowth as
clean as possible from dead and diseased undergrowth to help
reduce the risk of fire.
Living where they do, there has always been a real concern
that fires can destroy their neighborhood. The nearby Federal
forest land is not managed, however, and it is very thick and
overgrown with a lot of dead and decayed growth under the
canopy. For people back east who do not understand, our Douglas
Fir forests are very thick and very little sunlight reaches the
ground. The undergrowth tends to get very dry in the summer,
and can become fuel for forest fires. It is confusing to
residents of the area that we follow these county
recommendations, while the policies are not followed in the
Federal forests just a few miles away.
I commend the Committee for holding this hearing today to
find out what barriers need to be addressed in order for the
Administration to start actively managing these forests.
Congress must take a deep look at these issues and
determine what actions can be taken in an environmentally
friendly way. Specifically, NAHB strongly supports Chairman
Hastings' Restoring Healthy Forest for Healthy Communities Act,
which requires the National Forest Service to actively manage
its commercial timber lands and increase production of timber
products into our market. Residential construction has finally
turned the corner, and is contributing to, rather than
subtracting from, gross domestic product growth, and the
improving labor market. Any efforts to ease escalating price
pressures, help rebuild the supply chain, and support a
continuing housing recovery is smart economic policy.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before you
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
Statement of Justin Wood, Vice President, Fish Construction NW, Inc.,
on Behalf of the National Association of Home Builders, on H.R. __
(Hastings), ``Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act''
Introduction
On behalf of the more than 140,000 members of the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Justin Wood, and I am the Vice President of
Construction for Fish Construction NW, Inc. in Portland, Oregon.
NAHB represents builders and developers who construct housing
ranging from single-family for-sale homes to affordable rental
apartments and remodelers. Lumber is a critical component to the
residential construction industry, and today, I will direct my
testimony to the correlation between federal forest management policies
and affordable housing.
Few industries have struggled more during the Great Recession than
the home building industry. The decline in home construction has been
historic and unprecedented. Single-family housing production peaked in
early 2006 at an annual rate of 1.8 million homes, but construction
fell to 353,000 per year in early 2009, an 80% decline in activity. A
normal year driven by underlying demographics should see 1.4 million
single-family homes produced. If home building were operating at a
normal level, there would be millions of more jobs in home building and
related trades.
The improvement in housing markets over the last year has been a
welcome change for the economy. Improvements in home prices and
building are widespread, with the NAHB/First American Improving Markets
Index now standing at a count of 273 of 361 metropolitan statistical
areas. NAHB expects new home sales to average 452,000 for 2013 as more
consumers regain the confidence to purchase a home.
Construction activities have positive impacts by creating ongoing
beneficial impacts in communities as new home purchasers pay taxes and
buy goods and services in the community. For example, NAHB estimates
the first-year economic impacts of building 100 typical single family
homes include $23.1 million in wage and net business income, $8.9
million in federal, state and local taxes, and 305 jobs.
Residential construction has finally turned the corner and is
contributing to, rather than subtracting from, Gross Domestic Product
growth and an improving labor market. Any efforts to ease escalating
price pressures, help rebuild the supply chain, and support a
continuing housing recovery is smart economic policy. For these
reasons, NAHB fully supports multi-use forest management practices for
national forests and an increase in the supply of federal timber
products. Specifically, NAHB strongly supports Chairman Hastings'
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which requires
the U.S. Forest Service to actively manage its commercial timber lands
and increase production of timber products into the market.
The Lumber Market and the Housing Industry
At Fish Construction NW, Inc., my father-in-law and I build
approximately fifteen to twenty-five homes per year. In my career,
lumber has always been one of our most volatile-priced products. We can
see wide price swings over a short period of time, which has a direct
effect on the affordability of our houses.
NAHB research shows lumber and wood products account for 15% of the
cost of construction for a single family house. The prices of these
materials have soared as the housing recovery has gained momentum in
2012. For example, prices of oriented strand board, an engineered wood
product, are up 92 percent. Framing lumber is also seeing price
increases upwards of 28 percent.
The rising cost of inputs drives up the cost of construction, which
in turn, drives up the price of a new home. The impact is of particular
concern in the affordable housing sector where relatively small price
increases can have an immediate impact on low to moderate income home
buyers who are more susceptible to being priced out of the market. A
2012 priced-out analysis done by NAHB illustrates the number of
households priced out of the market for a median priced new home due to
a $1,000 price increase. Nationally, this price difference means that
when a median new home price increases from $225,000 to $226,000,
232,447 households can no longer afford that home.
Home builders are generally small business entrepreneurs. 82
percent of home builders build fewer than 25 homes a year, and 60
percent of NAHB's members build fewer than ten homes a year. Many of
these small-volume builders and subcontractors do not have the capital
to withstand price volatility in the market, and consequently,
increases in building material costs lead to fewer homes constructed.
Global demand for lumber has also grown, especially in China, and
U.S. exports have doubled in the last five years. Consequently, there
will be additional upward pressure on prices as the housing industry
recovers unless additional supply can be brought into the market.
According to the American Forest & Paper Association, one-third of
the United States, or approximately 751 million acres of land, is
forested. Privately owned forests supply 91 percent of the wood
harvested in the United States, and U.S. State and tribal forests
supply another 6 percent. Federal forests supply a mere 2 percent of
the wood used by the forest products industry.
In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act, which was created to provide transition
payments to counties while Congress worked to increase timber
production. Despite the law's passage, the federal government has
failed to implement active forest management plans, and consequently,
the federal timber lands have not been managed properly, nor has there
been an increase in harvesting on federal lands.
I live in Vancouver, Washington, which is approximately 10 miles
from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. In our wooded rural
neighborhood, the county encourages land owners to remove dead and
diseased trees, including dead undergrowth, to reduce the risk of
forest fires. It is perplexing to the occupants of the area that we
follow these recommendations, while the policies are not implemented in
the federal forest just a few miles away.
I commend Chairman Hastings for holding this hearing today and
taking steps to discover what barriers the Administration is facing in
its pursuit of active forest management plans. It is important for
Congress to take a deep look at these issues and determine what actions
can be taken in an environmentally-friendly way.
NAHB strongly supports Chairman Hastings' Restoring Healthy Forests
for Healthy Communities Act, which encourages increased production on
the federal timber lands, and at the same time, remains mindful of
important environmental considerations. This legislation will go a long
way toward helping rebuild the supply chain and reviving local mills
and timber companies, while also ensuring the continued recovery of the
housing industry.
______
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Wood, for your
testimony.
And Mr. Horngren, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT HORNGREN, STAFF ATTORNEY,
AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL
Mr. Horngren. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Committee. I am Scott Horngren, Staff Attorney and Forester
for American Forest Resource Council, and I am also testifying
this afternoon on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource
Coalition. Collectively, the organizations provide over 350,000
jobs and $19 billion in payroll in 27 States.
We strongly support the Hastings draft's creation of a
clear mandate to generate revenue for counties through active
management on a distinctly identified land base of commercial
forest land. We think this is a long-overdue, desperately
needed common-sense approach to be applied to a segment of the
public lands. After all, Congress and the President have taken
millions of acres of public lands and dedicated them to
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, national monuments,
national parks, and national recreation areas. These areas have
a clearly defined purpose and are mapped so that everyone
understands the management that should or should not occur on
these acres.
Identifying lands with a clear mandate to generate revenue
through active management would accomplish at least three
objectives. First, it would create jobs and provide a source of
revenue for the counties. Second, it would create some
certainty to provide a timber supply to maintain and recruit
infrastructure vital to performing the forest restoration that
we have been talking about today. Third, it would help reduce
excessive fuel loads and create forest diversity for wildlife.
I would like to particularly address the need for a certain
and steady supply of timber and forest revenue to help mills
plan investments and counties prepare dependable budgets. Any
legislation must address both the analytical burden that
represents about 70 percent of the cost of projects, and the
never-ending onslaught of litigation.
Among the various bills the Committee is considering, first
do no harm. Some of the proposed legislation in the House and
the Senate I have reviewed over the last year imposes new
layers of analysis or requirements that will actually increase
the cost and time needed to prepare projects, and provide new
grounds for litigation. The Hastings draft avoids this problem.
Second, legislation needs to recognize that the world has
changed since laws like the National Environmental Policy Act
and Endangered Species Act were enacted in the late 1960s and
1970s. We are over 40 years removed from the enactment of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We now live in an
information age of rapidly changing knowledge, and it makes
zero sense to cling to the old paradigm of taking 2 or more
years to prepare an EIS for a project where the analysis is
obsolete the day the Record of Decision is signed.
Environmental analysis cannot be a Ph.D. dissertation, and the
bill includes some common-sense provisions, like a page limit
and a limit on alternatives, that recognize this. The bill
needs to go further to provide that once a project is approved
it doesn't need to be halted as it is being implemented every
time a new report or a study is issued.
Third, adopting modern-day efficiencies in response to 40
years of agency experience in implementing these laws is a
necessary and perfectly reasonable step. For example, the bill
allows the Forest Service to assess whether a project could
jeopardize a species, have the Secretary of the Interior and
Commerce review that assessment, and, only if they disagreed
with the Forest Service assessment of jeopardy, would formal
consultation be necessary.
Finally, legislation should require that plaintiffs who
challenge agency projects put some skin in the game. The bill
doesn't preclude judicial review of forest-reserved projects.
In our view, the bill could go further to impose some common-
sense limits on lawsuits, such as allowing full judicial review
of the forest plans, but limiting challenges to a project that
implements a forest plan to the issue of whether the project
complies with the plan. But the bill takes a big step in the
right direction by requiring a plaintiff to post a bond,
allowing the Secretary to recover the reasonable costs and
attorney's fees incurred to defend a case if the plaintiff
loses.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horngren follows:]
Statement of Scott Horngren, Staff Attorney, American Forest Resource
Council, on the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act
and Other Federal Forest Reform Legislation
Good morning Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Grijalva,
Congressman DeFazio and members of the Subcommittee. For the record my
name is Scott Horngren and I am the Staff Attorney for the American
Forest Resource Council (AFRC). AFRC is based in Portland, Oregon and
represents nearly 60 forest products manufacturers in the states of
Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Montana. Many of these
companies depend heavily on the sale of timber from Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management forests for their survival. I am also here
today speaking on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition
(FFRC), a national coalition of forest products companies that rely on
federal timber and collectively provide over 350,000 jobs and $19
billion in payroll in 27 states.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee in
support of legislation to promote active, sustainable forest management
and restore the health of our federal forests and rural communities.
While my testimony is primarily focused on Chairman Hastings'
``Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act'', there are
other concepts within the legislation before the Committee today that
are also worthy of mention and support.
I come before you as a forester and attorney with over 25 years of
legal experience defending forest management projects from litigation
across the West. I have represented industry, county governments, and
other municipalities as they have been forced to intervene to help
defend federal forest management projects from frequent environmental
lawsuits. While I've been pleased to represent my clients in a number
of landmark legal victories, I'm afraid the legal and administrative
hurdles to implementing common sense forest management projects have
become insurmountable in many parts of the country. The resulting
paralysis threatens the future of our federal forests and our rural,
forested communities.
The Health of our Federal Forests Continues to Decline
It has been a decade since the passage of the bi-partisan Healthy
Forests Restoration Act (HFRA). While the Act has yielded modest on the
ground successes, I think we'd all concede that we haven't reversed the
alarming forest health trends threatening our federal forests. In fact,
the numbers tell us we are heading in the wrong direction. The sad
reality is that 2013 was the sixth year since the passage of HFRA that
we burned over 8 million acres (9.3 million acres were burned last
year). Meanwhile, last year the federal government spent over $1.9
billion in direct fire suppression costs, with the Forest Service alone
spending $1.4 billion. This doesn't even account for other wildfire
related spending, including preparedness, and rehabilitation and
restoration of damaged lands.
At least 73 million acres of the National Forest System are at a
moderate or severe risk of catastrophic wildfire and the threat is
growing. Entire forests are being lost to insect infestations and
catastrophic wildfire. The Northern Spotted Owl recovery plan reports
that the primary source of habitat loss for that species is
catastrophic wildfire. It is hardly surprising, however, as annual
forest growth has far exceeded removals (harvest) for many years now.
The reality is that there is a direct correlation between the severe
reduction in the Forest Service timber sale program over the past 20
years and the ever-increasing acreage toll and fiscal cost of wildfire.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.011
.epsFortunately, I believe we can take action to reverse these
trends, but we must act now to make necessary reforms. Many regions
have lost the milling and logging infrastructure needed to restore the
health of our federal forests. Other regions are on the brink of losing
what remains of their forest products industry infrastructure.
Ultimately these forests will only be restored if we provide certainty
to the Forest Service, communities and private industry that these
projects will be implemented. HFRA simply didn't go far enough to
provide this level of certainty, which is essential to attracting
investments in industry infrastructure and saving jobs in the woods.
Responsible, sustainable forest management can restore the health of
our forests and help enhance all the benefits we enjoy, including clean
water, wildlife habitat, clean air, and recreation.
Our Rural, Forested Communities Continue to Suffer
Since the early 1990's and the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl
county governments and schools in the Pacific Northwest have been
receiving subsidized federal payments to replace timber revenue sharing
payments. The program was taken nationwide with the passage of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(SRS). However, these payments only partially masked the illness
affecting many rural, forested communities with large swaths of federal
forest land. The illness ultimately stems from a lack of private sector
employment, not a lack of local government services, as important as
those services might be. In my home state of Oregon, unemployment rates
in these communities ranges from 10-13%, while the unemployment rate in
the Portland metro area stands at 7.5%. These stubbornly high levels of
unemployment result in all the predictable social ills, including
substance abuse, domestic violence, poverty, and hunger. The same
stories can be told in rural, forested communities across the country.
As you well know, national SRS payment levels have been reduced by
40% between 2008 and 2012. The cuts have been more acute in states
where timber revenues used to be the highest. For example, counties in
Washington State have seen payments decline by 53% since 2008. Many
politicians have spent the better part of two decades championing these
empty, dwindling federal payments as proof of their ``commitment'' to
the communities surrounded by our federal forests. These handouts fall
far short of the contract that was made to neighboring communities when
the federal forest reserves were established. Gifford Pinchot, who
often articulated the responsibility the Forest Service had to
neighboring communities, would be embarrassed by what is now taking
place in our National Forests and in these rural, forested communities.
Now that these payments have again expired we have a chance to develop
real solutions to meet the needs of our rural communities.
As this Committee has explored in past hearings a number of states
rely on sustainable timber management to generate substantial revenue
for schools and other trust beneficiaries. The price received for state
timber greatly exceeds the price received by the Forest Service because
the states often have a clearer mandate for active forest management
and their planning and project implementation costs are significantly
lower. The Washington Department of Natural Resources is the best
example and has consistently produced over $125 million for
beneficiaries annually while still providing habitat for listed
species, clean water, and recreational opportunities. The DNR's level
of return is over ten times the return from the national forests in
Washington which have millions of more productive forest acres that
currently receive little management. There is no reason a modest
portion of the National Forests couldn't be managed to yield similar
results since there is often no fundamental difference between the
actual forests being managed.
Our domestic forest products industry is well positioned to help
improve the health of our federal forests, create tens of thousands of
new family wage jobs, and generate critical revenue for counties and
the U.S. Treasury if current constraints on log supplies are relieved.
The greatest constraint on most mills in the West is the lack of timber
being offered by the Forest Service, which in many areas is the
dominant land owner. Mills in these areas are often operating at 40-60%
of capacity due to a lack of log supply, which puts them at a
competitive disadvantage. Many mills would put on new shifts if they
could secure additional supplies of logs. Many AFRC member companies
currently struggle to survive by sourcing their raw materials from a
250 mile working circle while they watch their neighboring national
forests die and burn due to a lack of management. It shouldn't be this
way.
Meanwhile, lumber prices are currently over $400/thousand board
feet and nearly double the prices experienced in 2009. Experts are
projecting that the lumber market will only get hotter as housing
starts are expected to see significant increases between now and 2017.
Those same experts predict that this demand will outstrip North
American supply by 2015, which would result in increased lumber imports
from Europe unless we increase domestic production. It is hard to
believe that we would watch as our federal forests burn, our rural
communities wither away and lumber is imported from overseas when we
have the opportunity to meet the needs of all through active,
sustainable forest management.
I respectfully offer the following recommendations for your
consideration. Many of them are reflected in the legislation before the
Committee today.
1. Designate an adequate and appropriate land base with a clear
objective and mandate for active, sustainable timber
management.
Managing a portion of the National Forests with a clear mandate to
generate revenue for counties and jobs for local communities will help
fulfill the promise that was made to our rural communities over a
hundred years ago. It would also create more certainty in regards to
timber supply, which is critical to maintaining and recruiting the
forest products industry infrastructure needed to perform the
restoration work required on the rest of the forest. Active forest
management will also help reduce fuel loading, create strategic fuel
breaks and create more diversity of wildlife habitat.
It is critically important that these areas be clearly identified
and mapped so that the Forest Service, local communities, potential
litigants and the courts understand that they are distinct and have a
specific purpose. In many cases these areas will have existing roads
and will have been harvested in the past. It makes good economic and
ecological sense to focus ongoing, active timber management in these
areas. I also believe that many other uses of the forest, including
outdoor recreation and hunting, will continue to be enjoyed in these
areas and would likely see improved access and opportunity.
2. Provide additional certainty to county governments, local
communities and industry by making modest legislative reforms
to address the analysis and legal paralysis crippling the
management of our federal forests.
The legal and administrative hurdles to implementing sustainable
timber management grow each and every year. It has become so
complicated that 60-70% of the Forest Service's forest management
budget is being spent on never ending analysis (i.e., paperwork) with
little chance of mastering the legal gotcha game played by many
litigants. Unless we reduce the amount of money the agency spends on
analysis and process we will never restore the health of our federal
forests or meet the needs of local communities. With the budget
pressures currently facing the entire federal government, including the
Forest Service, it is critical to creatively leverage the environmental
analysis budget to go further.
The Congress can and should make modest reforms to how these
requirements are being implemented. In previous hearings this Committee
has identified many areas where our federal environmental laws, all
well-intentioned, are working and where they aren't. Despite the
inevitable sky is falling claims to the contrary, it is incumbent on
legislators and a natural progression of the legislative process that
the implementation of laws will be adjusted and tweaked when, in time,
their interpretation or everyday use become skewed. Such is the case
with the current interpretations, abuses of litigation, and needless
delays around the implementation of forest management projects under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).
We can reform the most frequently abused gotcha games focused
purely on process without weakening the substantive legal requirements
for projects. This is accomplished in the legislation through the
establishment of reasonable limits on the amount of analysis required
to implement a project in a Forest Reserve Revenue Area. It also makes
good sense to place reasonable time limits on agency consultations that
can frequently stymie projects for years for no good reason. Finally,
action should be taken to level the legal playing field for these
projects by requiring litigants to post a bond equal to the taxpayer's
cost of defending the project in court.
The reforms included in the legislation are critical to provide
additional certainty to local communities that forest management
projects will actually be implemented while also maintaining our
commitment to environmental analysis and species protection. Sound
projects in designated areas should not be subject to years of
planning, appeals and endless litigation over even the smallest of
points.
3. Identify and accelerate forest restoration treatments in critical
areas where insects, disease, and hazardous fuel accumulation
threaten entire forests and ecosystems.
In forest stands outside of those areas designated for active,
sustainable timber management, a narrower set of new authorities should
be provided to the Forest Service to reduce the costs of implementing
forest restoration projects. H.R. 818 seeks to do this by expanding the
use of HFRA authorities beyond their current limited geographic scope.
The House version of the Farm Bill last year also included a
Categorical Exclusion for forests experiencing severe and emerging
forest health challenges. As the health of our forests continues to
decline it is clear we must take meaningful steps to increase the pace
of forest health treatments.
4. Explore alternative approaches for managing some federal forests,
including through the application of trust mechanisms and state
forest management.
This Committee has clearly shown that state natural resource and
forestry agencies are capably managing state forest lands for the
multitude of benefits we've come to expect from our public forests.
This experience can be brought to bear to help restore the health of
our national forests, whether that is through a trust proposal similar
to that found in H.R. 1294 or an expanded Good Neighbor Authority in
other areas.
The DeFazio-Walden-Schrader proposal for Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) O&C forests in western Oregon also deserves your strong support.
The Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands have a unique history
having once been in private hands before being brought back under
federal ownership. The O&C Act of 1937 directs that the over 2 million
acres of these largely checkerboard forests be managed with timber
production as the dominant use. This dominant use mandate was intended
to provide revenue to local counties and raw materials to local
industries through sustained yield timber management.
Despite this very clear legislative mandate and the fact that these
forests grow over 1.5 billion board feet of timber each year, timber
harvests on these forests have ground to a near halt. Actual timber
harvest levels on these lands have fallen from approximately 1.1
billion board feet to less than 150 million board feet annually today.
Administrative protests, litigation, and agency inaction have
contributed to these severe reductions, which threaten county
governments with bankruptcy and many of the remaining mills with
permanent closure. Meanwhile, Secure Rural School payments to the O&C
Counties, which are unique in that they help fund general government
operations, have fallen from over $115 million in 2007 to roughly $36
million in 2012. Prisoners are being released from county jails early
due to budget cuts. Sheriff patrols have been cut to the point that law
enforcement is non-existent in many areas. Desperation is setting in.
The O&C legislation would put 1.5 million acres of the O&C lands
into a public trust to be managed for sustained yield timber harvests
to finally provide certainty to local communities. When enacted, the
proposal is expected to annually generate over $100 million for county
governments, over 500 million board feet of timber and thousands of new
jobs in hard-hit counties throughout western Oregon. It has garnered
significant support across Oregon, including from the Oregon
Legislature, dozens of Oregon counties and many newspaper editorial
boards. It also enjoys the support of our industry.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today and would be happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
______
Response to Questions Submitted for the Record by Scott Horngren
1. How many times has AFRC sued the federal government under the
Endangered Species Act in the last decade?
Answer: 4
2. Roughly how many lawsuits you've filed against the federal
government over the last 10 years?
Answer: 10
3. How many active cases does AFRC have with claims under the
Endangered Species Act?
Answer: 4
4. Has AFRC requested to be compensated from the Judgment Fund--i.e.
from the taxpayers--for work that you performed while suing the
federal government?
Answer: Yes
5. How many times has AFRC requested attorneys' fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act or the Endangered Species Act over the
last 5 years?
Answer: We have recovered attorneys' fees for only one case in the
past five years. In every case in which AFRC is a plaintiff, AFRC like
other plaintiffs, plead in the complaint that it is entitled to
attorney fees. Only if AFRC prevails in a case can it apply for
recovery of attorneys' fees.
6. How much has AFRC recovered under these provisions in the last 5
years?
Answer: $5,000
First, how many of these Endangered Species Act suits also involved
claims under the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Administrative Procedures Act? As a result, the legal documents
I have here show that AFRC has frequently made claims for
attorneys' fees under both the Endangered Species Act and the
Equal Access to Justice Act.
Answer: See response to Question 5 regarding ``claim for
attorneys' fees'' which is included in any complaint filed. Of the four
Endangered Species Act cases, one has made claims under the ESA, NEPA
and APA. Three have made claims under ESA and APA. AFRC's recovery of
attorney's fees for ESA cases is only a fraction of the attorneys' fees
paid out under the ESA, mostly to environmental plaintiffs. For
example, from 2003 through 2011, about $30,000,000 dollars of
attorneys' fees were paid by the federal government in ESA cases. A
summary is attached with a file that breaks down the payments by year.
AFRC would happily support legislation that would eliminate the
provision in ESA for recovery of attorney fees.
7. Unfortunately, many of these fees appear to be secret and hidden
from the public. Can you tell us how much in attorneys' fees
you received from one such case American Forest Resource
Council versus the Secretary of Interior, which was initiated
back in March 2000 and was concluded in 2007.
Answer: $80,943.89. The recovery was a combined total recovery for
two cases, the second of which is the Western Council of Industrial
Workers v. Interior discussed below. (This is the same case that you
ask about in Question 10).
8. How much did you receive in attorneys' fees in that case?
Answer: $80,943.89. This was a combined amount for attorneys' fees
in AFRC v. Sec. of Interior and Western Council of Industrial Workers
v. Interior.
9. How much did you initially request in attorneys' fees?
Answer: We don't have a record of the initial fee request because
fees were negotiated before a formal filing had to be made before the
court.
10. I want to ask you about one other case in which you sued for
attorneys' fees, Western Council Industrial Workers v.
Interior.
According to this stipulation, the plaintiffs received $80,943.89
collectively in attorneys' fees and only your organization
alone among the plaintiffs requested attorneys' fees.
Can you tell us how much you initially sought in attorneys' fees in
this case? Was it over $150,000?
Answer: We don't have a record of the initial fee request because
fees were negotiated before a formal filing had to be made before the
court. However, the initial fee request would likely have been greater
than the $80,943.89 settlement amount.
11. You make the claim in your testimony that ``there is a direct
correlation between the severe reduction in the Forest Service
timber sale program over the past 20 years and the ever
increasing acreage toll and fiscal cost of wildfires.'' In
Latin the phrase is, cum hoc ergo propter hoc--with this,
therefore because of this. Are you also making the claim that
there is a casual relationship?
Answer: AFRC does maintain that there is a correlation between the
excessive fuel loads accumulating on national forests from reduced
timber harvest and the increase in wildfires on the national forests.
As a GAO report concluded, ``The most extensive and serious problem
related to health of national forests in the interior West is the over-
accumulation of vegetation, which has caused an increasing number of
large, intense, uncontrollable and catastrophically destructive
wildfires.'' General Accounting Office. 1999. Western national forests:
A cohesive strategy is needed to address catastrophic wildfire threats.
GAO/RCED-99-65, p. 3. A U.S. Forest Service white paper on the same
subject similarly concluded, ``Heavy fuel accumulation and altered
vegetation composition along with sustained drought have increased fire
intensity, spread, and resistance to control, particularly in the
West.'' Fire and Fuels Buildup at p.1, available at http://
www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/fire-and-fuels-position-
paper.pdf which is submitted as an attachment.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.013
.eps__
Fire and Fuels Buildup
What is the fire and fuels problem?
Recent history has seen an increasing trend of record-breaking
wildfires on public forests and grasslands. In 2002, wildfires burned
7.2 million acres in seven Western states, 23 firefighters died, and
815 structures were damaged. That year, the USDA Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management, and other federal and state agencies spent more
than $1 billion for fire suppression. Average fire suppression costs
during the 1990s were about one-half that figure.
Why so many large fires? ``The most extensive and serious problem
related to health of national forests in the interior West is the over-
accumulation of vegetation, which has caused an increasing number of
large, intense, uncontrollable and catastrophically destructive
wildfires,'' according to the General Accounting Office (1999). During
the past 10,000-15,000 years, North American forests have evolved under
the influence of humans and natural fire.(USDA Forest Service 2003)
Indigenous people harvested timber and used fire for thinning and land
clearing to meet their needs for shelter, hunting, gathering, and
protecting their communities. In the arid West, where moisture is too
scarce to support fungal decay, fire is the primary mechanism for
removing dead trees and limbs from the forest floor. Climate factors
and widespread wildfire suppression efforts, which became effective
after World War II, have contributed to overgrown conditions over the
past 75 years. Many forests now require hands-on active management to
restore fire-adapted ecosystems (Sebellius and Rosen, 2003).
All vegetation--live and dead--on forested lands (tree branches,
twigs, cones, snags, moss, and tall brush) serves as fuel for fires.
Heavy fuel accumulation and altered vegetation composition along with
sustained drought have increased fire intensity, spread, and resistance
to control, particularly in the West. The problem is compounded by
urban sprawl and conversion of large ranches to small ranchettes and
urban subdivisions that are adjacent to or intermingled with public
lands. This results in more homes and structures near areas where large
wildland fires occur. As a result, firefighters who are trained for
wildland fire suppression must focus more effort protecting homes and
human lives.
An estimated 190 million acres (Schmidt and others 2002) of all
federal forest and range lands (including BLM, National Forest,
National Park and National Wildlife Refuges) are at increased risk of
catastrophic wildfire. These acres are in a condition class described
as ``significantly altered from the normal range,'' which is the most
severe of three fire-hazard classes. The other two classes are lands
within ``historic range'' and at ``moderate risk'' for wildland fire.
National efforts to map fire risk have determined that about two-thirds
of National Forest System lands are in the two categories outside of
their historic range (USDA Forest Service 2000). Many millions of acres
of state-managed and privately owned lands adjacent to public lands are
also at high or moderate risk of fire.
The areas that are called moderate to high risk are prone to large
intense fires that overwhelm suppression efforts. These large areas are
in danger of losing key ecosystem components. For example, losing large
areas of open-fire dependent Western ponderosa pines, along with
associated plants and wildlife, is a distinct possibility.
Remaining lands have a lower risk of wildfire damage but may
require periodic treatment of fuels to maintain this status. This is
particularly true in the Southeast, where historic fire return
intervals are as short as 3-5 years. Effective fuel treatment will
require some mix of treating different land classes as forest and range
ecosystems change over time.
What can we do about it?
Some 73 million national forest acres and 397 million acres across
all ownerships have been identified as high-priority treatment areas
(USDA Forest Service 2000). The Forest Service's ``Cohesive Strategy''
for addressing fire-adapted ecosystems outlined an approach to the
fuels management challenge. One option is a 15-year treatment schedule
that includes fuels treatments of 4.2 million acres per year. Some
treatments would be made on lands in all three conditions classes. The
strategy would not attempt to treat all acres at risk. Research shows
that by strategically placing fuel treatments to impede fire spread,
only 30 to 40 percent of lands need treatment to significantly reduce
the size and cost of severe fires (Finney 2001). Conversely, a one time
treatment of all high fire risk areas would not fully address the fuels
problem, as landscapes continue to change over time and fuels would
build up on many lands currently in historic condition, without
periodic maintenance treatments (Beighley).
Federal land management agencies developed a National Fire Plan to
effectively (1) target resources for fire suppression; (2) reduce
hazardous fuels on federal and adjacent land, and restore land health
in fire prone areas; and (3) work directly with communities to ensure
adequate protection and to provide effective community assistance. The
plan emphasizes cooperation among federal and state, tribal and local
organizations and communities. It aims to restore fire-adapted
ecosystems as the best long-term solution to reduce risk to
communities, provide for public and firefighter safety, and ensure
sustainable resources.
How effective is fuel reduction in reducing catastrophic fire?
The 2002 Hayman Fire, which burned 138,000 acres in Colorado,
provided the first large-scale study with comparisons of fuel
treatments (Graham 2003). A team of 60 researchers and resource
professionals evaluated fire behavior, the effects of fuel treatments
on burn severity, home destruction, post fire rehabilitation
activities, and social and economic issues. They concluded that some
recent prescribed burns appeared to stop the fire locally while other
areas modified fire behavior but did not stop the fire. In areas with
moderate conditions, recent burns appeared to have lower fire severity
than older burns. Removal of surface fuels alone can dramatically alter
fire behavior within one year of treatment.
Fuel Reduction Treatments and Costs
Fuel treatments include (1) biological methods such as prescribed
fire (a management-ignited fire under certain, predetermined conditions
to meet specific objectives) and grazing; (2) chemical use
(herbicides); (3) mechanical thinning (using saws, tractors, and
chippers to cut up and remove woody materials); or (4) a combination of
these methods. In high risk areas, some fuels often must be removed
mechanically to reduce fuel loading before it is possible to use
prescribed fire.
Particularly in the southeast, many forests within the historic
range condition are periodically burned to limit rapidly growing
vegetation. Recouping costs associated with forest restoration is a
management difficulty.
The cost for implementing the 15-year option is projected at $825
million per year for a total of $12.4 billion to treat 73 million high
priority national forest acres (USDA Forest Service 2000). Of course,
this figure is only an estimate and (averaging about $170/acre)
includes routine maintenance thinning of stands within historic range.
It does not include planning and overhead costs and focus only on a
portion of the lands in overall need of treatment (USDA Forest Service
2000). Forest Service and DOI agencies were allocated $400 million in
2002 for fuel treatment.
There is great variation in estimated costs depending on the types
of stands to be treated. Gross costs for mechanical treatment of
overgrown (high risk of fire) stands have been cited at $500-$1,000 per
acre, stands at moderate risk could cost up to $400 per acre, and
maintenance treatments for stands within their historic range should
cost $50 to $100 per acre (Beighley 2003).
These treatments will not easily pay for themselves. Although high
commercial value of large logs can fund a timber-harvest operation,
vegetation removed for fuel hazard reduction is not so marketable.
Small-diameter trees currently are in low demand, and the market values
are low in some areas of the country. In the Interior West, the demand
for small diameter trees and other material is among the lowest and the
need to remove such trees is among the greatest.
Currently the technologies and the economic incentive for using
these small diameter trees are minimal, and often the cost of
transportation exceeds the market value of the material. Researchers,
rural development specialists and forest managers are seeking new
utilization options for small diameter timber such as development of
value-added products and bioenergy. One National Forest demonstration
project has used a special bundler for binding thinned woody material
into tightly strung bales that are easily stored and transported to
bioenergy facilities. Researchers also are developing cleaner and more
efficient processes for product conversion, and better performing wood
products, to support small log markets.
Working With Communities
The National Fire Plan also sets goals for working with
communities, using the Forest Service's Economic Action Programs (EAP).
These assistance programs provide grants and technical assistance for
developing new or expanded forest technologies, products and markets.
EAP provides technology transfer needed to apply research knowledge to
develop new methods to utilize and market small diameter trees and
other fuels. For example, small diameter trees, which were formerly
unmerchantable, can be processed into flooring or other marketable
products, or used in their round form in other structures. Fine fuels,
also called small woody biomass, are being used in small-scale
community renewable energy systems. EAP grants are funding rural
community-based projects directly and indirectly for hazardous fuel
reduction as ecosystem restoration.
Not only a public lands problem
The Forest Service, BLM and other federal and state agencies do not
``own'' the problem of excess fuels and fire risk alone. Many acres of
private lands are also at high or moderate fire risk.
Many communities and their watersheds are intermingled with
undeveloped wildland, a situation called the wildland-urban interface.
The federal agencies are working with state, tribal, and local public
officials to help prioritize fuels treatment within the wildland-urban
interface.
The National Fire Plan also designated $11 million for fiscal years
2001-2003 for developing ``Firewise,'' an educational program for
landowners and communities to learn effective fire prevention. The
Firewise vision is homes designed, built, and maintained in order to
survive wildfires without the intervention of the fire department.
Firewise targets homeowners, firefighters, builders, landscapers,
insurance companies, and public officials and helps to facilitate
community safety. It includes technical assistance to communities and
national recognition for communities that improve planning and
mitigation of fire hazards. Firewise shows homeowners how to reduce
fuel buildup and more effectively fireproof their homes. More
information is listed on the website firewise.org.
International Context
International programs have focused on two areas: where land
management alters ecosystems from their historical fire regime and
climatic events that affect catastrophic wildfires. In many countries
besides the U.S., historical land management in some ecosystems has led
to buildup of fuels and increased risk of catastrophic fire. Widespread
logging and forest conversion for agriculture in some tropical areas
has opened the canopy, allowing moist forests to dry out and become
prone to unnaturally widespread forest fires. Climatic events including
extreme El Nino events in 1997-98 have sparked large-scale wildfires
that overwhelm local fire suppression. The Forest Service is working on
several large scale international collaborative efforts in fire and
fuels management and also has worked with other government and
international agencies (including USAID) to provide fire suppression
capabilities and disaster response support.
References
Beighley, M. 2003. Personal communication. USDA Forest Service, WO,
Fire and Aviation Management. October, 2003.
Finney, M. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns
for modifying fire growth and behavior; Forest Science 47: 2.
General Accounting Office. 1999. Western national forests: A cohesive
strategy is needed to address catastrophic wildfire threats.
GAO/RCED-99-65, p. 3.
Graham, R.T. 2003. Hayman Fire Case Study: Summary. RMRS-GTR-115. USDA
Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp 10-15.
Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; [and others]. 2002.
Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and
fuel management. GTR RMRS-87. USDA Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station. 41 p.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Protecting people and sustaining resources
in fire-adapted ecosystems: A cohesive strategy. Forest Service
management response to General Accounting Office Report GAO/
RCED-99-65. October 13, 200.
USDA Forest Service Research and Development, 2003. ``Forest Products
Utilization: Use of Forest Biomass Critical to Forest
Management,'' Resource Use and Valuation Research Program, R&D
Accomplishment Report.
White House, Office of the President of the United States. 2002.
``Healthy forests: An initiative for wildfire prevention and
stronger communities, August 2002.
______
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Horngren.
And last, but certainly not least, Supervisor Morris, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUDY MORRIS, SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 2, TRINITY
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, honorable Committee
members, my Congressman, Jared Huffman, and the Congressman on
the other side of my county, Congressman LaMalfa, who is very
familiar, as well, with our county.
I am comforted to know and hear all the descriptions that
have been placed on forested communities. We, of course, are
going through the same thing that we have heard today. I am
also happy to hear the collaborative process is working well
for many communities, and also support for the stewardship
contracting.
And I hope I am not offending anybody, but I am not a
lawyer and I am not a forester. That was not to say that they
don't make a contribution here. I just wanted to make sure--I
am coming from, really, feet on the ground, as someone of a
governing body in a forested county. Lawyers and foresters all
make a very good contribution here. As Congressman Huffman has
indicated, I have been a member of the Board of Supervisors
since January 2009.
The only mill that is left in our county sits in my
district. Many of you might know it did burn down a couple
years ago, first year I took office, and is a big supplier to
our job creation in our county. We are so grateful they did
rebuild, the county and the community are very protective of
this mill and the infrastructure it provides for the area and
region.
I think one thing we didn't talk a lot about is possible
infrastructure loss in the area as a result of some action not
being done. I think we all agree action needs to happen. To
what degree it needs to take place, that is still up for
discussion, but I have heard some really great ideas here.
As you know, Trinity is a rural forested county, with 76
percent of our 2 million acres being managed by the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management. Less than 5 percent is
suitable and available for private land development. If Trinity
County were a State, it would have the third highest percentage
of public land, behind Alaska and Nevada. By necessity, the
county must rely on its relationship with the State and Federal
land and resource management organizations to provide
opportunities for economic development.
My home town is not Trinity County, or even California. I
grew up in Detroit, Michigan. As a child of the Motor City and
the automotive production center of the universe, I saw the
rise and fall of the American auto industry firsthand. I know
the value of what real jobs can provide and have on a
community, and the lack of those jobs and the negative impact
it can have.
A little bit about Trinity County. Through the 19th and
most of 20th century, the dependance on public lands resources
worked out fine, thanks to a colorful history in gold mining,
logging, timber products, and ranching. However, for a variety
of economic and social reasons, including the need for
environmental protections, these prosperous days are gone, and
Trinity County's economic data looks like hundreds of rural
areas that we heard of today.
There are few places in the West with economies that are
more resource-dependant and includes local government. As a
public lands community, Trinity County lacks a robust tax base.
This further complicates local government's challenge to
provide critical services such as law enforcement and social
services.
Something I did not hear today that I really wanted to
throw out, of course, local government's law enforcement are
further impacted by the rural areas that I live in, in terms of
foreign nationals' growing marijuana. It has become a huge
safety issue, along with the other health and safety issues we
heard today, which further impacts our law enforcement and the
lack of money to help support that.
Stewardship of these resource is imperative, not only to
the small communities nestled in mountainous valleys, but to
the State and national communities as critical ecosystem
services such as biodiversity, water resources, carbon
sequestration are provided by the Trinity forest and its
watersheds. Silicon Valley was built on water and power from
the places like Trinity County and other rural forested
communities in the West.
One of the shining examples in Trinity County has been the
Weaverville Community Forest that started out as 800 acres from
BLM land and then U.S. Forest Service joined us with another
12,000 acres. As a result of that, we received in 2009 a
Partners in Conservation Award by the Secretary of the
Interior.
I know I see my time wrapping up. In conclusion, I would
really encourage everyone to support the collaborative process.
We have now taken on a second phase in expanding our
collaborative efforts, support stewardship contracting, and
also, while we work out some of the finer points in what our
next steps would be, Secure Rural Schools will be important to
extend while we make the transition into some more self-
management processes.
So, thank you for this opportunity. I hope I covered it
all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:]
Statement of Judy Morris, Supervisor, Trinity County, California
Chairman Bishop and Honorable Committee Members,
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a forester, but I am here before you
today as a problem solver from a rural forested western county and as a
member of the Trinity County, CA Board of Supervisors where I've served
since January of 2009.
Trinity is a rural forested county, with 76% of our 2 million acres
being managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Less than 5% of Trinity County's land mass is suitable, and available
for private development. If Trinity County were a state, it would have
the 3rd highest percentage of public land, behind Alaska and Nevada.
By necessity, the county must rely on its relationship with the
state and federal land and resource management organizations to provide
opportunities for economic development.
My hometown is not in Trinity County, or even California. I grew up
in Detroit, Michigan. As a child of the Motor City, what was then the
automotive production center of the universe, I saw the rise and fall
of the American auto industry first hand. I know the value that real
jobs can have on a community.
About Trinity County
Through the 19th and most of the 20th century the dependence on
public land resources worked out fine, thanks to a rich and colorful
history in gold mining, logging, timber products, and ranching that
utilized those lands.
However, for a variety of economic and social reasons, including
the need for environmental protections, those prosperous days are gone
and Trinity County's economic data looks like hundreds of other rural
areas across the country, both in privately owned areas like the mid-
West and in the public land areas of the West.
There are few places in the west with economies that are more
resource dependent and this includes local government. As a public
lands community, Trinity County lacks a robust tax base. This further
complicates the local government's challenge of providing critical
services, such as law enforcement and social services to its far flung
citizens.
Stewardship of these resources is imperative not only to the small
communities nestled in its mountainous valleys, but to the state and
national communities, as critical ecosystem services such as
biodiversity, water resources and carbon sequestration are provided by
the Trinity forest and its watersheds. Silicon Valley was built on the
water and power from places like Trinity County and other rural
forested communities in the west.
Success In Collaboration
One of the shining successes from Trinity County has been the
Weaverville Community Forest. This 13,000 acre territory comprised of
both USFS and BLM managed lands and guided by a collaborative community
group and supported by the Stewardship Contracting tool.
Although the economics to date have been small, the trust that has
built through the development of this award-winning project is a
bankable commodity in and of itself, which will guarantee much faster
movement on future projects. I'm proud to say the in 2009 the Community
Forest was awarded one of the 2009 Partners In Conservation Awards by
then Secretary of Interior Salazar.
Using this model as a springboard, the Trinity County Board of
Supervisors has entered into a government to government with our
federal agency partners and are working on a ``Forest Management 2.0''
model and is moving forward with a countywide collaborative with the
goal of replicating the success of the Weaverville Community Forest at
a countywide scale.
As you know, there are a number of other successful collaborative
efforts underway across the west including Idaho's Clearwater
Collaborative, Washington's Pinchot Partners and others.
How To Move Forward--Retain and Support What Works
Stewardship Contracting--Currently allows the Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to enter into long-term contracts (up
to 10 years) to meet land-management objectives (for example, to reduce
wildland fire risk and improve forest and rangeland health). The
reauthorization of this authority that is expiring in September of this
year is crucial to Trinity County's next steps. This has an important
tool for our community in our efforts in the Weaverville Community
Forest and other projects.
Secure Rural Schools--Until an alternate revenue model is
developed, I agree that at least a one year extension is crucial, just
to maintain baseline funding for these resource rich/revenue poor
counties. Trinity County prides itself that the forest projects that
have resulted from current Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee
has been one of, if not the most, effective RAC associated with the
Secure Rural Schools funding with significant work in fuels reduction
and watershed protection and no lawsuits on any project.
Support Collaboration with Tools and Options, including
Environmental Protections Collaboration has worked for Trinity County
but only because unique conditions and goals existed.
1. Multiple Objectives--We value economic goals and
environmental protections
2. Good Things Take Time--We know that we're in a marathon,
not a sprint
3. Big Success Is Built On Small Success--We celebrate
successes, like the Weaverville Community Forest, that support
our evolving relationship with our federal agency partners
Just as the U.S. auto industry has finally enlisted
leadership from executives and innovators from around the world
to support their recovery, so must the forested public lands
communities across the country.
Be Careful About Going from 0-100 mph
As a self-labeled problem solver, I understand that process can be
frustrating. However I would caution putting the gas pedal to the floor
on a new set of rules (or lack thereof). Focus on what's working and
enhance it.
Retaining tools like stewardship contracting is vital but so is
recruitment of the scientific community, encouraging natural resource
based entrepreneurs and expanding high speed internet infrastructure
and renewable energy development.
A New Paradigm Is Needed
Trinity County's forest and water resources must be managed in a
manner that will transition society and the ecosystem into a new era.
We must shift from seeking to restore to a historical condition, to a
new paradigm aimed at managing for realistic and probable future
conditions.
Although the conditions for each county, and each set of ecologic
challenges will be different, the tools and support mentioned above are
a great place to start.
More information on Weaverville Community Forest:
http://www.tcrcd.net/wcf/index.htm
http://centerforhealthreporting.org/article/could-other-north-
state-communities-follow-example-weaverville-community-forest
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct/07/timber-group-drops-
objections-to-weaverville/?print=1
More information on Natural Resource Planning in Trinity County, CA:
http://www.mfpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Trinity-
County_CA_Forest-and-Water_Climate-Adaptation-Plan_2011.pdf
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.009
.epsWhere is Trinity County?
Located in far Northern California, Trinity County's land mass is
approximately 2 million acres, one and \1/2\ the size of the state of
Delaware with a population of around 14,000. Trinity County's
population has not seen a significant shift in the last 40 years.
Trinity County is the only county in California without a stoplight and
one of three counties in California without an incorporated city.
How Is Trinity County Different
From Agricultural Rural Communities? 76% of Trinity County is
federal land, approximately 72% managed by the USFS and 4% by the BLM.
Of the remaining 24%, due to ownership patterns and topography, less
than 5% is available for active human development. Thus, by necessity,
the county must rely on its relationship with the state and federal
land and resource management organizations to provide opportunities for
economic development. If Trinity County were a state, it would have the
3rd highest percentage of public land, behind Alaska and Nevada.
Through the 19th and most of the 20th century the dependence on
public land resources worked out fine, thanks to a rich and colorful
history in gold mining, logging, timber products, and ranching that
utilized those lands.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.010
.epsHowever, for a variety of economic and social reasons,
including the need for environmental protections, those prosperous days
are gone and Trinity County's economic data looks like hundreds of
other rural areas across the country, both in privately owned areas
like the mid-West and in the public land areas of the West.
One of the keys to Trinity County's future is finding the right
balance of utilization and protection of these public land resources,
including the water, renewable energy and carbon sinks that are natural
products of these resource rich forested lands.
History
Trinity County, which was one of the original 26 counties prior to
California becoming a state in 1850, has seen wave after wave of boom-
and-bust industries. Gold mining reshaped the rivers and the mountains
themselves; later ranching and then logging would leave their mark on
the coniferous forests providing positive economic support, while also
impacting other environmental resources with unsustainable timber
practices.
Trinity Dam was authorized in 1955 as part of the Trinity Division
of the Central Valley Project, bringing another temporary boom, along
with the flooding of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land and
the loss of one of the most magnificent mountain valleys in the U.S.
For 50 years the diversion of most of the water from the Trinity County
watershed to the central valley has furnished billions of dollars worth
of hydroelectric power and water for the use of the citizens of
California.
Most recently, a new ``green rush'' (the influx of people coming to
Trinity County to grow marijuana) is having a significant impact on the
ecosystem and the local culture of Trinity's rural communities, the
lasting effects of which remain to be seen.
Not only is Trinity County's employment base natural resource
dependent, but the tax base for local government is as well. As a
public lands community, Trinity County is hard pressed to provide
critical services, such as law enforcement and social services, to its
far-flung citizens.
Demographics
Poverty: Like many rural communities across the
country Trinity County suffers from high poverty rates (2nd
poorest in California) with 15.1% below poverty level. Over 60%
of children are on free and reduced lunch programs.
Unemployment: Current rate--13.1% January of 2010--
22.2% peaking at above 30%
Aging Population: Changing age characteristics
(Trinity is the oldest county in California--Median age of 50),
along with high poverty and unemployment rates, compound the
economic challenges that are presented by a very small property
tax base. With retirees accounting for a larger percentage of
the population, there are direct impacts to our schools'
reimbursement rates, local business and entrepreneurial
activity, and quality and quantity of available workforce.
Political Trends: Historically, Trinity County has
been a mixed bag of political sentiments and trends (the only
county in California that voted for Ross Perot in 1992) and
that continues to be the case. While Trinity voted for
President Obama in 2008, and narrowly voted for Mitt Romney in
2012 (55 vote margin), Trinity's maverick anti-government
spirit is still alive and well. This is reflected with a number
of different individuals and groups who have been quite vocal
regarding the federal influence over public lands management
and the impact on Trinity County's citizens. Another recent
development comes with the recent redrawing of Congressional
Districts in California, moving Trinity to the Coastal District
which will be represented by Jared Huffman (D-Marin) starting
in 2013.
Racial Demographics: U.S. Census numbers indicate the
following: White 88.5%, Hispanic 7.4%, Native American 5.2%
(some overlap) with smaller percentages of other minority
groups.
More Leadership Roles for Women: Although they
reflect the electorate's wide range of political views
mentioned above, there has been an emergence of women in
elected and executive roles within the county. Our Board of
Supervisors currently has a 4-1 women majority, TPUD has 2
women on their 5 member board, TCRCD has 2 women on their 5
member board, the County Administrative Officer, elected
Auditor, elected Treasurer and appointed Clerk Recorder are all
women. Lastly, this November, Trinity County elected the first
female Superior Court Judge in the county's history.
What Sets Trinity County Apart from other Rural Forested Communities?
The citizens of Trinity County have a demonstrated history of
working together collaboratively for the good of the community and we
are poised to do that again with your help. Some examples of this
success include:
Forestry and Fire
Weaverville Community Forest--Nationally recognized
Community managed forest partnering w USFS/BLM
Community Fire Safe Councils--Developed here first
for the state and others
Volunteer Fire Departments--All volunteer fire
department protection
Trinity River Lumber Co rebuild--Local mill owner
invests $ 20 million to rebuild facility after 2009 fire.
Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee--Most
effective RAC associated with the Secure Rural Schools funding.
No lawsuits on any project.
Many other projects in this category
Health Care
Mountain Communities Health Care District (Trinity
Hospital)--In the time when other rural communities were losing
their healthcare infrastructure, MCHCD was formed in 2006 by a
vote of the people with a supporting local tax measure which
was reapproved in 2010 with another successful election.
Southern Trinity Health Clinic--Serving primary the
area in the southern part of the county.
Technology
Highway 36 Fiber Optic Line--This recently
implemented fiber optic line was completed in conjunction with
a regional consortium. This regional group is now looking for
additional funding sources for a parallel line serving the more
populated Hwy 299 corridor.
Energy
Trinity PUD--Locally organized Public utility
district delivers 100% carbon-free power generated by Trinity
Dam as part of 1955 legislation Congress authorized when the
Trinity Division was added to the Central Valley Project.
Renewable Energy Development--A number of projects,
including biomass and small hydro, continue to be analyzed for
potential development. Regarding biomass, there are a number of
studies documenting that facilities ``right sized'' for the
resources available can be economically viable, promote forest
health and reduce the threat of catastrophic wild fire.
Locally Supported Restoration and Resource Protection Projects
Trinity River Restoration Program--National model for
river restoration with a team of local, state and federal
partners including U.S. Forest Service membership on the
governing board and NRCS membership on the supporting Federal
Advisory Committee.
5 Counties Program (part of the RC&D Council)--
Innovative regional program that works on infrastructure
improvements and watershed restoration to stave off additional
endangered species listings
Trinity Alps Wilderness--Converted from Primitive
area to the largest wilderness area in California @ 500,000
acres--Congressionally approved with the help of intense local
involvement in 1984.
Many of these successes and natural resource assets also provide an
extensive menu of recreational opportunities including: Steelhead and
salmon fishing, rafting and kayaking on the Wild and Scenic Trinity
River, camping, boating and fishing within the Trinity and Lewiston
Lake National Recreation Area, hiking and backpacking in the Trinity
Alps Wilderness and many more.
What's next?
For good reasons Trinity County is very proud of its history, its
spectacular natural beauty, and our ``can do'' and ``find solutions''
attitude. As explained above, we have a proven record of bringing
divergent interests together for the common good. We also have immense
public resources surrounding us, the national forests being the most
prominent. We are poised to take the next step to become a model of
environmental stewardship, renewable energy production, public land
management, sustainable forestry and idea incubator for successful
forested communities nationwide.
Some data and text for this brief were taken from Forest and Water
Climate Adaptation: A Plan for Trinity County, CA. Model Forest Policy
Program in association with The Watershed Research and Training Center
and Cumberland River Compact. Sagle, ID. Medley-Daniel, M. & Thaler,
T., Griffith, G., Crossett, T., (Eds). 2011.
______
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Supervisor Morris, for your
testimony. And I want to thank all of you for your testimony.
I will recognize myself now for 5 minutes. I have a few
questions.
Commissioner Campbell, you alluded to this in your
statement, where you talked about the number of saw mills. And
my understanding is the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources indicated 20 years ago that there were 21 saw mills
that were operating in Eastern Washington. And I think at that
time there were four of them in Okanogan County. Now--and you
mentioned this--there is only one operating in Okanogan County,
although the other one, I think, is--the Tribe is thinking
about opening that again.
Can you just describe in the last 20 years what that
decline in mills has done to the economy in Okanogan County?
Mr. Campbell. The economy in Okanogan County is a resource-
based economy there. And when the timber industry went out like
it did, we went from over 1,000 jobs there down to--right now
the mill that we have provides 29 to maybe 40 jobs per year.
So, the economic base of Okanogan County went upside down.
We have gone from a proud, family oriented community to now
looking at our children leaving the area. The ones that don't,
we--it has caused an input on our social structure, the cost of
our sheriff, our courts. Our welfare system is now ramping up
to take the place of what, at one time, was a proud county
there, and citizens, that are now poor. So----
Mr. Hastings. You kind of answered this, and I want to ask
a follow-up. You kind of answered this in your first remark,
because the whole idea of the Secure Rural Schools program and
the payments was a temporary program to be a bridge from the
economy that you had to a new economy.
Now, you alluded to the fact that you haven't developed a
new economy. I guess my question is what prospects for a new
economy exist in Okanogan County, other than resource economy.
Mr. Campbell. Well, Okanogan County does have some
recreation benefit to it. But it is a small portion of what the
resource community had at one time.
Mr. Hastings. Nothing to replace the promised 25 percent of
revenues that would come from timber harvest, for instance.
Mr. Campbell. Not even close to it, no.
Mr. Hastings. And the last question I have--and this,
again, was mentioned by several of my colleagues--in the
President's budget he calls for a reauthorization for 5 years
of promised payments for Secure Rural Schools. Given the choice
between developing your own resources and governing them
locally, or waiting for a check to come from the government,
which option would you choose?
Mr. Campbell. I would choose the ability to go out and make
a living for ourselves, beyond the welfare program that we are
now on presently in our county, our State, and this Nation. I
listen to the idea that the Forest Service now wants to buy
more land, and still isn't programmed to generate its own
revenue there.
I am a rancher. If I go to my banker and say, ``By the way,
I am broke, but I want more money because I want to buy more
land,'' he would laugh me out the door. And that is what I am
looking at our Forest Service doing right now.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I think you were sitting through the
first panel testimony. I think you heard that type of
observation expressed a number of times by my colleagues that
are here. There is a tremendous amount of interest in this
legislation, and rightfully so, because this promise of sharing
revenue by multiple use of our resources, that promise was made
over 100 years ago, and it certainly has gone by the wayside in
the last quarter of a century or so.
So, I thank you very much for your testimony, and I will
yield back my time and recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner
Campbell, just a clarification for myself and for the record.
By ``forest counties,'' when you say ``forest counties,'' are
you testifying on behalf of the National Forest Counties School
Coalition, or the Partnership for Rural America?
Mr. Campbell. The National Forest Counties Coalition,
there. I----
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. If I
may, just a couple of quick questions.
Mr. Wood, thank you. In your testimony the discussion was
about the jobs and the economic issues that you brought up. Do
you or the National Association of Home Builders, as you
indicated the prices for wood, support an end to the export of
raw logs from our Federal lands, and just keep them here,
domestically?
Mr. Wood. I can't speak on behalf of the Association on
that issue. I just know that we need a better supply of lumber
into our market to try to keep our lumber prices down.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, that was my same point. If the issue is
the price and the importation because of lack of harvest, then
if we are harvesting Federal land, shouldn't that stay for
domestic use?
Mr. Wood. That would lead--in my opinion, I would believe
that to be correct.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that. Mr. Horngren, in your
testimony lawyering came up from my colleagues, and radical
environmental extremist lawsuits, and all that stuff came up in
the course of this conversation today. In your testimony you
use the word ``litigants'' a lot. I am assuming you primarily
are talking about environmental groups that litigate.
Mr. Horngren. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Has your organization been involved in any
litigation against the Federal Government? They have----
Mr. Horngren. Yes, we have, and we have also been involved
in administrative appeals. But our litigation isn't to stop
projects, it is to help the Forest Service do their job.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. But let me finish.
Mr. Horngren. Sure.
Mr. Grijalva. So, your organization has, from our records,
sued the Federal Government under the Endangered Species Act
numerous times in the last decade--I think seven examples that
we found over the last 10 years. And so, roughly how many
lawsuits have you filed against the Federal Government over the
last 10 years? Under 25? Over 50?
Mr. Horngren. Probably about seven is accurate, and----
Mr. Grijalva. And are you actively involved in more than
one lawsuit against the Federal Government under the Endangered
Species Act, as we speak?
Mr. Horngren. Yes, we are. And an example Congressman
Herrera Beutler mentioned, the Agency is----
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Horngren [continuing]. Down on the amount of critical
habitat, and we think that is going to keep the Forest Service
from doing the restoration job they need. And so we have
challenged that decision.
Mr. Grijalva. And the organization which is also part of
the point that you made about bonding, that it would limit
that, has your organization requested to be compensated from
the judgment fund--i.e., the taxpayers--for the work that you
performed suing the Federal Government, whether it was under
the Equal Access to Justice Act or the Endangered Species Act,
let's say, over the last 5-year period?
Mr. Horngren. If we would prevail in a case, yes, we seek
our attorneys fees if it turns out the government was wrong.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, unfortunately, the fees are under seal
and the public can't get to that amount. But would you be
willing to say how much your organization has recovered under
those provisions in the last 5 years?
Mr. Horngren. I don't know the answer to that. But in terms
of the recovery of fees, we support the provisions of the bill
that would require the losers, including us or anybody else who
sues the government, to reimburse the government for defending
these cases.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, if you suggest as a solution to the
problem of the--I think it is the legal ``gotcha'' game, where
needless delays happen because of litigation, that you post a
bond equal to the taxpayer cost of defending the project in
court. What would be enough?
Mr. Horngren. Well----
Mr. Grijalva. In terms of the cases you filed.
Mr. Horngren. Yes. The way the bill is written is the judge
would be the gatekeeper on that. The Forest Service would come
to the judge and say, ``We are going to spend this much on
attorneys fees,'' or, ``We have spent this much on attorneys
fees. We won''----
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Horngren [continuing]. ``Case, and we want to be
reimbursed.''
Mr. Grijalva. Did the American Forest Resource Council or
the Federal Forest Resource Coalition assist in the development
of the legislation?
Mr. Horngren. We didn't write the bill. We would have loved
to write the bill, and we converse with House and Senate
Members about what we think is needed to solve----
Mr. Grijalva. Did you extend the courtesy to the Minority
on this Committee?
Mr. Horngren. We have talked to Minority Members,
Congressman DeFazio and----
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Daines [presiding]. OK, thank you. The Chair now
recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Alaska for 5
minutes.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be short.
First, I want to thank the panel. And it is about rural schools
and being reimbursed under a program that is, very frankly, now
being failed. And that is the fault of this Congress and the
Administration. But it is just not this Administration.
When I first came here, we had a pretty viable timber
industry, nationwide. And I have seen in 40 years a decline to
a very minimal amount because of bad management and big fires.
Last year we had 9,300,000 acres burn. And, according to my
statistics, that is about 100 barrels of fuel per acre. And if
you add that up, that is 930 million barrels of fuel that went
into the sky, which probably is equal to all of Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Miami, all of the other areas burning fossil
fuels.
We could have managed that timber, managed it so we didn't
have those fires, and put the corn in the cow's bellies and
people's bellies, instead of using ethanol from corn.
And I wish I was here, I had another appointment--when the
Forest Service--the Forest Service is no longer managing
timber. That is the sad part. I am involved with American
Indians now on reservations. They are managing their timber
very well. But you go right across the street and you have a
Federal forest, it is a terrible thing to watch, which could
potentially cause harm to the Reservation timber because they
are not managing it correctly.
I am one that watched--when I was in Alaska 40 years ago,
or actually a little longer, we had 15,000 high-paying, family
jobs. And we passed the Alaska National Lands Act. We have
maybe 40, maybe 50, and trees dying all over. ``We want to save
the trees.'' And I made a prediction 100 years from now when we
will be long gone. There is going to be people looking at our
national forests and saying, ``What the hell were they
thinking?'' It is going to be a desert. Dead trees burnt down,
wasted, and communities dead.
And why the Forest Service--again, it is just not this
Administration. I will give you an example, if I can. I am on
my soap box, right now. And here is an example why we should
harvest old trees. The Forest Service itself is made of old
people and young Greenies that don't understand taking a tree
down that can be replaced is like harvesting corn.
I mean I sit here every day and watch this Nation go in the
tank because no one wants to change anything. Leave it as it
is. The truth of the matter is, if we don't manage these trees,
God will. And he will burn them to the ground, polluting the
air. The same Greenies that don't want to cut down trees are
saying we can't burn fossil fuels. And it all goes into the
sky, pollutes the air. That is going on year after year after
year in the last 40 years.
So, we have a challenge. And I feel bad for the
communities. I have been in some of these communities that were
thriving towns and, like you say, family oriented. Nothing now.
So again, I don't know what is going to happen, realistically.
This is trying to expose to the American public just how bad
the government is managing these natural resources on public
lands under the guise of protecting the environment. I just
hope that the American people wake up.
And it goes back to exporting logs, the gentleman talked
about exporting logs. Under our Constitution, I thought we were
supposed to get the best return on logs. If you understand, we
sell a tree, we are supposed to get the best return back to the
taxpayer. If this is abroad, then let that be so. If it is
here, you can make that timber more realistic for the harvester
to make a profit, and a profit is something we should have. If
you can't hire people you don't make a profit.
So, I commend the panel. And I say respectfully, Mr.
Chairman, we, as a Congress, and the President, as the
President, are supposedly the managers of the forests. Either
give the land back to the States, all of it, as they were
promised at one time, or give the communities the right to
manage the timber around those communities that make a sound
investment and keep those communities alive. We don't do that,
shame on us and shame on the President. I yield back.
Mr. Daines. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman
of California.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is directed
to Supervisor Morris. And, Supervisor, I want to thank you and
I want to thank all of the panelists for their testimony today.
But I especially want to thank you because in a conversation
that, frankly, I think has involved far too much scapegoating
and endless conflict and pitting environmentalists against
foresters, even man against God, I want to thank you for
steering clear of that and focusing in a much more constructive
way on some things that we can do together.
And in that spirit, I want to ask--and going back to the
Weaverville Community Forest model and the work that you have
been involved in, what do you see as indicators of success
through that collaboration? How do you think we can best
measure how it is going?
And what are the challenges that you have had to overcome,
or that still may be at issue for the success of that
collaboration?
Ms. Morris. Well, I think we didn't get here overnight, the
issues that we are discussing. And it is certainly not going to
be solved overnight. And in the meantime, we at the local
level, citizens in the community, environmentalists, industry,
sat down and said we need to do something. And that started
with the Weaverville Community Forest. We had in mind the mill
in our focus. That was our goal, to keep jobs going, to keep
the mill supplied, and of course, fuels reduced. We saw that
accomplished.
And I think what doesn't get put on paper is that we had
some serious trust-building between all parties involved. That
has led us to move forward. And this last winter, the winter
prior, I was requested by the businesses in my district who
said, ``What can we do now, we are still worried about the
economy, what can we take from the Weaverville Community Forest
and scale up?''
So, with that, we have embarked on our new collaborative
effort. I have met with Chief Tidwell, Secretary Vilsack. They
are aware of our success and what we intend to do. And again,
take it to another level. So I think that is a great indicator
that we are able to move forward. Is it easy? Is it pretty all
the time? No. There is a lot of negotiation. But we all have
one interest at heart, and that is our community. And it gives
us some local control. We are able to go to the agencies and
say, ``You know, this really isn't working.'' All parties
involved are in agreement.
So, it is certainly not the end-all-be-all tool, but it
helps us in the meantime keep restoration efforts going,
watersheds open, and logs to the mill. And so, to us, we have
had success and we look forward to more success.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Daines. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you to all of you for being here again.
Commissioner Campbell, I appreciate you being here.
Congressman Hastings asked you several questions, and I think
he did that because he is the only one left in this room that
can pronounce Okanogan County. Was I even close to that?
Mr. Campbell. You hit it right on.
Mr. Bishop. That will be the last time. Anyway, I
appreciate you being here, and for your testimony on the
significance of this.
Mr. Wood, I have a couple of questions for you, if I could,
since you are in the industry. Many people will simply say that
we should not increase the amount of wood that we are
developing on public lands because there is not a market for
that. Is there indeed a market for potential growth in the wood
and timber industry?
Mr. Wood. Yes, I believe so, because during our down time
we have been building less than 500,000 new homes a year, and
we are projected to be over a million homes this year. And that
number has continued to grow back to the standard levels, about
1.4 million new homes created every year.
Mr. Bishop. All right. So let me interrupt there. If the
amount of--during the boom, the amount of timber produced on
public lands fell to its lowest level and it has bottomed out
since then, if we now have an increase in the amount of housing
that is taking place, from whence will that wood come, or what
does that mean to the cost of houses?
Mr. Wood. I believe that what is coming off a lot of the
private lands, as we have heard, is being shipped overseas and
other places. And so, as the market gets more constrained here
with what is available to our market, it just increases the
cost of our housing. And as I said, every $1,000 increase just
raises the price so that puts many middle-class families out of
being able to buy a new home.
Mr. Bishop. And I understand where you live you have both
private forest lands and public--Federal forest lands at the
same time. You indicated there was a difference in the way they
were managed. Can you just tell me about the underbrush control
for fire management, what the difference between those two
types of lands are?
Mr. Wood. Well, it is very similar to what the private
citizens do, as well. They try to go through and clean out any
dead, diseased, fallen trees or dead underbrush that has grown,
because that just creates fuel for forest fires. And when
something sparks, that takes off and goes.
The private lands are managed really well and taken care
of, whereas on the Federal lands are not. And so the Federal
lands, you just have that fuel ready to go if it gets any
spark.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I appreciate you sharing the nexus between
the cost of housing, as well as the amount of timber that is
available, and as how much goes into that. I appreciate that.
Let me come back to you a little bit later.
But Mr. Horngren, did I pronounce----
Mr. Horngren. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I can't even see your name. Even with glasses I
can't see it.
Last year--I mean the Forest Service has listed as part of
their accomplishments that they harvested a total of 200,000-
plus acres from the 109 million that they have, and that was
one of the pluses. In Washington last year, 300,000 acres
burned in just 2 months that cost us about $114 million. In the
President's budget that he released on timber harvest, they
have lowered their own goal for timber harvesting by 15 percent
and cut funds used to treat hazardous fuels by 37 percent.
In your view, is that the way we should be prioritizing the
way we handle our Federal forest lands?
Mr. Horngren. The experts in the medical field know that
money spent on prevention and maintaining health translates
into significant savings in avoiding the need for emergency
treatments. And I believe the same principle should be applied
to the forests, and that budget doesn't reflect that principle.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We use that same question for our
Medicaid problem, as well. So----
Mr. Horngren. OK.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Good answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. In your testimony you talked about frequently
abused Gotcha Games. Could you just, in a couple of seconds,
tell me what you mean by Gotcha Games, or----
Mr. Horngren. I will give you two examples.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Horngren. One is on the Shasta Trinity National Forest,
the Algoma Project there. When critical habitat for Spotted Owl
was listed a few months ago, on a particular timber sale
project that represented about half that sale volume they
actually reduced the amount of critical habitat. Yet the
project had to be stopped to reconsult on the effect of that
change that actually reduced it.
One other example is that the environmental organizations
have these propaganda factories dressed up as science reports.
And every time a new report comes out, the agency needs to take
a look at that and stop its project.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Let me ask--I am going to run out of time
here. Commissioner Morris, if there is another round, I will
get to you. But let me ask one last question, Mr. Horngren, and
I have got, like, 30 seconds to do all this, including the
answer.
There has been some attention devoted recently to the
increased demand for logs. How does this impact the domestic
timber industry? You got 20 seconds.
Mr. Horngren. It hurts--the prices go up. Rough and Ready
Lumber Company in my State has curtailed in the last few weeks
because they don't have enough volume from these Federal lands.
One last point in my 8 seconds, we do not export raw logs from
the Federal lands, and the record needs to reflect that. There
is no export of raw logs from Federal lands.
Mr. Bishop. Only from private lands, which, I guess, goes
back to Mr. Wood. That is where the pressure for the cost will
increase if we don't increase what is taken off Federal lands.
Sorry, 10 seconds over, my mistake.
Mr. Daines. Well done, Mr. Bishop. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner
Campbell, could you repeat the comparison that you made between
the management of State lands and the management of adjoining
Federal lands? I thought that was a stunning figure.
Mr. Campbell. Just a minute here, let me find my figures
here. In 2011, OK, our State DNR lands are over 2.1 million
acres, relatively there. And in 2011 the State trust lands
yielded a harvest of 560 million board feet of timber, which
generated $220 million in revenue. The national forests in the
State of Washington yielded 129 million board feet, generating
$638,000 in revenue on 9.3 million acres of land.
Mr. McClintock. The 2.1 million acres of land managed by
the State which produced 560 million board feet, $220 million
of revenues for the people of Washington State.
Mr. Campbell. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. And 9.3 million acres of Federal land, more
than 4 times that amount of land, produced 129 million board
feet, roughly one-fifth of what the State was producing, and
only produced $630,000 worth of revenues?
Mr. Campbell. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. Now, how could the State harvest $220
million worth of revenues off of the timber that they produced,
and yet the Federal Government, even though it is one-fifth the
actual harvest--five times the land, but one-fifth the
harvest--could only muster less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the
revenues that the State generated for their taxpayers?
Mr. Campbell. You are going to have to ask the national
forest that. I can't answer that question.
Mr. McClintock. Could it possibly be that much of the
timber that they harvest out of the national forests is not
commercially viable?
Mr. Campbell. They don't harvest timber out of the national
forest. They harvest small poles out of the national forest
there.
Mr. McClintock. Exactly. You heard Chief Tidwell equate
fire destruction with forest restoration. What are your
thoughts on that governing philosophy of the National Forest
Service?
Mr. Campbell. Well, we do need fire protection monies, I
agree. But when they reduce the funds to go out and actively
manage their forests for the fire protection, it doesn't make
sense. The industry can take care of itself if it is opened up
and let do so.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Horngren, does your industry have any
estimates of how much money would be generated from the
National Forest Service if we restored the same kind of sound,
sustainable forest management practices as Commissioner
Campbell has just described the State of Washington performs?
Mr. Horngren. I would imagine a hundredfold or more. I
don't have an estimate, no. I am sorry.
But if they were to take out--if they would identify what
your committee is struggling with, or is addressing, a clear
mission for these lands, identify an area where revenues could
be produced for the counties, we believe that there would be
enough to offset Secure Rural Schools payments.
Mr. McClintock. Oh, I think not only enough to offset
Secure Rural Schools payments, you wouldn't need Secure Rural
Schools payments, because these communities would once again be
economically thriving, thousands and thousands of families that
are out of work would find work again in thriving saw mills. I
mean that was the experience of the mountain communities in the
Sierras when we practiced sustainable forest management, and
they have been absolutely devastated economically by the
policies that are now in place at the National Forest Service.
Mr. Horngren. You are absolutely right. You will have that
economic----
Mr. McClintock. Could you provide us with an estimate of
how much revenue the Forest Service is costing the people of
the United States by failing to abide by the same practices as
Commissioner Campbell just noted that the State of Washington
is performing for their taxpayers?
Mr. Horngren. We can get you an estimate. And it is equal
to the Secure Rural Schools, and then many, many times more
than that. That is revenue that would go to the treasury, it is
economic activity that you mentioned that would help the
communities without any government payments, because it would
be private activity.
Mr. McClintock. And when you think of the countless
thousands of acres of our forest land that now lies in ash, and
realize if just a tiny fraction of those trees that have now
been destroyed had been harvested for productive use, what that
could have done to provide for the management of the entire
Forest Service.
Mr. Horngren. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Daines. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all
being here, and I have probably just more of a comment. I
certainly want to applaud Chairman Hastings in regards to this
bill, listening to your comments, and then just even the
questions. Irrespective of party, I think there is a real
recognition that our communities need to be able to play a
vital role in terms of restoring health, not only to our
forests, but being able to address the importance of school
funding, as well. And this is something that can work hand in
hand.
And, Mr. Horngren, you might want to talk to the guy that
is right over your right shoulder when you are talking about
actually looking at some scientific methods to be able to look
at some habitat. We have issues with Sage Grouse out in
Colorado that we are seeing massive amounts of land. And in
Garfield County they went through, with real science that they
had paid for, reduced the potential habitat area from better
than 500,000 acres down to 15,000 acres. To be able to achieve
a win-win----
Mr. Horngren. And the win-wins are there, and you are
absolutely right. It shouldn't be Groundhog Day every time the
Forest Service goes to do a new restoration project and
spending 70 percent of their budget on preparing these
projects. They have successes, they have collaboration. And we
ought to be able to gain some efficiencies in doing what we are
doing so we can do more of it with either reduced funds like
the Forest Service wants, or the same funds, or hopefully,
increased funds, and ramp up and leverage that money to go
further than it is so far.
Mr. Tipton. You know, that is really true. And I think that
we ought to all start probably from the premise that we all
like clean air, we all like clean water. We see some value in
the endangered species end of it.
That being said, I was a little curious, really, from some
of the other questions that were going on in regards to
lawsuits that are holding up responsible development of
resources and treatments that are going in, do you know how
many--you have talked about the seven lawsuits. How many on the
other side to be able to--you want to be able to create
development?
Mr. Horngren. Right.
Mr. Tipton. How many lawsuits have been issued on the other
side. Do you have any number? I am just curious.
Mr. Horngren. Hundreds. And let me give you one example.
The Beaver Slide lawsuit in Trinity County, where they had some
collaborative agreement on a project, was filed 2 years ago.
And Trinity River Lumber Company cannot harvest its timber
sale because of that lawsuit. And it thins the forest, 60
percent of the canopy is retained. That lawsuit is now in the
ninth circuit. And I can cite you five others--I will be happy
to submit it for the record.
Mr. Tipton. So you had seven suits that you participated in
versus--to try and create responsible development, versus
hundreds trying to inhibit----
Mr. Horngren. Yes.
Mr. Tipton [continuing]. Responsible development.
Mr. Horngren. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. OK. I thought that was just interesting. So,
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thanks.
Mr. Daines. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
My first question is for--Mr. Campbell was a commissioner,
Board of Commissioners. The question in my exchange I had with
the Forest Chief--obviously you weigh in on behalf of the
citizens in your communities that you represent, when there is
opportunity, with the Forest Service.
In terms of the outcomes that you have seen, how much is
the opinion of the local folks who have everything at stake--is
that taken into account? Do you see it as a value? Do things
tend to go your way, in terms of the whole scheme of ``public
input''?
Mr. Campbell. Well, thank you for that question. I have sat
in on quite a few meetings with the U.S. Forest Service on
issues there, and I feel like I am talking to the trees. I feel
like the opinions and the concerns of my county are ignored, on
the most part, with the Forest Service there.
In my county there are two different districts or two
different areas. We have the Twisp District there and the
Tenaska District there. And I sat down with members of both,
and it feels like I am getting the run-around there. So the
answer is no, not so good.
Mr. Thompson. Not so good. And, unfortunately, a lot of
folks in the communities--and I didn't point out a lot of folks
here from western States, I want to make this clear. This is a
bipartisan group, because I am from the eastern part of the
country, from Pennsylvania. But with the national forests I
have in the four counties, and they are involved with that, we
see similar.
Now, Mr. Campbell, you mentioned in your testimony that 20-
plus years ago we were harvesting 14 billion board feet from
our national forests, yet last year we only produced 2 billion.
What do you believe is the middle ground, as you put it?
Mr. Campbell. You know, 20 years ago the harvest was
probably up at the top of the line there. We are not ready to
go to that level at this time. I would say somewhere in between
would be a good starting point there.
Mr. Thompson. OK. Now, do you have any forest land in your
county that is managed by the private sector at all? And how
does that compare with what the Forest Service is doing? And
you may not, I don't know.
Mr. Campbell. We do have some private-sector land. It has
been a while since they have been logging that there. The
distance to the market now is quite a ways off.
Mr. Thompson. With the mills that are being closed.
Mr. Campbell. Yes, our mills are being closed. So the
revenue generated off that land at this time isn't--does
justify the cost of getting to the market, from the most part,
there. So----
Mr. Thompson. Yes. So that is the chronic impact of not
really managing up toward sustainable rates.
I know in the Fifth District of Pennsylvania it was about
120,000 acres that are adjacent to the Allegheny National
Forest. Collins pines, they have been around since the Civil
War. And their production annually on 120,000 acres equals the
just-under-500,000 acres of forest that the ANF does.
And so, that is part of innovation. That is part of looking
to see what the private sector is doing and how do we replicate
that? How do we get that kind of production which is good for
our forests and good for, quite frankly, for our rural
communities, to make them vibrant?
Mr. Wood, you suggested that despite the passage of the
Secure Rural Schools program in 2000, the Federal Government
has failed to implement active forest management plans, Federal
timberlands have not been managed properly, nor has there been
an increase in harvesting on Federal lands. Why do you believe
we still are having fundamental challenges in harvesting the
necessary levels of timber from Federal lands?
Mr. Wood. I would say why we are not getting enough from
the Federal timber lands is just all the different restrictions
that are in place, from all the different Federal policies.
While I am not a forester, I understand that there are
environmental concerns and different issues, from stormwater to
healthy forests. But I think that one of the challenges of this
Committee is to try to look at those challenges and to figure
out a way that we can reach resolution to them.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. And as I close out my remaining--I am a
fan of the United States Forest Service. And most professionals
I talk to, including the Chief, they just want to do their job,
do what is right for the forest, and do what is right for the
rural communities. And there been a lot of problems with these
lawsuits, and we need to make sure that we are alleviating some
of those burdens so they can do their jobs. Forests benefit if
they are fully able to do that capacity, and our rural
communities definitely benefit.
And, Chairman, I appreciate it. I am out of time.
Mr. Daines. Thanks much for your comments. The Chair
recognizes himself here for 5 minutes.
Again, back to Montana questions. Our forests are infected
by beetles, over 2 million acres. Fire prevention, we have
talked about that. Football games were canceled last fall
because of air quality, we have talked about that. Yet loggers
are struggling to find work.
This would be a question for Mr. Horngren. You mentioned
hundreds of lawsuits, potentially, that are holding up
responsible timber harvest. Would a short-term moratorium on
lawsuits for high-risk timber or insect-infested timber--and,
by the way, ``insect-infested timber'' is D.C.-speak for dead
trees. We call them standing dead out where I come from. Would
that be valuable to our struggling mills?
Mr. Horngren. That would be helpful, and you have a case
that was mentioned, I think, earlier today, the Colt Summit
Project in Montana on the Lolo National Forest that was held
up, a forest restoration project. Plaintiffs only were
victorious on one of their eight claims, but it had to be
stopped, and they went back and redid that.
And so, if there is some things short of completely banning
lawsuits that you could do that would help move projects
forward, I agree with you.
Mr. Daines. Do you have thoughts on what a policy might be
for a short-term moratorium?
Mr. Horngren. A short-term moratorium might say that you
could only bring a suit challenging whether the particular
project is consistent with the terms of the Act you passed. You
may have particular requirements for these types of things in
saying you can't bring every claim under the sun, but you can
challenge it if it doesn't follow the Act. And so that is an
option and a way to do it.
Mr. Daines. Thanks much for your comments.
Mr. Wood shared his testimony about the price of lumber.
And I am a kid who grew up the son of a home builder. My dad
has been building houses for 40 years. I have packed a lot of 2
by 4s and 2 by 6s over my lifetime. We share your frustration
of what is going on here right now with prices, and how it
affects middle-class families who are trying to perhaps maybe
buy their first home.
Additionally, a point you made in your testimony that
struck me and is very telling about how our forests are
managed, Federal forests--Federal forests, 91 percent of our
harvest comes from private land, just 6 percent from State and
tribal lands, 2 percent from Federal lands. So, maybe this is a
question, perhaps, for Mr. Campbell.
Could you expand on the drastic differences on management
on private versus State versus Federal lands?
Mr. Campbell. Well, on private lands in Okanogan County
there is a small amount of private timber lands left in
Okanogan County. There is one section between the mountains,
between the valley I live in, the Methow Valley, and the
Okanogan that is private lands. And they did go through and
harvest their timber over the years there, and have kept an
ongoing renewal process there. And if you drive through that
country now you see lush green meadows and pasture for the
cattle and new trees coming up. The forest is spread out to
where it is a healthy forest and managed correctly. The State
DNR is up to speed on doing the same thing. They still have a
few hurdles yet to go, so they are not perfect yet.
You cross the Okanogan River and you are into the Colville
Indian Reservation. And you can tell a distinct difference
between the national forest lands and the Colville Indian
Reservation. They again have had an active management program
going on on their lands. And the forests are spread out, there
is grass, there is not brush underneath them, the trees there.
It is very well managed there.
And that is one reason that there is hope now for one of
our mills to start back up that is on the Colville Reservation,
by the way. But they also have hopes of getting resources from
our Federal lands, also.
Mr. Daines. So from where you sit as a Commissioner, what
would you say is the number one issue holding up harvesting of
Federal lands?
Mr. Campbell. Litigation. The Forest Service is afraid to
make a move to do anything for fear of litigation. The process
that they have to go through, the personnel that is in the
office now aren't foresters. They are biologists, they are
grant-writers, and they are personnel that are going through
their environmental impact statements over and over with a
fine-toothed comb to be sure that, whatever they do, they are
not going to get sued on.
Mr. Daines. OK. My time has expired. The Chairman now
recognizes the distinguished Ranking Member from Arizona, Mr.
Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Campbell, you referenced--and I think others on
the panel did, I think--the excellent job Washington State does
with forest management, and that was a response to the last
question, as well. From what I have learned, the habitat
conservation plan that allows the States to manage their lands
for placing a priority on timber production. That plan relies
on the habitat protections, watershed protections on the
Federal lands. So we follow the logic that has been talked
about here on occasion, and remove those protections from the
Federal lands, doesn't that hurt the State lands?
Mr. Campbell. I am not following your question there. Are
you saying that to remove the habitat protection off the
Federal lands----
Mr. Grijalva. Remove the Federal protections because the
management plan for the State lands is based on those Federal
protections being in place on those Federal lands. You take out
habitat protection, you take out watershed protection, just
remove them. Now what happens to the State lands?
Mr. Campbell. The State lands are also working under the
habitat protection of their lands, also, and the watershed
protections there. We are under the----
Mr. Grijalva. I think the--well, Mr. Commissioner, I think
the interface is much, much more distinct than just by
coincidence.
Mr. Campbell. Are you trying to imply that because the
Federal lands are supposedly managing their habitat, that is
having a positive effect on the State there?
Mr. Grijalva. No, I am not even implying that. I am stating
that because of the management protections on the Federal land,
and the restrictions on the Federal land, it has given extra
freedom for the State lands to be managed with different
priorities. That is what I am stating.
Mr. Campbell. Well, I disagree with you on that statement.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. I wanted to ask Supervisor--
Commissioner--is it Supervisor or Commissioner?
Ms. Morris. In California we are ``Supervisor.''
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. I used--back home in Pima County I was a
supervisor. I share your pain on occasion, you know? Never a
commissioner, always a supervisor. So I appreciate the--all the
twists and turns you had to go through to get here. I know that
my colleague, Congressman Huffman, thought it was very, very
important that you share the perspective that you have.
Let me just follow up a little more on the question. Talk a
little more about the initial success of that collaborative
effort, and how that is allowing you, at this juncture in time,
to take on the bigger, more complex, and obviously, more
controversial projects.
Ms. Morris. Absolutely. Well, we have seen success in the
Community Forest. Of course we had our challenges at that
point, as well, but we moved through them. And I think, as a
result of what we learned at that level, and the need to do
more for all the issues that we have discussed here today, we
have come together with many of the same folks at our steering
committee. And of course, every member of the public who wants
to attend and work with us is welcome to sit there with us. We
will move forward and at a very local level, at stakeholder's
level, to try and scale up what we have learned and have
accomplished at the Community Forest.
Of course, we will still encounter challenges. But I think
our relationship has strengthened with the agency's. When we
embarked on the Community Forest, at that point the Forest
Service hadn't done that much on the collaborative effort in
our local area. So we have all kind of learned together through
the Community Forest, and hope to take what we have known and
grow from there.
We can't sit around and wait for all the finer details to
get worked out. We need to keep working and help manage our
forests for all the reasons we have talked about:
environmental, health and safety, watershed protection, keep
jobs--what few jobs we do have, hang on to them.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I just
want to state that we might disagree--people might disagree
with Chief Tidwell's management priorities, but certainly not
his voracity. And he said that there is litigation on 6 percent
of the projects and forest lands, and 1 to 2 percent of those--
that litigation does cause a delay. And I think that is
important to keep reminding ourselves, and not overstate the
issue.
Mr. Daines. Thank you. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Commissioner Morris, I just wanted to ask you a
couple of questions to make it worth your time coming back
here, and I appreciate you coming back here. And I shouldn't
ask questions I don't know the answer, but I am going to,
anyway.
Does California, on their education budget--and this may be
out of your realm of competency, if you don't know, just tell
me that--do they equalize their education funding--i.e., in
many States that are enlightened, like Utah, if the local
district cannot generate more than a set limit, there is a
recapture from them, and it is given to the poor districts that
can't generate up to that particular level. Does California do
anything like that, which would help mitigate districts like
yours, who have been harmed by, basically, the Federal
Government's involvement?
Ms. Morris. To my knowledge, no.
Mr. Bishop. That is too bad. They should do that. Well,
that answers----
Ms. Morris. The other----
Mr. Bishop. Then the follow-up questions don't make a bit
of difference, anyway.
I do have one question, though. In your written testimony
you did say that you thought SRS should be established again
for another year until an alternative revenue model is
developed. In your mind, what is that alternative revenue
model?
Ms. Morris. Well, I have heard some great ideas here today,
and the bills that have been forwarded. But my worry is that,
from a county standpoint, budgeting standpoint, and school
financing as well, is that is there a transition time. I mean
if we go from, in my testimony, 0 to 100 in a different course
of action, where will that leave our county, in terms of--will
it still get hung up in lawsuits, and then we have no money
coming in? And that could be a big disaster, is what my worry
is. Is there phased-in steps that we could take that still
secure funding for both county governments and schools?
Mr. Bishop. Yes. I realize that is a legitimate fear, and I
thank you for that. I think Congressman Hastings has also
recognized that, and he has tried to make provisions for that
kind of build-in time.
But we are seriously looking at a major problem where the
SRS funds are decreasing significantly. When they are not being
asked to be returned, they are still decreasing significantly,
and that does not give us a path to the future that gives a
reliable funding. So, unless there is some big project above
and beyond to what we are looking at right now that can be used
on those type of lands, without going into a legal drag.
So, with that, I yield back. We are voting right now, and I
apologize. Thank you for your----
Ms. Morris. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. And thank you, all of you, for your willingness
to come here and testify on these issues.
Mr. Daines. Yes, thank you for the testimony this morning.
It was very informative. And it is not because of lack of
interest it is down to Mr. Bishop and myself; there is a vote
going on.
So, we are going to head down to vote. So we will stand in
recess for about 45 minutes, and then we will return.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bishop [presiding]. The Committee will now come to
order. The Chair recognizes that, at many times during the
past, we have had a quorum. But we have four other bills to
deal with, and what I would like to do is try to combine some
of these panels so that we can get through as much testimony as
possible, and make sure that we have heard all of them.
So, I would like those who are testifying on H.R. 1294 and
H.R. 818 to come to the panel. So if I can ask Skip Brandt, who
is a Commissioner from Idaho County, Idaho--got you there--
Chris--oh, I should have asked how to pronounce these--Maisch?
Mr. Maisch. Maisch. You did good.
Mr. Bishop. Maisch, State Forester from Alaska Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry; Cindy Dozier, who
is a Commissioner at Hinsdale County in Colorado; John Martin,
Commissioner from Garfield County in Colorado; and Jason
Sibold, who is an Assistant Professor of Geography at Colorado
State University in their anthropology department.
So, we appreciate you being here. What we will do is simply
ask all of you if you would give your opening statement. If you
were here before, when Chairman Hastings was helping out--and I
appreciate both Congressman Hastings and Congressman Daines
organizing us in this particular seat.
Five minutes, you have your written testimonies already in
the record. We would ask you to add any oral comments to it.
But, as you know, there is a 5-minute clock that is right
there. And if you could please keep it within those 5 minutes,
I will sound a lot nicer from this point.
So, if we could just go down the row, let's deal with bill
H.R. 1294 first. So I am going to ask Commissioner Brandt and
then Director Maisch. They will talk. And then I will ask if
the Committee has questions of those two on this particular
bill. Then we will go down to the next bill and ask the round
of questions again.
So, Commissioner Brandt, if you would, please?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SKIP BRANDT, COMMISSIONER, IDAHO COUNTY,
IDAHO
Mr. Brandt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and leftover Committee
members. I look forward to this opportunity to visit on H.R.
1294.
H.R. 1294 was a brainchild of 5 Idaho County Commissioners.
We sat down, recognizing that there is a serious budget issue
coming down the pike for the Federal Government, and we
recognized that the SRS payments were not going to continue
forever. And I applaud the leadership of our representative,
Raul Labrador, in authoring this legislation, which is our
brainchild.
Idaho County is a small, little county in Idaho, which is
the largest county in Idaho. It consists of 5.5 million acres,
which--4.5 million or managed--or not managed--by the Federal
Government. So Federal lands is a really serious issue for my
county, in aspects of services and roads and our schools.
And the up-and-down reauthorization cycles of the SRS
payments has really been hard, for budgeting purposes. In fact,
my school back home just introduced their levy, not knowing
what next year's payment is going to be, or if it is going to
be.
In the aspect of the testimony that I would like to make, I
just note that we have worked very hard to try to find
solutions. We have been very supportive of the SRS payment, and
it is essential for continuing the necessary services.
I, myself, participate in the Clearwater Basin
Collaborative, a collaborative group that started 5 years ago.
I have been participating for 4 years. And I am very supportive
of it. However, 4 years down the line--literally 5 years for
others--it still hasn't produced anything significant. And it
hasn't--the collaborative process has brought a lot of players
to the table. However, we are still bound by this broken
Federal system which hinders the Forest Service.
And I would just like to note that I do appreciate Chief
Tidwell and his crew for their willingness to sit at the table
with us and be a partner in trying to move things forward.
However, I do recognize that their hands are tied by that
broken system.
One way or the other, the Federal lands are going to be
managed. By Mother Nature and fire, or we can do it, and we can
control the environmental issues that come along with massive
fires. This last year--and it has been stated that we have
canceled football games and practices because of air quality.
And I want to note that this isn't just a place that I want
to go visit. This is my backyard. I just got done planting 500
white pine trees up above--beyond my house. I have the
confluence of the South Fork and the Clearwater River down in
front of my house. I love going fishing with my son. I want to
protect the environment. But at the same time, we need to have
active management so our communities will thrive.
In closing, I am willing to come to the table and work with
anybody to help find a final solution, other than standing
around with our hands out and making multiple trips back here,
trying to talk you folks into giving us more money. I grew up
in an economy where the schools thrived when we were harvesting
timber on national lands and we received money via the 25
percent fund. So I know it will work. Our--if you hand us the
authority to manage our lands, we will have a thriving economy,
as well as we will protect our air, our water, our backyard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would stand for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brandt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Skip Brandt, Commissioner, Idaho County,
Idaho, on Behalf of Himself and Jon Cantamessa, Former Commissioner,
Shoshone County, Idaho; Gordon Cruickshank, Commissioner, Valley
County, Idaho; Dan Dinning, Commissioner, Boundary County, Idaho; Stan
Leach, Commissioner, Clearwater County, Idaho; and The Idaho
Association of Counties
Introduction
I am Skip Brandt, Commissioner, Idaho County, Idaho.
I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 1294
The Self-sufficient Community Lands Act of 2013. H.R. 1294 is based on
a Community Forest Trust concept developed by a bipartisan group of
five duly elected county commissioners from throughout Idaho and
subsequently endorsed by the Idaho Association of Counties.
I submit this statement of support for H.R. 1294 on behalf of
myself, my fellow commissioners identified on the cover page who helped
initiate this concept, and the Idaho Association of counties.
We applaud the leadership of our Representative Raul Labrador in
authoring this legislation and his support for the rural forested
communities of Idaho.
H.R. 1294 will allow a transition path from the federal transfer
payments of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination
Act (SRS) program, to a sustainable and reliable program for revenues
which do not depend on distributions from the U.S. Treasury. It would
authorize our proposal for specific lands within the Idaho national
forests to be designated as a Community Forest Trust pilot and that the
resources on those lands be managed in an sustainable and
environmentally sound manner for the purpose of generating resources
for Idaho counties in lieu of transfer payments under the Secure Rural
Schools program.
We support the interim reauthorization of the SRS program in 2013
as it is immediately essential to the funding of county government
school and road programs throughout the country. However, as part of
that reauthorization we are specifically proposing the Congress include
H.R. 1294 which will allow us, and any other interested stated, to
establish a Community Forest Trust pilot projects. These pilot projects
will demonstrate the opportunity for the Community Forest Trust to
provide a far superior alternative to the SRS federal transfer
payments. Additionally, revenues generated from the Community Forest
Trust pilot project would quickly begin to offset some of the federal
government transfer payments under the SRS program, and thereby help
immediately to partially reduce the impact to the federal treasury for
SRS payments.
We have developed the Community Forest Trust concept from our
combined experience with local government and natural resource
management, and with considered and ongoing input from natural resource
management professionals. Each of our counties has voted formally in
public meetings to embrace the Community Forest Trust concept for Idaho
and to seek authorizing legislation from the U.S. Congress. So has the
Idaho Association of Counties.
We do appreciate the federal government's long standing obligation
of support for counties with significant quantities of federal land.
Congress has recognized, and we completely concur, that there must be a
federal mechanism for contributing funds to local government where
federal lands are not available for the local government tax base. The
federal transfer payments of the SRS program have been essential for
the last several years to maintaining threshold county government
services for schools, roads, and public safety. However, the continuous
uncertainty over whether the SRS program will continue and if so at
what level, does not provide for stability, and makes it impossible for
our counties to develop long term plans. We also believe the federal
deficit is a significant problem for our entire country and a primary
threat to our national security. H.R. 1294 will help address these
paramount issues. Additionally, the pilot programs authorized by H.R.
1294 have the opportunity to stimulate increased economic development
and employment in our rural communities, and facilitate efficient
prioritized treatments of unhealthy forests with high risk of fire and
disease. These are priorities we also share with the U.S. Congress.
Community Forest Trust
Our original proposal for a Community Forest Trust is described in
detail in a hearing statement and concept paper we presented to this
committee for the record in July, 2011. Basically the idea is for a
Community Forest Trust to be designated by Congress from federal forest
lands and further for Congress to provide those lands be managed in
trust by the state for the benefit of county governments and local
communities. In Idaho's case, professional forest management would be
provided by the Idaho Department of Lands under the environmental laws
as they apply to all Idaho state forest trust lands. Proceeds from
management of the Community Forest Trust would be distributed to
counties receiving Secure Rural Schools funding in lieu of transfer
payments from the federal treasury, after having first reimbursed the
managing agency for land management costs. Management of the Community
Forest Trust would be overseen by a Board of elected officials and
stakeholders as identified in H.R. 1294.
H.R. 1294 pilot projects would be managed sustainably and with
multi-stakeholder input and environmental monitoring.
In Idaho, most of our counties are actively engaged in multi-
interest collaborative discussions on federal lands management
projects. In Idaho County we helped organize and have continuously
participated in the nationally acclaimed Clearwater Basin Collaborative
to address forest management opportunities on federal forest lands in
our area. We would build on these relationships to solicit input to
help shape management plans and projects for pilot projects authorized
by H.R. 1294.
Our Clearwater Basin Collaborative Projects have also won support
under the Collaborative Forest Restoration Act Program--competing
against numerous collaborative projects nationally.
Pilot Project
To demonstrate the benefits of the Community Forest Trusts as
envisioned by H.R. 1294, we have proposed a 200,000 acre Idaho pilot
project be initially and immediately approved, located in management
blocks throughout the forested region of the state. This is a small
pilot including less than 1% of the 20 million acres of national forest
land in Idaho. While it is unreasonable to expect a pilot of this small
size to fully offset established levels of SRS transfer payments, it is
sufficiently sized to prove and fine-tune the Community Forest Trust
model and, once functioning, we believe has the potential to generate
up to $15 million annually to offset federal SRS transfer payments to
Idaho counties.
Boundary, Clearwater, Idaho, Shoshone, and Valley Counties
The counties we represent contain some of the largest percentages
of federal forest lands in the country.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.001
.epsThe Secure Rural Schools and Self Determination Act program is
an essential component of our county budgets for roads and schools.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.002
.epsFace the challenges of all rural America with declining
economies, employment opportunities, and populations living below
national standards. Particularly acute in counties with extensive
federal forest lands
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.003
.epsConclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We urge this Committee
quickly approve H.R. 1294.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate your testimony.
Director Maisch.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ``CHRIS'' MAISCH, STATE FORESTER AND
DIRECTOR, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
FORESTRY
Mr. Maisch. Yes, thank you. Can I have the title slide up,
please?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris Maisch, and I
am the Alaska State Forester and Division Director for the
Alaska Division of Forestry. On behalf of the Governor of
Alaska, thank you for the opportunity to submit written and
public testimony.
I would like to begin my testimony by discussing a concept
we believe is essential to considering legislation of this
nature.
Next slide. The State of Alaska embraces the concept of a
working forest, which is further described as the utilization
of forest resources to create jobs and healthy communities
through active forest management.
Next slide. The healthy environment should support a strong
social structure, which will, in turn, support a robust
economy. The State of Alaska and others use the phrase ``triple
bottom line''--next slide--to reference this relationship,
which is also described as sustainability. When any one of
these elements is emphasized disproportionately, the other
elements suffer in measures of quantity and quality.
Next slide. Unfortunately, in Alaska, and other parts of
the Nation, an unbalanced relationship between the three bottom
lines is causing major challenges for State and local
governments and communities. Federal policy on national forest
system lands has shifted away from the working forest concept
to disproportionately embrace a protection-oriented approach.
Next slide. Graphically, this diagram represents what has
happened to acreage available for timber management on the
Tongass. The arrows proportionately show how acreage has been
reduced for a variety of reasons. The dark green band
represents the Tongass at 16.7 million acres. The take-home
point is the small black and green column at the bottom of the
graphic only represents 672,000 acres of land for timber
management.
Next slide. This graph demonstrates the decline of timber
sale volume from 1996 to 2012 on Federal lands, with the State
volume increasing slowly over the same period of time from a
land base of only 50,000 acres.
Next slide. Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force was convened by
Governor Parnell in 2011 with Administrative Order 258, which
established the Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force to recommend ways
to revive Alaska's timber industry. The Task Force gathered
information from numerous State and Federal agencies to capture
the social implications of industry decline, and utilize
measures of regional population and school enrollment.
Twenty-four of 34 southeast communities, 71 percent, have
lost population. Schools are the leading indicator of community
health. In total, there has been a 15 percent decline in
southeast student enrollment since 1990. And, more compelling,
during the past 20 years, six communities have had to close
their schools.
Recent news from the Forest Service concerning the Secure
Rural Schools payment and sequestration is an unwelcome
development, and underscores the need for a better approach for
funding school districts dependent on this income. H.R. 1294
outlines a solid process for establishing a more consistent
funding approach, while meeting the objectives outlined above.
I offer the following observations concerning the benefits
of State management, as opposed to Federal. In 1989, the Alaska
Forest Resources and Practices Act was established, and governs
forest practice on State, municipal, and private lands. The Act
uses enforceable BMPs to protect fish habitat and water
quality, and addresses other practices. Lands designated as
State forest are managed per State forest purposes, as defined
in Alaska statute. The statute states, ``The primary purpose is
the establishment of State forest as timber management that
provides for the production, utilization, and replenishment of
timber resources, while allowing other beneficial uses of
public land and resources.''
In contrast, Federal lands have numerous conditions and
guidelines that prevent the Forest Service from generating
significant revenue from forest management activities. The new
2012 national planning rule and the National Forest Management
Act present significant hurdles to revenue production as a key
objective for these lands. These conditions and numerous others
complicate the timber sale process for the Forest Service and
often result in below-cost sales or sales that are only
marginally economic. Here, State management would offer clear
advantages.
The State of Alaska also supports the concept of Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, as it could
significantly increase timber harvests on national forests.
Additionally, the State of Alaska would concur with the
specific recommendations in H.R. 818 concerning Good Neighbor
and stewardship contracting authorities. The National
Association of State Foresters is also on record with support
for these concepts.
In closing, I would like to leave you with this thought.
Alaska's Federal and State forests have the potential to be a
model of sustainability, including environmental, social, and
economic objectives. The working forest concept embraces
diverse and broad objectives related to utilizing natural
resources, providing jobs, stimulating local economies, and
supporting communities. These broad objectives have the
potential to unify diverse stakeholders and interest groups.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss Federal
forest management.
One last point I would like to make is one of the key
recommendations from the Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force was for
the establishment of a 2-million-acre State forest in Southeast
Alaska, which would entail a transfer of Federal lands. The
Task Force made four recommendations on how that should occur.
And if you have questions, I would be happy to go into detail
on that for you.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be
happy to address any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maisch follows:]
Statement of John ``Chris'' Maisch, C.F., State Forester and Division
Director, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, on
Behalf of State of Alaska
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Young,
and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Chris Maisch and I am the
Alaska State Forester and Division Director for the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. On behalf of the Governor
of Alaska, thank you for the opportunity to submit written and public
testimony to the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the
Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act (H.R. 1294) and other related
legislation. We appreciate your attention to the important economic and
environmental issue of national forest management. Modern forestry is
the greenest of green industries and yet communities located in and
near national forests are desperate for the restoration of green jobs
that could result from proper stewardship of our nation's unmatched
forest endowment.
I would like to begin my testimony by discussing a concept we
believe is essential to considering legislation of this nature, before
describing the current situation in Southeast Alaska, and potential
scenarios for State management.
The State of Alaska embraces the concept of a Working Forest, which
is further described as the utilization of forest resources to create
jobs and healthy communities through active forest management. A
healthy environment should support a strong social structure, which
will in turn support a robust economy. The State of Alaska and others
use the phrase ``Triple Bottom Line'' to refer to this relationship,
which is also described as sustainability.\1\ When any one of these
elements is emphasized disproportionately, the other elements suffer in
measures of quantity and quality. Unfortunately, in Alaska and other
parts of the Nation, an unbalanced relationship between the three
``bottom lines'' is causing major challenges for state and local
governments and communities. Federal policy on National Forest System
lands has shifted away from the Working Forest concept to
disproportionately embrace a protection-oriented approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA, 2011. National Report on Sustainable Forests-2010, United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's forest endowment is massive. Alaska's two national
forests, the Tongass and the Chugach, are the largest in the country.
Together they are nearly equal in size to the 52 forests located in the
Forest Service Eastern Regions' 8 and 9--over 22 million acres.
Unfortunately, the economic ``bottom line'' of Alaska's federal forest
endowment has been short-changed, to the detriment of Alaska's
communities.
This is illustrated by federal management of the Tongass National
Forest in Southeast Alaska. The Tongass is the largest national forest
and encompasses about 17 million acres of land. Not all of this land is
suitable for timber management, but through a series of legislative
withdrawals and policy changes, the suited timber base available for
management has declined to only 672 thousand acres--or 4% of the
Tongass acreage.
Nearly six million acres are managed as wilderness in the Tongass.
That is more wilderness acres than the Forest Service manages in
Arizona, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Oregon
combined (4.8 million acres).
The limitations mentioned, in combination with an unwieldy U.S.
Forest Service policy, have led to a precipitous decline in timber
volume offered for sale. At the same time logging and wood products
employment remains a mere shadow of its past, falling from 4,600 jobs
in 1990 to approximately 307 logging jobs and 150 wood products
manufacturing jobs in 2011. Annual payroll lost since 1990 is well over
$100 million. Payroll in recent years has fallen to approximately $21
million for the logging and the forest products manufacturing
sector.\2\ Conditions have continued to deteriorate since 2011 and the
Southeast Alaska timber industry has nearly collapsed. The few jobs
left are attributable to forest management activities by landowners
such as the Sealaska Corporation and the State of Alaska. Since 2007,
what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska has lived from
timber sale to timber sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alaska Department of Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force
In 2011, Governor Parnell issued Administrative Order 258 which
established the Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force to recommend ways to
revive Alaska's timber industry. The task force was a combined federal,
state, private industry, and community group appointed by Governor
Parnell. The Governor charged the task force with considering and
attempting to address a number of specific tasks, several of which were
directly related to timber management on federal lands and the need to
utilize these renewable resources to benefit local, regional and
national public interests. The final report from the task force was
completed in 2012.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at http://forestry.alaska.gov/pdfs/
timber_jobs_task_force_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The task force gathered information from numerous state and federal
agencies to capture the social implications of developments in the
Southeast timber industry. The task force found the decline in
Southeast Alaska's timber industry impacted social measures, such as
regional population and school enrollment. Statistics from the 2010
U.S. Census show that total population has declined by 5% over the past
decade. Furthermore, 24 out of 34 Southeast communities (71%) have lost
population ranging from -2 percent (Hydaburg) to -57 percent (Point
Baker).\4\ The Southeast region of Alaska, dominated by the Tongass
forest, is the only region to lose population during the last two
censuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force 2012, Report to Governor Sean
Parnell, Prepared By Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force, Administrative
Order 258: Final Report, Appendix 8 p3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools are the leading indicator of community health. The Task
Force found that while ``[n]early all (31 of 34) Southeast communities
have had a public community school at one point in time . . . the
majority of communities have experienced enrollment declines over two
decades. In total, there has been a 15 percent decline in Southeast
student enrollment since 1990. During the past 20 years, six
communities (19%) have seen their school close (one school has since
reopened in Kasaan). Of the 31 communities with schools, the majority
(87%) have experienced a declining student enrollment sustained over
nearly two decades; only (10%) have increasing school enrollments.''
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Alaska Timber Jobs Task Force 2012. Appendix 8 p 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeast Island School District serves residents of the
islands of Prince of Wales, Baranof and Kosciusko--all located in the
heart of the Tongass National Forest. Those islands were the most
intensively managed during the peak of timber harvest. In 1995, the
district served 381 students in 12 schools. Today, nine schools serve
160 students.
Recent news from the USFS concerning Secure Rural Schools payments
and sequestration could exacerbate an already troubling situation. The
State and school districts have received an invoice for $826,331 as a
result of the 5.1 percent cut in funding in our Title I-III
allocations.\6\ This unwelcome development underscores the need for a
better approach to funding school districts dependent on this income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USDA Forest Service Correspondence, March 19, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these grim realities, the region is fighting to survive and
reinvent itself. Federal legislation could help make this possible.
Self-Sufficent Community Lands Act (H.R. 1294)
H.R. 1294 outlines a solid process for establishing a more
consistent funding approach, while meeting the objectives outlined
above. I offer the following observations concerning the benefits of a
state-managed community forest demonstration area in comparison to the
current form of management.
The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA) governs forest
practices on state, municipal, and private land, including the Alaska
Mental Health Trust and University of Alaska Trust lands. The Act, in
place since 1989, has been updated several times as new science becomes
available. Scientific findings are reviewed in a two-step process via
Alaska's Board of Forestry. The Act includes effectiveness and
implementation components to ensure the best management practices
(BMPs) remain current.
Lands designated as State Forest are managed per state forest
purposes, as defined in Alaska statute (AS 41.17.200). The statute
states, ``[t]he primary purpose in the establishment of state forests
is timber management that provides for the production, utilization, and
replenishment of timber resources while allowing other beneficial uses
of public land and resources.'' The focus is on providing a consistent
well managed supply of wood to private sector businesses that
subsequently produce a range of products and services that will benefit
local communities. The State has emphasized job creation over
maximization of revenue in its management of state forests, but two
State Trusts follow the maximum fiscal return approach to ensure
beneficiaries are well served.
In contrast, federal lands have numerous conditions and guidelines
that prevent the USFS from generating significant revenue from forest
management activities. The new 2012 National Planning Rule includes
language that states: ``the plan must provide for ecosystem services
and multiple uses . . .'' and contains additional language concerning
integrated resource management planning that must address a long list
of criteria, which in part include: aesthetic values, air quality,
ecosystem services, habitat connectivity, scenery, view sheds,
wilderness and other relevant resources and uses.\7\ The National
Forest Management Act (NFMA) also includes a section to ``insure that
timber will be harvested from the National Forest System lands only
where the harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily
because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit
output of timber.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 36 CFR 219 Subpart A-National Forest System Land Management
Planning (2012 National Planning Rule) Sec. 219.10 Multiple use (a)
(1).
\8\ U.S. Code 1604(g)(3)(iv) (National Forest Management Act
(NFMA)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These conditions and numerous others complicate the timber sale
process for the USFS and often result in below cost sales or sales that
are only marginally economic. Here, state management would offer clear
advantages. The State public process is less cumbersome which allows
prompt reaction to market changes and the ability to offer long term
timber sales up to 20 years or longer, which would encourage the
investment of private capital and manufacturing facilities.
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, Healthy Forest
Management and Wildfire Prevention Act (H.R. 818), and Other
Matters
The State of Alaska also supports the concept of the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, as it could significantly
increase timber harvests on national forests. Additionally, the State
of Alaska would concur with specific recommendations in H.R. 818
concerning ``Good Neighbor ``(Sec. 8.) and Stewardship Contracting
(Sec. 9.) authorities. The National Association of State Foresters is
also on the record with support for these concepts. (See attached
correspondence).
Finally, the State of Alaska supports an equitable resolution of
the Sealaska Corporation's land entitlement under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act and a proposed land exchange between the Alaska
Mental Health Trust and the U.S. Forest Service. Resolving these issues
is important to balancing the triple bottom line of Southeast Alaska.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to leave you with this thought: Alaska's
federal and state forests have the potential to be a model of
sustainability, including environmental, social, and economic
objectives. The ``working forest'' concept embraces diverse and broad
objectives related to utilizing natural resources, providing jobs,
stimulating local economies and supporting communities. These broad
objectives have the potential to unify diverse stakeholders and
interest groups.
Despite more than 50 years of timber harvest in the Tongass, a mere
2.5 percent of the old growth forest has been harvested. The Tongass
alone is roughly half the size of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts
combined, yet today, more commercial harvest occurs in those states
than in all of Alaska. By allowing another 4.5 percent of old growth to
be harvested in the Tongass over the next 80 years, hundreds of jobs--
the equivalent of an auto factory--would be created and sustained
forever--the ultimate green industry.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss federal forest
management. I urge you to act on these important pieces of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to
address any questions the Committee may have.
______
Response to Questions Submitted for the Record by John ``Chris''
Maisch, State Forester Alaska
I appreciate your questions considering employment numbers in other
segments of the Southeast Alaska economy. While the Timber Task Forces
process was focused on the plight of the timber industry in southeast,
the triple bottom line concept discussed in my testimony speaks to the
need of having a diversified economy across many sectors to ensure
communities and residents are not dependent on a single sector. The
concept also embraces the need of a balance between the environmental,
social and economic aspects of communities to encourage sustainability.
While I can't corroborate the specific numbers you cited, I did do
some research to document employment and fiscal contributions of these
two sectors. I relied heavily on a report produced by the Alaska
Department of Labor & Workforce Development for the fisheries
information and excerpted freely from that document and used a report
from Southeast Conference to help answer the tourism portion of your
questions.
Alaska's fisheries are some of the most sustainable, best managed
in the world. Commercial fishing is one of the largest private-sector
industries in the state, including all seafood harvesting and
processing. Many of the processing jobs available in the seafood
industry are in remote locations, such as Dutch Harbor and Naknek, or
on at-sea processors in the Bering Sea.
Thousands of visitors come to Alaska each year to enjoy world-class
sort fishing and in the process contribute to the economy by supporting
local business. Fishing also provides about 60 percent of subsistence
foods taken each year by both Alaska Natives and non-Natives.
Harvesting is highly seasonal with employment distributed among the
following fisheries in 2010: salmon (50.2 percent), halibut (20.1
percent), ground fish (8.1 percent), sablefish (7.4 percent), crab 5.4
percent), herring (4.9 percent) and miscellaneous shellfish (3.9
percent).
Average monthly fish harvesting employment had declined nearly
every year since 2005 and in 2010, hit its lowest level since the data
series was created. In 2010, there were 6,915 harvesters working each
month on average, a decline of 2.4 percent from the previous year and
down 7.6 percent from 2005.
It's important to note that declining average monthly employment is
not necessarily an indicator of weakness in the industry. A better
overall indicator of the harvesting industry's health is gross
earnings, which grew modestly from 2005 to 2010.
More specifically, the Southeast region had the largest fish
harvesting workforce in 2010, but gross earnings ranked third behind
Southcentral and the Aleutians and Pribilof Islands. Harvesting
employment grew by 146 workers, reaching 9,182. Southeast had a record
year for gross earnings ($208 million), $49 million more than in
2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alaska Economic Trends, November 2011, Volume 31, Number 11,
Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The visitor industry (tourism) is an important component of the
economy of southeast. More than a million visitors came to the region
in 2011, with most (85 percent) on cruise ships. The volume of visitors
attracted to the region has given rise to a rich variety of visitor
focused businesses and when aggregated, the visitor industry is one of
the region's largest private sector employers' accounting for 13
percent (6,000 jobs) of all employment in the region. This activity
brings in $164 million in employment income.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Visitor Industry includes leisure and hospitality businesses
with others that specifically comprise the industry in Southeast Alaska
such as jewelry stores, tour operators, air transportation businesses
etc. For more detail on other businesses included in this sector see,
Southeast Alaska by the Numbers, 2012, page 7, Southeast Conference.
www.seconference.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate both of you coming here
and testifying.
On this particular bill, Mr. Tipton, do you have questions
on this one for these two witnesses?
Mr. Tipton. Actually, I do have just one question. And I
think that--let's see, I want to make sure I get the right one
here with Mr. Maisch--is that correct?
Mr. Maisch. That is correct.
Mr. Tipton. You know, in your testimony you just noted
that, with the three categories that you mentioned, that it is
disproportionately tilting toward a protection-oriented
approach that you had described. Would you describe your job as
a State Forester to be able to protect the forests?
Mr. Maisch. Yes. Our program does both wildland fire and
forest management. So it is the same realm that the U.S. Forest
Service has, in terms of their charge. And we do active
management of our forest lands.
A good example would be best interest--I signed just last
week for a biomass project near the community of Tok. It is in
a location of the State that has a lot of wildland fire. About
every decade this community is threatened by rather large
fires. And the idea there is the electric utility company is
going to put in a facility that will use biomass instead of
diesel fuel for this community, which is off the grid. They are
not tied into the electric grid.
At the same time, we are going to treat fuels that need to
be treated right in the community. Currently it costs us $1,000
to $1,500 an acre to treat those fuels. And now we will
actually be generating some revenue from the same areas we
would have previously paid to have treated. So that is one
example of some of the kinds of----
Mr. Tipton. Would it be kind of a fair characterization of
what I believe you are trying to say that a lock-down and lock-
out approach, when it comes to responsibly treating these
forests, is not appropriate, that we can better protect,
actually, the environment and the overall health of our
economies, our environment, and our communities by taking that
active role?
Mr. Maisch. That is correct, and that is that working-for-
us concept, that by doing active management on these lands, all
three of those elements I mentioned will benefit and not to the
detriment of any of the others.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis, do you have questions?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for
Commissioner Brandt. I listened to your testimony and share
very much your view of where you live and how the people who
live there care more about it than anyone possibly could.
Do you have any advice for us, those of us who just are
here day in and day out, trying to get that point across to
people that here we are, 50 years down the road from the times
when there were ill-advised clear-cuts and timber run amuck,
and yet people, it seems back east, and Federal land managers,
and perhaps some environmental groups try to conjure up those
images of the middle of the 20th century, long since dead and
gone, to raising concerns that people who don't live--excuse
me, the people who do live there somehow don't care.
And I am so frustrated. And you heard some of those
frustrations this morning by people on this panel who just
cannot, for the life of them, figure out why people who don't
live in the places that we live think that those of us who live
there would do things to the land and the air and the water
that we live with, around, and love? I am to this day, I am
baffled about it.
Do you have any insights that I don't have? Maybe I have
been here in--breathing this air too long.
Mr. Brandt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman. I
wish I did. It is just mind-boggling to me. Even in our
collaborative groups--and I will probably have a discussion
with those folks when I get back--but I am so frustrated at
times. When you look at the conservation groups that
participate in our collaborative group, they don't live there.
We have a very radical environmental group that is called
Friends of the Clearwater. They don't live on the Clearwater. I
live on the Clearwater. They live in a college town, where they
can make a good living. And they have great schools, because
they have a tax base.
And so, I don't know what to really tell you there, other
than, as Congressman DeFazio stated, it is time for a change.
And I have gotten to the point to where I don't believe you can
change it back here. I think you just have to hand authority
over to us to manage it under our State Forest Management
Practices Act.
Mrs. Lummis. Amen to that, and no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Skip, Commissioner
Brandt, thank you so much for being here. You have been a great
defender of your county and of the State, and I appreciate
everything you do for Idaho.
I don't know if you were here when I was questioning Mr.
Tidwell. I think you share the respect that I share--that I
have for him. I think you have a lot of respect for him. But I
was really frustrated today, because he seemed to indicate that
the community was supporting his management practices. And I
don't know where he got that information from. Do you share
with him that the community actually wants the Federal
Government to be handing money to them, and that the community
actually wants the Federal Government to be managing the lands,
and they don't really want the State to manage these lands?
Mr. Brandt. No, I do not. No.
Mr. Labrador. Can you explain what you feel about that, and
how you felt today when you were listening to him?
Mr. Brandt. Well, to a degree I felt sorry for Mr. Tidwell
because, again, his hands and his folks, their hands are tied.
A month doesn't go by that I don't talk to a Forest Service
forester who is just quivering mad because they recognize that
they have to get in there and have proper land management, but
can't because of their top-down procedure and their need to
study things to death.
It doesn't matter what it is, if you sit down and study
something long enough, you are going to find a reason why you
shouldn't do it. And then, if you send out questionnaires to
everybody and their dog, you are going to find a person
somewhere in this Nation that doesn't think that you should
pull that timber sale off, or whatever the restoration action
is. And so it is very frustrating on our end. But I also see
the frustration with several members of the Forest Service.
Mr. Labrador. Now, you participate in the collaborative
process that he was describing. Do you share with him the--he
seemed to always go back to that as that it was being very
successful. Do you think it is as successful as he was
characterizing it today?
Mr. Brandt. Not as successful as he was characterizing it.
The collaborative process has been successful in aspects that
it has all the players--or most of the players--at the table
and talking. But again, we can only do what Federal law allows
the Forest Service to do, because they are our partner.
Mr. Labrador. OK. So last year in Idaho we had a record
fire year. And the Federal Government expends more dollars to
fight fires on Federal lands than on State-administered lands.
Can you provide the Committee additional detail on why this is
the case? Why would we be spending more money on Federal fires
than State fires?
Mr. Brandt. I have a very good friend who was a helicopter
pilot for all the fire birds that go around and put out fires.
And his best explanation was that his boss said, ``There are
two kinds of fires. There is coffee-and-bagel fire and beer-
and-peanut fires.'' The coffee-and-bagel fires were the forest
lands, where they would get up and they would have their
opening status briefing, then they would have a safety meeting,
and then they would have a strategy meeting, and the birds--the
blades wouldn't turn until it was close to noon. Where if it
was a fire on State land, or private land, those blades are
turning 30 minutes before sunrise, and they would go out and
put out the fire, and they would be drinking beer and eating
peanuts at night, because it is all done.
Mr. Labrador. And I want to clarify the coffee-and-bagel
fire was on Federal land.
Mr. Brandt. Federal lands.
Mr. Labrador. OK.
Mr. Brandt. While you are having those meetings----
Mr. Labrador. Yes.
Mr. Brandt [continuing]. To have meetings.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Now, tell us why you support, then, the
State management of lands, why you think it would be good to
your county and, in essence, to the United States and the State
of Idaho?
Mr. Brandt. Well, I didn't bring that many notes with me.
The core is, number one, environment. We will protect our
environment better than the current regulations do. We will
have an economy. We won't be coming back here and asking for
the SRS and hand-outs as much. There is still the wilderness
designation in those lands which will not be--have extraction
on them.
But also, it is key to note how much the Federal Government
has to pay to harvest timber where, on private land and State
land, we make money off of those logs, rather than needing more
appropriations to go in and treat.
Mr. Labrador. And do you, as a Commissioner, want to be
waiting for----
Mr. Bishop. Nothing personal, but we are over time.
Mr. Labrador. All right, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. We will come back to another round
if you really want it.
Mr. Grijalva, are you ready?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Grijalva. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner
Brandt, what is the status of efforts in the Idaho State
Legislature to require the Federal Government to return title
of Federal lands back to the State of Idaho? That is one
question.
And the second part of it is do you support that
legislative effort.
Mr. Brandt. OK. First is what is the status?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Brandt. Yes. The legislature passed two resolutions,
one to study the concept and the other to request that the
public lands, minus national parks and wilderness, be deeded
back to the State, as our founding fathers intended.
Do I support it? Absolutely. That is the end result of
where this bill needs to bring us, because the bill before us
is a pilot project to just prove that we can----
Mr. Grijalva. OK, I appreciate that.
Mr. Brandt [continuing]. Manage.
Mr. Grijalva. Under my friend Congress Labrador's
legislation, how would the Federal Government ensure that
tribal treaty agreements and rights and the very important
tribal consultation of government-to-government, how would they
be respected under your end game, where Idaho has all of it?
Mr. Brandt. The same as they are now. They are a partner
with the State. And even in our current collaborative process--
--
Mr. Grijalva. No, I beg to disagree. Right now it is a
government-to-government consultation with a constitutional
Federal responsibility. I don't think you have that nexus in
Idaho. Do you?
Mr. Brandt. Technically, no. But we do.
Mr. Grijalva. How can you have both? How can you--I will be
glad to yield, sir. Let me--yes.
Mr. Brandt. Again, the Tribes are our partners. And we
always work close with the tribal actions.
And I would note for the record that the Nez Perce Tribe,
who--part of their Reservation is within my county--they manage
their lands a heck of a lot better than the Federal Government
does.
Mr. Grijalva. And that is their sovereign right to do that.
Mr. Brandt. Absolutely.
Mr. Grijalva. That is why it is a government-to-government
relationship with the Federal Government, as opposed to some
other possible scenario that isn't protected by the
Constitution.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, Member Grijalva, the
legislation allows for the Tribes to keep that sovereignty that
they have. We actually specifically drafted it that way to make
sure that the Tribes would receive the same sovereignty that
they have at this time under Federal law.
Mr. Grijalva. Reclaiming, well, I will pursue that
discussion with your office so that I can get that
clarification. It is kind of important. And the reason I raise
the question is because tribal representatives at a national
level asked very specifically what that did, in terms of the
government-to-government relationship.
Mr. Labrador. If the gentleman would yield----
Mr. Grijalva. Surely.
Mr. Labrador. The legislation takes care of that, and I
would love to have that discussion with you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just take a couple of moments here for a
couple of questions. And first of all, to my friend,
Representative Grijalva, this is based on a Utah statute as
well, which does exempt both military lands and tribal lands.
They are not covered as part of what would be given to the
States.
I actually appreciate both of you and your testimony that
you have given here. In fact, your answers to the other
questions have basically covered everything I wanted to do. So
let me ask one quick one.
So, Director, for the State of Alaska, where you are, does
the State forest in Alaska still provide opportunities for
recreation and multiple-use purposes?
Mr. Maisch. Yes, certainly. Those are some of the other
uses that are allowed and, in fact, encouraged in State
forests. It is just that the primary purpose is timber
management, just like in a park the primary purpose is
protection of resources and recreation and in a wildlife refuge
the primary purpose is habitat. So it is no different than
other types of lands.
The State forest, in my opinion, is actually a more
friendly place for many more multiple uses than some of those
other types of designations.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And both of you told why your lands
are outperforming the Forest Service lands very clearly, as
well as why your lands that you manage are actually in better
health than the Federal lands that we have in that area.
So, let me just take it one step lower, Commissioner, and
ask you if you believe the counties would be able to manage
those lands as effectively as the State of Idaho could.
Mr. Brandt. Individually not. But as a group of counties,
yes. And as this legislation would do, it would put the other
board that would oversee the management, similar to what the
Land Board does in the State.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I appreciate that. I realize the
common concept back here is that only something on the Federal
level can have the scope to look at the entire Nation and do
things in a positive way. I don't necessarily agree with that,
for obvious reasons.
Mr. Labrador, I know you had a couple of questions. I have
3 minutes of my time left. Would you like to finish that off
for me?
Mr. Labrador. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think I am done
with my questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I will keep my 3 minutes, then. Thank
you.
To you two--do you have any more?
Mr. Grijalva. No.
Mr. Bishop. Any other questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. To you two, I would ask you if you would just
stay right there for a second as we go through the next bill,
but I appreciate you coming up here, and I appreciate your
testimony. And both oral and written was extremely precise.
Let me go now to H.R. 818, I believe. This is yours, Mr.
Tipton, as well. We will go through with the testimony from our
three witnesses. Same drill as before. Your written testimony
is in the record. If you keep your oral testimony to 5 minutes
or less, I would be very grateful.
Let's start with--it is Commissioner Martin, right, from
Garfield County?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN MARTIN, COMMISSIONER,
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Mr. John Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing
me. Yes, I am John Martin. I am a County Commissioner from
Garfield County, Colorado.
Mr. Bishop. Can I interrupt you for just one second?
Mr. John Martin. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. I understand, Commissioner, that
you have a flight you need to catch.
Mr. John Martin. I do.
Mr. Bishop. It will not be rude if you just walk away from
us at any time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. John Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, OK. We will reset you to 5 minutes.
Go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. John Martin. It does not offend me, either. Good luck
on the flight.
And Garfield County is an area of about 2,900 square miles
of Western Colorado. I have been a County Commissioner for 17
years. I have served as the Chairman of the Board for 15 of
those years. I also serve as the Chair of the Colorado Public
Lands Legislative Committee and in 2012 elected the first Vice
President of the Western Interstate Region, a division of the
National Association of Counties, which serves 14 States.
And then again, in my attempt to earn a living, I am an
everyday farmer growing peaches, apricots, and apples in
Western Colorado. But I would like to point out that before my
political career started I was a police officer for nearly 25
years for the City of Glenwood Springs, which is the county
seat of Garfield County. And, as you may surmise, I am here to
support H.R. 818 for the following reasons.
It declares Bark Beetle epidemic, drought, and
deterioration of our national forests as high-risk and--I
should say and high-risk wildfires as immediate threats. It
allows the Governor of the State to designate high-risk areas
within the national forest and public lands within the State.
It also allows designation of those high-risk areas by Federal
agencies within the Forest Service and public lands. It
promotes good-neighbor cooperation between Federal, Indian, and
State governments. It allows the use of emergency hazardous
fuels reduction programs in high-risk areas, supports the
request by the Colorado--I am sorry, by the National
Association of Counties to extend the stewardship contracts
from 10 years to 20 years.
The bill uses common sense, and encourages Federal agencies
to work with Indian, State, and county governments, but most of
all, businesses, which is the true key to success.
The bill supports a needed and new emerging forest
restoration industry by supporting economic certainty so tools,
manpower, and financial support can provide reduction of
wildfire risks, reduction of hazardous fuels within our forests
and public lands, which provide a safer area around our
communities.
In closing, I would like to offer the following views.
Federal land managers know the highest-risk areas around us.
This bill gives them another tool to work with local
communities to address those risks. Educating the public on
defensible space continues to be a top priority, and should be
not overlooked. In fact, in Colorado, citizens can be
reimbursed by the State up to 50 percent of the cost of
improving that defensible space.
The local use doctrine regarding public lands is extremely
important to us. Nearly 70 percent of the lands in Garfield
County are managed by the Federal agencies. Forest management
practices are a crucial part of the picture. Vitality and
strength of the Western United States is closely tied to the
health of our public lands.
And the key questions when considering legislation, rule,
or regulation by Garfield County is called REAL, R-E-A-L, a
concept that it is responsive. That--is it truly required by
State and Federal law? Was comprehensive data used to define
the problem, and the desired outcome? Were experts who
administer the affected program engaged? Efficiency, will it
streamline or add layers of bureaucracy? Is it redundant or
ineffective? Are current staffing levels significant to comply
with the added responsibilities or requirements? And
accountability. Are there measured outcomes to be achieved by
this change? Is there adequate funding to pay for all the
direct costs? Are there models in existence that may provide
better outcome? And local, State, and Federal partnership. Have
all local elected officials been consulted? Has there been
collaboration between agencies? Does it limit flexibility to be
responsive to the community needs?
Now, this bill answers these questions, and that is H.R.
818. And Garfield County supports H.R. 818 for the reasons that
I have just stated above. But, most of all, it will address
wildfire risk in and around our communities, and promote a
needed forest restoration industry. And I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John Martin follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Martin, County Commissioner,
Garfield County, Colorado
Good day, Chairman and members of the Committee.
My name is John Martin.
I am a County Commissioner from Garfield County, Colorado, an area
of 2,900 square miles in western Colorado.
I have been a Commissioner for 17 years.
I have served as the Chairman of our three member board for 15
years.
I also serve as Chair of the Colorado Counties Public Lands
Legislative committee.
In 2012, I was elected as First Vice-Chair of the Western
Interstate Region, a division of the National Association of Counties,
which serves 14 Western States.
In my attempt to earn an income, I am an everyday farmer, growing
peaches, apricots and apples in western Colorado.
I would like to also point out that before life in politics, I was
a police officer for nearly 25 years in Glenwood Springs, the County
seat of Garfield County.
I am here to speak in support of H.R. 818 for the following
reasons:
The Bill H.R. 818 ``Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire
Prevention Act'':
Declares bark beetle epidemic, drought, deteriorating
forest health and high risk wildfires as imminent threats.
Allows The Governor of a State to designate high risk
areas within National Forests and Public Lands within their
State.
Allows designation of high risk areas by Federal
agencies within National Forests and Public Lands.
Promotes good neighbor cooperation between Federal,
Indian and State Governments.
Allows the use of emergency hazardous fuels reduction
projects in high risk areas.
Supports the request by NACO to extend the
Stewardship contracts from ten years to twenty.
The bill uses common sense and encourages Federal
Agencies to work with Indian, State and County governments but
most of all, business, which is truly the key to success.
The Bill supports a needed and new emerging forest restoration
industry by supplying economic certainty so tools, manpower, and
financial support can provide reduction of wildfire risks, reduction of
hazardous fuels within our forest and public lands which provide safer
area around our communities.
In closing, I offer the following views:
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 is
extremely important to us. Nearly 70% of the lands in Garfield
County are managed by Federal agencies. Forest management
practices are a crucial part of the picture.
The vitality and strength of the Western United
States is closely tied to the health of our public lands.
Key questions when considering legislation, rule or
regulation used by Garfield County (REAL).
Responsive:
Is it required by state of federal law?
Was comprehensive data used to define the problem and desired
outcome?
Were experts who administer the affected program engaged?
Efficient:
Will it streamline or add layers of bureaucracy?
Is it redundant or inefficient?
Are current staffing levels sufficient to comply with
additional requirements?
Accountable:
Are there measurable outcomes to be achieved by this change?
Is there adequate funding to pay for all direct costs?
Are there models in existence that may provide better outcomes?
Local-State-Federal partnerships:
Have local elected officials been consulted?
Has there been collaboration between agencies?
Does it limit flexibility to be responsive to community needs?
This bill answers those above questions so,
The Garfield County Board of Commissioners supports this Bill to
better the health of our Forests and Public Lands and address wildfire
risk in and around our communities and promote a needed forest
restoration industry.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
We will turn to the other Commissioner now, Commissioner
Dozier also from Colorado. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CINDY DOZIER, COMMISSIONER,
HINSDALE COUNTY, COLORADO
Ms. Dozier. Good afternoon. I am Cindy Dozier, Commissioner
from Hinsdale County, Colorado. I am honored to be here before
you this afternoon to speak on behalf of House Resolution 818.
Hinsdale County is one of the most beautiful places anyone
would ever want to visit. It is also considered the most remote
county in the lower 48 with 96.5 percent public land, less than
1,000 full-time residents, and only 1 town and 1 school. We are
very aware that the things that make our county wonderful for
visitors and residents alike are the very things that can
present challenges, challenges that come partly from being
surrounded by forested land in our San Juan Mountain location.
The health of our forests, which we all so love to enjoy,
is paramount in importance to all of us, both in the west and
across America. Our area is the place where folks come to find
great remoteness and beauty. Forest health impacts many areas
of the health, safety, and welfare of our people, including our
watershed, air quality, and tourism-based economy.
As you are aware, the State of Colorado and much of the
western United States have been hit with severe drought
conditions for several years. This, coupled with areas of
extensive insect infestation and thick stands of forest
overgrowth has created an environment ripe for intense wildfire
activity. In fact, the summer of 2012 saw one of the worst fire
seasons in recent memory.
Hinsdale County had the largest fires in its known history,
the Little Sand Fire, which burned nearly 25,000 acres in
Archuleta and Hinsdale Counties at a cost of $7.5 million. We,
therefore, support proactive measures to address forest health
and mitigate the dangers intense wildfires pose to human
safety, property, infrastructure, wildlife habitat, and water
and air quality.
Because we are primarily public land, the issues addressed
in H.R. 818 are of extreme importance to us and, we think, to
any other State or county with forested lands. Hinsdale County
is a smaller picture of what is happening on a larger scale in
forests all over the west.
H.R. 818 specifically identifies the issue at hand, and of
great importance, vests actual authority to identify high-risk
areas and initiate mitigation measures to the respective
States, in coordination with county governments.
To those of us who locally are most able to recognize the
risk, and with the most at stake should a wildfire erupt, I
will refer you to a study requested by Senator Mark Udall
published in 2011 on the Bark Beetle outbreak in Northern
Colorado and Southern Wyoming. On pages 37 and 38 he says,
``Expert local knowledge is needed to guide management,'' and
that is in the appendix regarding fire risk and behavior.
We further appreciate the expedited procedures allowed for
in H.R. 818 for emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects in
identified high-risk areas, while we emphatically support due
diligence in preparation for fuels reduction projects, risks to
property, infrastructure, irreplaceable historic and cultural
sites, and life and limb, dictate a sense of urgency in
mitigating nearby fuel load risk.
With common-sense measures and caution, especially high-
risk areas can be protected in rapid fashion. It is the nature
of the western United States climate to see cycles of ample
precipitation and drought, and insect infestation will always
be a part of that equation. We have been aware for a long time
that the state of our forests' health was, in many areas,
experiencing deterioration and a lack of diversity in tree age.
This condition lends itself to large, intensive, and
destructive wildfires, which we, unfortunately, have
experienced recently.
When I visit around my county and nearby counties, I see
beetle devastation in many areas. The headwaters of the great
Rio Grande River are surrounded by standing dead conifers,
nearly 100 percent in that particular valley. Dead trees do not
hold water.
We all remember the terrible fires of 2002, the Hayman Fire
and the Missionary Ridge Fire, especially. Predictions are that
this year will be another very challenging year, as far as
precipitation is concerned.
The repercussions of our poor forest health are with us
right now. We urge you to act now. If H.R. 818 were to languish
this year, I believe, based on last year's wildfire season, we
could possibly see even more devastating consequences this year
in our county and all over the west. Please do not let that
happen.
It is our view that actions to combat the dangers posed by
wildfires ought not to be reactive, but proactive. In that
light, we view H.R. 818 as a valuable tool and much-needed step
to address forest health and fire mitigation in both the short
and long term. As a Hinsdale County Commissioner, I wish to
express our full support of the bill. Please help give us the
tools to do the right thing in our forests and for our people.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dozier follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Cindy Dozier, Commissioner,
Hinsdale County, Colorado
Good morning. I am Cindy Dozier, Commissioner from Hinsdale County,
Colorado. I'm honored to be here before you this morning to speak on
behalf of House Resolution 818.
Hinsdale County is one of the most beautiful places anyone would
ever want to visit.
It is also the most remote county in the lower 48 states. With
96.5% public land, less than 1,000 full-time residents, and only one
town and one school, we are very aware that the things that make our
county wonderful for visitors and residents alike, are the very things
that can present challenges; challenges that come partly from being
surrounded by forested land in our San Juan Mountain location.
The health of our forests, which we all so love to enjoy, is
paramount in importance to all of us, both in the West and across
America. Our area is the place where folks come to find great
remoteness and beauty. Forest health impacts many areas of the health,
safety and welfare of our people including our watershed, air quality
and tourism-based economy.
As you are aware, the State of Colorado and much of the western
United States have been hit with severe drought conditions for several
years. This, coupled with areas of extensive insect infestation and
thick stands of forest overgrowth, has created an environment ripe for
intense wild fire activity. In fact, the summer of 2012 saw one of the
worst fire seasons in recent memory. Hinsdale County had the largest
wildfire in its known history, the Little Sand Fire, which burned
nearly 25,000 acres in Archuleta and Hinsdale Counties at a cost of
$7.5 million. We therefore support proactive measures to address forest
health and mitigate the dangers intense wild fires pose to human
safety, property, infrastructure, wildlife habitat, and water and air
quality.
Because we are primarily public land, the issues addressed in H.R.
818 are of extreme importance to us and, we think, to any other state
or county with forested lands. Hinsdale County is a smaller picture of
what is happening on a larger scale in forests all over the West.
H.R. 818 specifically identifies the issue at hand, and of great
importance, vests actual authority to identify high risk areas and
initiate mitigation measures to the respective states in coordination
with county governments; to those of us locally who are most able to
recognize the risk and with the most at stake should a wild fire erupt.
The bill also recognizes the importance of cooperative mitigation
efforts, in the spirit of which it provides for Good Neighbor
authorities wherein the federal government may contract with the states
to carry out forest health restoration activities. We support this
heavy local involvement.
The stewardship contracting time frame of up to 20 years allowed
for in the bill is, in our view, a common sense measure fostering
comprehensive, long term forest health projects.
In the past, many contractors have been reluctant to set up long
term solutions for dealing with timber because of the uncertainty of
supply.
We further appreciate the expedited procedures allowed for in H.R.
818 for emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects in identified high
risk areas. While we emphatically support due diligence in preparation
for fuels reduction projects, risks to property, infrastructure,
irreplaceable historic and cultural sites, and life and limb dictate a
sense of urgency in mitigating nearby fuel load risk. With common sense
measures and caution, especially high risk areas can be protected in
rapid fashion.
It is the nature of the western United States climate to see cycles
of ample precipitation and drought, and insect infestation will always
be a part of the equation. We have been aware for a long time that the
state of our forests' health was, in many areas, experiencing some
deterioration and a lack of diversity in tree age. This condition lends
itself to large, intensive and destructive wild fires which we,
unfortunately, have experienced recently.
When I visit around my county and nearby counties, I see beetle
devastation in many areas. The headwaters of the great Rio Grande River
are surrounded by standing dead conifers, nearly 100% in that
particular valley. And dead trees don't hold water.
We all remember the terrible fires of 2002, the Hayman Fire and the
Missionary Ridge Fire especially. Predictions are that this year will
be another very challenging year as far as precipitation is concerned.
The repercussions of our poor forest health are with us right now. We
urge you to act NOW. If H.R. 818 were to languish this year, I believe,
based on last year's wild fire season, that we could possibly see even
more devastating consequences this year in our county and all over the
West. Please do not let that happen!
It is our view that action to combat the dangers posed by wild
fires ought not be reactive, but proactive. In that light, we view H.R.
818 as a valuable tool and much needed step to address forest health
and fire mitigation in both the short and long term. As a Hinsdale
County Commissioner, I wish to express our full support of the bill.
Please help give us the tools to do the right thing in our forests and
for our people.
______
Mr. Tipton [presiding]. Thank you, Commissioner Dozier. And
I would like to point out that the two Colorado testimonies
here today were on time and ahead of time. So I appreciate
that.
Mr. Sibold, to you, please.
STATEMENT OF JASON S. SIBOLD, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
GEOGRAPHY, DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sibold. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and
Committee. My name is Jason Sibold. I am a forest scientist
with 15 years of research experience in Lodge Pole Pine and
Engelmann Spruce Forest in Colorado. My research is focused on
fires, Bark Beetle outbreaks, and their interactions.
I am an Assistant Professor at Colorado State University in
Fort Collins. My objective today is to assess forest management
policies in H.R. 818 in the context of the best available
science.
To help illustrate the scientific conclusions on the
influence of Bark Beetles and fire, I would like to show a few
maps of the recent Bark Beetle outbreaks, and three recent fire
events.
The first map up on the screen here just shows an overview
of the Bark Beetle outbreaks from 1996 to 2012 in Colorado.
This is a big deal, this is a lot of area. This is about 20
percent of our forested land in the State.
The next map shows this same overview of 1996 to 2012 Bark
Beetle-affected stands, but it also includes fires from the
2012 fire season, which are the red areas. So the brown areas
are beetle, green areas are live forest, unaffected by beetle,
and those red patches are fires from the 2012 fire season. The
2012 fire season was a large fire season, about 250,000
forested acres burned in the season.
In the upper right-hand corner you can see a national-scale
map of drought conditions. And if you look at Colorado, you can
see that that dark red and kind of purple color indicates that
we were experiencing high-severity drought. In this map I would
like to point out two large, high-severity fires that were also
highly destructive. The first is the High Park Fire to the west
of Fort Collins in the north-central part of the State and the
other is the Waldo Canyon Fire, just to the west of Colorado
Springs.
One interesting thing about these two fires is that the
High Park Fire burned in about 50 percent affected stands from
Bark Beetles. In contrast, the Waldo Canyon Fire burned in a
forest that generally did not have Bark Beetle outbreak. This
fact that the Waldo Canyon Fire did not burn in Bark Beetle-
affected forests indicates that Bark Beetles are not a
necessary ingredient for wildfires. In contrast, this is
indicating that drought is the common thread to these
wildfires.
In the next map we see the same situation, Bark Beetle
outbreaks through the year 2011 and fires in the year 2011. And
once again, in the upper right-hand corner you see drought
conditions for June 2011 and only southern and southeastern
Colorado is in that kind of red, extreme drought or severe
drought situation.
Interestingly, we had a very similar Bark Beetle situation
as we had in 2012, but the fires did not occur in the Bark
Beetle-affected forests. Instead, the fires occurred in areas
without any Bark Beetles in the areas that actually had drought
in the southeast, once again suggesting that drought and not
Bark Beetles is the common thread and/or driver of fire risk in
these forests.
The next map shows the high-severity 2002 fire season.
Actually, twice as much area burned in 2002 as in 2012. Once
again, the drought severity map in the upper right-hand corner
indicating that there is high-severity drought in Colorado in
the summer of 2002. In contrast to 2012, though, we did not
have extensive Bark Beetle outbreaks. So this is indicating
that drought in all three of these situations is driving these
wildfires not necessarily Bark Beetle-influenced fuels.
So, in that context, this would suggest that forest-
thinning projects, and landscape-scales in particular, far from
communities would not be likely to have the desired goal of
reducing fire risk. The next map shows just the initial fire,
where it started, the beetle outbreak extent over the State
from 1996 through 2012.
And if a second objective of H.R. 818 is to reduce the
probability of future outbreaks like this, one of the really
complex aspects of these outbreaks, while forest thinning would
increase host vigor, tree vigor, and reduce that drought
stress, we have these outbreaks that pop up all over the
landscape. So treating the entire landscape of Colorado would
be required. It seems a little like a challenging task.
So, my take-home is that the best-available science does
not demonstrate that widespread landscape-scale forest thinning
is really going to reduce fire risk or future Bark Beetle
outbreaks. We would be much better off focusing these efforts
really close to communities, these fire-wise efforts that we
have heard people talk about focusing in these areas. Thanks
for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sibold follows:]
Statement of Dr. Jason S. Sibold, Assistant Professor, Colorado State
University on the Healthy Forest Management and Wildfire Prevention Act
(H.R. 818)
Good morning Chairman Hastings, Chairman Bishop, Representative
Grijalva, Representative Markey, members of the Committee. My name is
Dr. Jason Sibold. I have been conducting forest ecology research in
Colorado for 15 years, as a graduate research assistant at the
University of Colorado and now as a professor at Colorado State
University. My research is focused on wildfires and bark beetle
outbreaks in subalpine forests that primarily consist of lodgepole pine
and Engelmann spruce forests, which represent the vast majority of area
affected by the ongoing mountain pine beetle and spruce bark beetle
outbreaks in Colorado. My testimony today presents information from a
variety of sources in the scientific literature focused on lodgepole
pine and Engelmann spruce forest types in the Rocky Mountains. My goal
is to summarize the best available science to evaluate the likely
effectiveness of policies proposed in the ``Healthy Forest Management
and Wildfire Prevention Act'' (H.R. 818) to reduce fire risk and
mitigate future bark beetle outbreaks.
The key points that I would like to leave you with are these:
Wildfire risk in subalpine forests is extremely high during severe
drought conditions with or without bark beetle outbreaks. Forest
thinning projects would not be expected to reduce fire risk or mitigate
against the likelihood of future bark beetle outbreaks in these
forests. A forest thinning policy with the goal of reducing fire risk
following bark beetle outbreaks would be moving into unknown territory,
which means that both the normal review process and monitoring for
effectiveness are essential.
1) What is the threat of wildfire?
One of the central goals of H.R. 818 is to decrease the perceived
elevated risk of wildfire to mountain communities as a result of recent
and ongoing bark beetle outbreaks. The proposed solution to decreasing
fire risk is to thin tree densities in beetle affected stands. This
prescription assumes that fuels and/or fuel structure changes resulting
from bark beetle outbreaks increases fire risk. Overall, the occurrence
of forest fires in all forest systems is the result of the interplay
between weather and fuels and in some forest types reducing fuel
accumulation can significantly reduce fire risk. For instance, in
forests such as Southwest ponderosa pine where summer season weather
conditions are frequently hot and dry, the amount and connectivity of
fuels is often more limiting to wildfires than climate conditions. In
such a scenario, reducing fuel accumulation can decrease fire risk. In
contrast, in forest types where fuels are abundant but often too wet to
burn, fire occurrence can be considered as limited by weather
conditions. In general, forest types where fire occurrence is limited
by normally cool, wet climate typically experience fire less
frequently, tend to have naturally dense stands and abundant fuel, and
when fires occur they tend to be large and catastrophic. In other
words, fire risk is dictated by climate and weather and risk is
extremely high during severe droughts.
Subalpine forests of lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce, which are
the focus of H.R. 818, fall into the weather-limited category where
tree-thinning prescriptions would not be expected to significantly
decrease fire risk. More specifically, fires in subalpine forest are
naturally large, catastrophic, and relatively infrequent. Long periods
between fires, from 100-300 years or longer, and the ecology of
subalpine species create naturally dense stands with abundant live and
dead fuels. As a result, fire occurrence in these forest types is not
limited by inadequate amounts of fuel. In contrast, average climate
conditions, which are characterized by snowpack that often persists
well into spring and short cool summers, mean that extreme drought is
required to sufficiently dry fuels to the point that wildfires are
possible.
The importance of drought as a central driver of wildfires in
subalpine forests is strongly supported by numerous studies across the
Rocky Mountains. Research comparing tree-ring records of fires and
climate that span the last few centuries clearly demonstrates that for
at least the last few centuries, infrequent extreme drought conditions
created years with large, high-severity fires. A study comparing
recorded fires with climate for western North America over the last
several decades also implicates climate conditions and more
specifically fire season length as central to the number of large fires
and area burned in a given year. In the Rockies, the timing of spring
snowmelt is a critical factor in determining fire season length and is
clearly applicable to large areas burned in Colorado in 2002 and 2012,
which both had abnormally low spring snowpack and early melt dates. In
contrast, the record deep snowpack of 2011 set the stage for an almost
non-existent fire season.
2) Have bark beetle outbreaks increased fire risk?
Even though the big picture overview of wildfire in subalpine
forests indicates that in the absence of bark beetle outbreaks fire
risk is extremely high when drought conditions exist, it is still
logical to ask if abundant beetle-killed trees might elevate this
already high fire risk. While bark beetle outbreaks do not increase the
amount of fuel, they do influence fuels in three ways, 1) green needles
change to red and grey needles in the canopy in the two to four years
after the initiation of an outbreak and then fall to the forest floor,
2) fuels in the forest canopy decrease and canopy openings develop, and
3) the amount of fuel on the forest floor increases. Researchers have
investigated the influence of these fuel changes on fire risk primarily
in two ways: measuring fuel changes at different stages of bark beetle
outbreaks to use in fire simulation models, and observational studies
looking at actual patterns of fire following bark beetle outbreaks.
Research using fire simulations for various stages of mountain pine
beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine forests are in agreement for early
stages of outbreaks, but there are still significant questions for
later stages of outbreaks and in the years to decades following
outbreaks. Studies agree that red needles have lower fuel moisture
levels than green needles under similar weather conditions. As a
result, fire risk is potentially elevated in the early stages of an
outbreak while red needles are still present in the forest canopy.
After needles turn grey and start to fall and more fuel moves from the
canopy to the forest floor, identifying implications for fire are more
complicated. While there is agreement that more fuels on the forest
floor will increase fire intensity at the ground level, there is
disagreement with respect to if this will increase or decrease the
likelihood of fire spread from the forest floor to the forest canopy.
Most studies suggest that decreased canopy fuels and open canopies will
offset the increased intensity of surface fires and significantly
decrease the likelihood of fire spread to the canopy for as long as
several decades following beetle outbreaks. In contrast, one study,
which used a different modeling approach, concludes that fire spread to
the canopy will actually increase in post-beetle forests as compared to
stands not affected by beetles. The fact that these studies can come to
significantly different results even though similar fuel measurements
were used in model runs demonstrates that model results on the
interaction of beetle outbreaks with fire are largely the result of
model assumptions. At this time it is not clear which modeling approach
is a better representation of real world outbreak-fire interactions.
In contrast to models, observational studies are based on
documenting actual fire occurrence in forested areas with and without
bark beetle outbreaks and as such their results are not contingent on
model assumptions. Observational studies do not support the notion that
bark beetle outbreaks increase fire risk even in the initial stages of
outbreaks. Only two studies indicate that the probability of fire may
increase slightly with increasing time from the outbreak, although the
observed increases could have been related to factors other than
outbreak influences of fuels. Furthermore, many observational studies
stress the greater importance of other variables such as topography and
drought on fire.
3) What are the policy implications for decreasing fire risk?
In sum, the scientific evidence does not suggest that fire risk has
increased as a result of recent and ongoing bark beetle outbreaks. In
contrast, the vast majority of evidence suggests that bark beetle
outbreaks have either no influence on fire risk or potentially decrease
fire risk, and that weather (drought) is the dominate influence on fire
risk in these forests. The extensive, high-severity fires of 2002 and
2012 in Colorado that were coincident with two of the most extreme
drought years in Colorado's recorded history clearly illustrate the
importance of drought over fuels as the driver of destructive
wildfires. Unfortunately, wildfires in years of severe drought are not
only extremely difficult and hazardous to fight but they are also not
the type of events that we can mitigate against by thinning forests. As
a result, forest thinning throughout the landscape, much less in remote
roadless areas far from communities, would not be expected to decrease
fire risk to communities. On the other hand, significant gains would be
expected from policies that focus on reducing fire hazard through fuel
removal close to communities, following established ``defensible
space'' guidelines such as removing fuels within a minimum of 100 feet
adjacent to structures, and replacing flammable building materials such
as wooden shingles with metal roofs.
4) Can forest thinning mitigate the risk of bark beetle outbreaks?
The second goal of H.R. 818 is to mitigate the risk of future bark
beetle outbreaks through forest thinning projects in stands where the
risk of outbreaks is perceived as high. The development of mountain
pine beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine forests and spruce beetle
outbreaks in Engelmann spruce forests is relatively complex but in
general they can be attributed to prolonged drought conditions.
Specifically, drought conditions stress trees and decrease their
ability to resist beetle attack, and warmer conditions directly
facilitate beetle population development though faster life cycles and
higher over-winter survival. In the initiation of bark beetle
outbreaks, increased tree vigor (decreased stress) can keep beetle
populations in check and stop the development of an outbreak. However,
once an outbreak has developed, beetle populations can overwhelm
healthy vigorous trees. Thus, outbreaks have the ability to expand
across the landscape irrespective of tree vigor and will likely
continue until exhausting host trees or an extreme cold period kills
off populations. There is little doubt that the ongoing extensive,
high-severity mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle outbreaks in
Colorado are primarily the result of the frequent severe drought
conditions in the state over the last 12 years.
Given the influence of tree stress on the development and spread of
bark beetle outbreaks it is highly unlikely that forest-thinning
projects would be able to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks. While
in some cases forest thinning increases tree vigor and would be
expected to constrain beetle outbreaks, this would only be possible if
thinning projects were carried out in the exact location of beetle
population development. Because outbreaks generally develop in many
locations across the landscape synchronously and many of these
locations would be expected to be in areas that are not covered by this
legislation (national parks, monuments and wilderness areas), it is not
reasonable to believe that forest thinning could mitigate against the
likelihood of future beetle outbreaks. Moreover, thinning projects
would not be expected to stop an outbreak once populations are at
epidemic levels.
5) Conclusion
Rocky Mountain subalpine forests of lodgepole pine and Engelmann
spruce have experienced over a decade of extensive mountain pine beetle
and spruce beetle outbreaks in addition to many large, destructive
fires, which has raised questions and concerns about the potential role
of outbreaks on elevating fire risk. However, the best available
science suggests that the frequent severe drought conditions over this
period are the reason for both the beetle outbreaks and fires. In other
words, fire risk is extreme in these forests whenever severe drought
conditions prevail regardless of recent bark beetle activity.
Consequently, forest-thinning projects in beetle-affected stands would
not be expected to decrease fire risk to communities. Moreover, it is
unlikely that forest-thinning projects would stop the development or
spread of future bark beetle outbreaks. In contrast, forest-thinning
projects could result in several unintended consequences. The
consequences of greatest concern for forests include: killing seedlings
and saplings in beetle-affected stands that are critical components of
forest recovery, and increasing the likelihood of wind toppling
remaining trees, which often acts as a catalyst for the development of
bark beetle outbreaks in these systems. Furthermore, the normal review
process and long-term monitoring to investigate treatment effectiveness
should be considered essential components of these projects because: 1)
the high degree of variation in tree density, fuel conditions, outbreak
severity and topography implies that prescriptions would need to be
site specific, and 2) we have never attempted to use large-scale
thinning projects to minimize the fire risk following bark beetle
outbreaks, thus they are highly experimental in contrast to routine.
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Sibold. I apologize for
mispronouncing your name to begin with.
Dr. Sibold. No problem.
Mr. Tipton. So at this time I would like to yield to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for his questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sibold, first of
all, let me thank you for making the trip here to D.C. from
your home in Colorado. I know that Congressman Polis was happy
to have your research shared with this Committee. And thank you
for being here.
And you mentioned that the discussion seems to focus about
the Beetle infestation and that being the cause, or the
correlation or connection. But how do you think we balanced
the--I think the human impulse to do something with some
scientific uncertainty on landscape efforts that are being
authorized by my colleague's legislation, when it is human
nature, you see an area that has been clear-cut, you see an
area that is infested, and you want to say, ``Oh, we have to do
something about it, and that becomes the human impulse. But
there is scientific uncertainty, as you pointed out. How do you
balance that impulse with the kind of authorization we are
having here to do something on a landscape-scale?
Dr. Sibold. I am not an expert on policy and how you would
balance these things out. But it seems as though, if you do
want to move forward with these types of policies, even though
the science may suggest that it might not accomplish what your
overall objectives and goals are, is that if you are going to
move forward with something like that, you most certainly
provide or include a range of perspectives, do careful
planning, and I would really stress clear monitoring to find
out, hey, are we achieving our goals? Maybe we have some test
cases.
It was mentioned earlier that there are some forest-
thinning projects that have great success. These are mostly at
lower-elevation forests. And I know the project that was
referred to earlier close to Pagosa Springs was a successful
project. But these Bark Beetles are at higher elevations.
I think the other thing I would stress is that you need to
think about these--any sorts of treatments in the context of
these trade-offs, that we get what we are looking for, number
one. Number two, are there any indirect side-effects,
unintended consequences of these treatments? And if we go in
and we do extensive thinning, we also have to think about what
is going to happen to our future forests, that there are a lot
of seedlings and saplings out there right now. They are our
future forest. And that would be one of the concerns, in terms
of any sorts of treatments. So there are these trade-offs.
I am a scientist, I will try to stick to the science and
not weigh in on what direction you all should go.
Mr. Grijalva. Science and fact-based decision-making hasn't
always been the rule, in terms of legislation.
Let me ask you. What trends are you starting to see, other
than the types of beetles in the State? And is this getting the
same kind of attention that it should?
Dr. Sibold. With current trends with beetles?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Dr. Sibold. We see the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak really
dying down at this point in time, although it is spreading into
some lower elevation Ponderosa Pine forests. I have been mostly
talking about higher-elevation Lodge Pole and Spruce Fir. The
Spruce Beetle outbreak continues to expand dramatically across
the State in the southwest.
In the San Juans we see it spreading to the San Cristos in
the south-central part of the State. We have had some extensive
blow-downs potentially from insect outbreaks that, as the
forest becomes thinned, it becomes more susceptible to blow-
downs. And this actually can dramatically ramp up these beetle
populations. So, unfortunately, without some unforeseen severe
cold snap or them, the beetles, running out of fuel, I foresee
this continuing.
We also have a Douglas Fir Bark Beetle that appears to be
kind of ramping up in some areas.
Mr. Grijalva. And those are the trends that should be
getting our attention at this point.
Dr. Sibold. Yes, at this point in time. Once these
outbreaks get going, we are not in a situation where we can get
out ahead and thin these forests, and that we can reduce their
impact. Once their populations are as high as they are, they
are just overwhelming trees. We even see in the San Juan
Mountains of Southwest Colorado, where I have a lot of research
going on, they are overwhelming, very small-diameter trees
that, in theory, should not be susceptible to these Bark
Beetles, that there are just so many of them out there that
forest dress is not a part of the equation any more.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate your testimony, Doctor. Thank
you, I yield back.
Mr. Tipton. Well, thank you. And again, I would like to be
able to thank the two commissioners out of my district for
making the trip back to Washington. I am sure you pretty much,
like me, left in a snowstorm and came to 80-degree weather. So
a little bit of a change.
And I would like to be able to start with Commissioner
Dozier, if I may. Could you describe how many acres of land
that you manage that is separate but adjacent to Federally
managed lands?
Ms. Dozier. Sure. Basically, our county is about 3.5
percent private land. So, of our approximately little under
720,000 acres, 96.5 percent of that is Federal, the rest is
adjacent to Federal, because you can't get away from being
surrounded by it.
Mr. Tipton. Right. Well, given the small, rural make-up of
Hinsdale County, what level of funding does Hinsdale County
receive annually, relative to the cost imposed by a destructive
wildfire?
Ms. Dozier. The entire budget of Hinsdale, being as small
as we are, is just a little over $4.5 million a year. The fire,
the Little Sand Fire last year, cost 7.5 million. That was on
forest land, so it didn't impact us in the way that we had to
finance the fire itself, and the fighting of it, even though we
were intimately involved in the decisions and what was going on
with that.
Where our folks--ranchers and such--had expenses that they
just bore themselves: moving cattle, moving horses, evacuating
the area, and then having to come back in at a later time. So,
as far as our county fighting it, we simply don't have funds
for fighting a major catastrophic wildfire.
Mr. Tipton. Significant cost. With so many of the acres of
Forest Service-managed land around you, would you say that your
efforts to properly manage Hinsdale County lands have been
beneficial to the overall health of the forest?
Ms. Dozier. Yes. I would say that in the little bit that we
have control over, what we do does help the overall forest.
But because we are so surrounded by forest, what is
happening in the forest is overwhelming to what is happening in
the rest of the county. So, when we go into the Rio Grande area
of our county and we observe a virtually 100 percent red dead
trees, we know that our folks living out in that valley are at
risk.
Mr. Tipton. You bet. Would greater discretion, in your
opinion as County Commissioner, somebody who lives there and
loves the land, to be able to have land management decisions
affecting 96 percent of the county lands in your area, would
that be a beneficial thing, to be able to play a role?
Ms. Dozier. We really believe so. I agree with Dr. Sibold
in that we are personally looking at a starting place. That is
what this legislation would afford to us, beginning where the
people live, and beginning to work out, doing things that make
our people safer, our water quality better, our air quality
safer. So, it is a small start.
We really aren't talking about landscape-wide. We are
talking about locally looking at what we know is the greatest
risk and beginning to identify that and initiate those
measures.
Mr. Tipton. Great. I appreciate that. I would like now,
Commissioner Martin, if you could maybe speak too. In the 2012
fiscal year, the National Forest Service spent approximately
$1.4 billion in wildfire suppression nationwide. In your
opinion, would it be more proactive to manage these high-risk
areas during seasons of extreme drought and dryness to help
keep the communities safer and reduce the need for communities
and the Forest Service to be able to react retroactively to
these conditions?
Mr. John Martin. Absolutely. And the example is what we saw
on the map above, is that it is a little bit misleading. There
were over 20 forest fires in Garfield County just last year. We
responded and put them out. And again, that is on Federal land,
as well as private land.
So we feel that the management, the proactive approach, is
a much better project than spending billions of dollars on
suppressing that fire.
Mr. Tipton. You know, as commissioners, you have to be able
to look at kind of the 30,000-foot view. What effects,
Commissioner Martin, do you see with the dead beetle-infested
trees having on the recreational economy and on species
habitat, as well?
Mr. John Martin. Well, it is devastating. What it amounts
to is it is an overgrowth. Too much flatter fuels underneath
the existing forest, the dead and dying trees, not to mention
the Aspen fungus that is killing just about everything. It
moves out all of your game. It moves out the species that is
trying to make that a habitat. And it is subject to extreme
fires, extreme hot fires.
It has devastated Garfield County and we depend on about
$60 million a year from hunting. That has dropped to a third.
The reason is they are all on private land and not on public
land, simply because they cannot exist on those Federal lands
any more.
Mr. Tipton. As, Commissioner, as somebody who lives there
and loves the land, would you find it valuable to be able to
work with the Governor, to be able to go in and address these
areas of concern?
Mr. John Martin. Absolutely, as we are doing right at the
present time, using biochar and revitalizing the grazing area,
the forest floor, using the soil conservation folks and our CS
folks and going in there and actually paying for it ourselves.
We are a county that is fairly well off, we balance our
budget, and we do have money in the bank. We are taking
proactive approaches just to do that, so that we can show our
Federal partners--we are not throwing rocks at anybody, we are
trying to save the forest, the animals, and the habitat so that
we can live and enjoy it.
I have a great-great-grandfather who was the last
territorial Governor of the State of Colorado, and the first
Governor of the State of Colorado. He served twice. He was also
a Senator. It means a lot to us. We have been there since,
again, the 1860's. We know and we love the land. We take care
of it. It is always amazing that some people come from wherever
and say, ``What a beautiful place, you are destroying it, and
now we are going to change it.''
Mr. Tipton. Great. I appreciate that. I now yield to Mr.
DeFazio for his questions. Have none? Mr. Grijalva, any further
questions?
Mr. Grijalva. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tipton. OK. I will take the liberty of being able to
sit in the big chair and to do just a little follow-up on this.
Mr. Sibold, I was interested when you were giving some of
your testimony you had said that drought was the common thread,
not the Bark Beetle, that was going through. Just to be able to
give you an example, if we piled up some paper on top of this
desk and then we threw on some boxes and then we threw on some
other combustible material, and then ignited it, would it burn
hotter?
Dr. Sibold. Would it burn hotter?
Mr. Tipton. Yes.
Dr. Sibold. Yes. I mean, I----
Mr. Tipton. Probably would?
Dr. Sibold. I think that there--do you want me to expand on
the dynamics of fire a little bit?
Mr. Tipton. I think--I am really trying to, I guess,
basically get to the point to where you were talking about the
Bark Beetle not being an issue. The real issue, I think, that
H.R. 818 is trying to be able to address is, from the Forest
Service, from the BLM, we have visited actually with the
rangers on the ground. We have trees growing at elevations that
they should not be growing at. We have overgrowth in the
forests. And once that does catch fire, it expands and spreads.
And when we are talking about drought, one of the best
examples that you noted when we were down in Southwest Colorado
and Pagosa Springs with one of the pilot projects that J.R.
Ford is putting on, we actually had testimony from Forest
Service rangers that were saying, ``With proper treatment''--we
aren't talking clear-cutting, we are talking proper treatment
going into these areas--groundwater increased 15 percent. The
health of the trees that were there recovered within 2 weeks.
And these are forest rangers that are giving this type of
testimony.
So, I am just a little curious when we just talk about
drought. We have more trees growing than we should in those
areas. The Forest Service itself has admitted and made the
comment we are suffering now from 100 years of mismanagement of
our forests. So, wouldn't it be an appropriate thing to get in
and properly treat these areas? Not the steeps, but in those
areas beyond the wild urban interface to actually address it.
Dr. Sibold. Yes, I mean, I think, Mr. Tipton, we are on the
same team here. I have tremendous concern for the forests of
Colorado.
One thing I would stress to you is that we are talking
about very diverse forest types here. The great projects in
Southwest Colorado are Ponderosa Pine forests. We do have
evidence that in some Ponderosa Pine forests of Colorado fire
suppression, other land-use practices have changed those
forests. In contrast, the vast majority of the forests that are
being affected by beetles, by Spruce Beetle and Mountain Pine
Beetle, are Spruce Forest and Lodge Pile Pine forests.
For an example, in Hinsdale County we have been working in
there for 3 years now, in a lot of these different valleys. I
would say probably the average tree age in those forests is
about 300 years. Fire suppression for the last 60 years has not
impacted that. Those forests are naturally dense, and a lot of
those in the tree-ring record, we just can't find evidence of
fire in a lot of those valleys. And/or if there is fire, the
intervals on these kind of 250, 350 kind of return--year return
intervals.
So, I agree with you. In some cases we need a range of
management options. We need to be able to go in and thin in
certain sites. And I would be more than interested to help you
try and identify different strategies and different areas,
prescribed fire in other areas in higher-elevation forests
would make a lot of sense.
And I am not saying that logging is not off the table.
Maybe it makes sense in some areas. I think significantly
reducing fuels close to communities makes a lot of sense. But
there is fire risk. I am not doubting that at all. But where we
go about it--if the goal is accomplish reduced fire risk, I
think that we can do that. But there is not a one-size-fits-all
kind of policy for all of our diverse forest types in Colorado.
We have a huge range of forest types.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate your coming, sir.
Commissioner Dozier, I did have one other question for you.
With the drought conditions that we do currently have out in
Colorado, some of the challenges that you and I have both seen
in Hinsdale County, what tools are currently available for you
to be able to work with, as Commissioner?
Ms. Dozier. As a Commissioner? We work with the forests
that are within our county, we work with the BLM, we work with
them on planning, we try to initiate and give them our input.
There is a real difference between that and what this bill
would afford us, however. And we would desire to have more
input on the front side of these projects, rather than later
giving comments after a great deal of time has been spent doing
other work.
Mr. Tipton. Great. And would you concur with that,
Commissioner Martin?
Mr. John Martin. Yes, sir, I would.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Well, with that, my time has expired.
And I would like to thank our panel for your testimony on this.
This is important. This is going into the record, and will be
going to--be an ongoing portion of some of the visiting that we
are going to be having here in Washington as these bills move
on to full Committee and ultimately to the floor.
So, thank you so much for the time and the effort to be
able to come here. I appreciate it.
If we could have our last three panels come and be seated:
Andy Groseta, Tommie Martin, Tom Tuchmann, Doug Robertson, and
Dominik Kulakowski.
Well, panels, I thank you for taking the time to be here.
You may have sat in, I will just echo some of the words of
Chairman Bishop with the timing lights that we have. When it is
green, it is go. When it is yellow, you speed up. And when it
is red, you stop. And so, I would appreciate your support on
that. And thank you for taking the time to be here. And we will
start with the testimony of Tommie Martin.
STATEMENT OF TOMMIE MARTIN, DISTRICT 1 SUPERVISOR, AND VICE
CHAIR, GILA COUNTY, ARIZONA
Ms. Tommie Martin. Well, good morning, or good afternoon,
Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member Grijalva, distinguished members
of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to speak with you this
afternoon about Federal land management in the west.
Since 2004, I have been a member of the Gila County Board
of Supervisors, located in the center of Arizona. We are a
rural county with a population of 53,000. Within the county's
4,800 square miles is the Tonto National Forest, with seven
wilderness areas, one scenic river, and three Indian
reservations. Ninety-six percent of our land base is exempt
from local taxation because of its Federal designation. Of the
remaining 4 percent, 2.5 percent is used for mine tailings and
taxed at a significant reduction. And 1.5 percent represents
our true tax base. The heavily forested northern .5 percent
represents up to 70 percent of our total assessed valuation,
and is 100 percent at risk from catastrophic wildfire.
We once had a vibrant economy based upon the use of
renewable and non-renewable natural resources. However, the use
has been eroded over the last 40 years the restriction of
access to resources on Federal lands, as well as overzealous
interpretation of NEPA by the Federal planning processes.
Our once-vibrant logging and ranching industries are almost
extinct. Nearly all of our mines are closed. And many mineral-
bearing acres are now permanently locked away and grazing
severely restricted in the 920 square miles of the wilderness
areas.
As for my background, when my great-grandmother drove her
family in a wagon into the Rim Country in the latter part of
the 1800's, she told me that the now-densely forested lands
were ``open, rolling, grassy hillsides with trees in the
canyons.'' She said she could take that wagon in any direction,
and the boys could run a horse in any direction. And what she
called a Ponderosa Savannah, she described 30 trees to the acre
in the most forested areas, where we now have up to 3,000. The
streams were perennial and full of native brown trout. Since my
grandad's day we have lost over 1,000 miles of these same
streams. And the forest was full of now long-gone birds and
wild animals like wild canaries, grizzly bear, and wolf.
My family homesteaded and ranched. They owned a saw mill
and logged. The prospected and located mines. Once the area
became the forest, we ranched on leased Federal lands, all the
while using livestock to harvest, forage, and till the soils.
The animals were constantly moved to maximize nutrition and
avoid stressing any one area. Those pioneers, with their
nomadic style of livestock handling knew intuitively and
through experience that over-grazing was a function of time and
not animal numbers.
Prior to becoming Supervisor I enjoyed a 25-year career as
a contract specialist in collaborative, holistic resource
management. My path led me throughout the American West,
western Canada, Mexico, and eastern Africa, primarily in
Ethiopia and Somalia. Nowhere have I seen natural resources in
worse condition than in our American West.
By any honest measure of health, functioning, or
productivity, our resources are dead or dying, due to 100 years
of failed Federal policy. It doesn't have to be. There is a few
bright lights in the west, where land is adaptively managed
with true share decision-making among the Federal, State, local
government, private land owners, neighbors, and special
interest groups. This type of management produces abundant
clean water, multiple diverse abundant species, and abundant
true wealth. In one case, in Utah, the ranch produces hundreds
of times the annual earnings of its neighbors.
This management is not a function of eco-type or climate or
land ownership. It is a function of trust and of shared
collaborative goal-setting, decision-making, and monitoring by
a diverse group of folks who owned the process. And if you were
truly interested in this type of management, I invite you to
come with me and see for yourself.
The legislation you are reviewing today is a good start
toward allowing for change, which we so desperately need. Some
of the provisions I support, one, is maintaining, through SRS,
an economic safety net for the counties while rebuilding the
forest infrastructure. Two, bringing NEPA back as a useful
management tool and stopping its use as a weapon by eliminating
the opportunity for delay. Three, strengthening the stewardship
contracting authority.
I would also like to offer some suggestions for your
legislation. One, ensure a meaningful role of consultation by
local governments. Two, ensure the integration of social
science and economic science and the best available scientific
information, or BASE, that is used by the Forest Service now to
make land management decisions. Define, and explore, and study
the implications of requiring 25 percent of stewardship
contract funding to be shared with the counties. How will this
compare to the funding provided by timber sales? It could
become a real red herring, or at least a mixing of apples and
oranges. And I am concerned about the implications for the
counties.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And it is
littered with unintended consequences. We need to take the time
to think this through and do this right, rather than doing it
over. Together we must change the way we manage our renewable
natural resources. We must be more willing to let them earn and
less willing to let them burn.
There is not enough money in the treasury to solve this
problem, but there is in the economy. We must allow industry to
profit while using the wealth from these resources to pay for
their restoration. The time is now--and tag, we are it--to
figure out how to make this happen
Thank you for the work you have done so far, knowing full
well it is just the beginning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tommie Martin follows:]
Statement of Tommie Martin, Gila County Supervisor, District One
Good Morning Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
distinguished members of the Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Subcommittee. I am so pleased to speak with you this morning about my
views on federal land management in the West, in particular in Arizona.
Thank you for the invitation.
Introduction
Since 2004, I have represented the citizens of District One on the
Gila County Board of Supervisors. Gila County, Arizona, located in the
center of Arizona just northeast of Phoenix, is a rural county with a
population of 53,144, of which 12% are unemployed and 21% are living at
or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Within the County's
boundaries of 4,795.74 square miles, there is the Tonto National Forest
with seven Federally-designated wilderness areas totaling 920 square
miles and one Wild and Scenic River (the Verde), and three Federal
Indian Reservations (Tonto Apache, San Carlos Apache and White Mountain
Apache).
Gila County government operates under the economic constraint that
96% of the land within our boundaries is exempt from local taxation
because it is under federal and/or tribal management. Of the remaining
4% of the land base, 2.5% is property used for mine tailings which is
taxed at a significant reduction. We operate on a full tax base of only
1.5% of the land.
Of that 1.5%, 1% lies in the desert and rangelands of the southern
part of the county and the \1/2\% lies in the northern forested
section. The heavily forested northern \1/2\% represents up to 70% of
the county's total assessed valuation and is 100% at risk from
catastrophic wildfire. In a bit, I will discuss how we as a County have
been involved since 2006 in mitigating this risk.
In Gila County, we work tirelessly to protect our natural
resources. But we also recognize the importance of preserving, and
maintaining access to, the western way of life that is evident in our
multi-cultural activities, recreation, and natural resource-dependent
industries located on federal lands. We believe that if we take care of
the land, the land will take care of us. Over-protective federal land
policies create an unsustainable environment for our western culture
and economy.
Not only must we deal with the steep challenge of managing a wide
range of local governmental needs on such a limited tax base, we must
also deal with the complications presented by the land management
decisions made by our federal land management agency neighbors. For
example, the risk to our citizens from wildfire grows annually. While
we work closely with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to better manage
the resource under their control, we are severely constrained in our
ability to influence outcomes.
In addition, our ability to maintain a robust and diverse economy
in Gila County has been eroded over the last forty years, in large part
due to the restriction of access to resources on the federal lands (as
well as overzealous interpretation of NEPA by the federal planning
processes). Because of this, the once vibrant logging and ranching
industries in Gila County are now nearly extinct. Nearly all of the
mines are closed. And many, many mineral bearing acres are now
permanently locked away in the 920 square miles of Gila County's seven
designated wilderness areas.
And our latest challenge is that the federal government is treating
what is essentially its property tax payment for federal lands in
counties (which, as you know, is referred to as Payment in Lieu of
Taxes and Secure Rural Schools funding from which we provide school
funding and road maintenance services) as a discretionary obligation
subject to the sequester and other general budget cuts. The federal
government cannot balance its budget on the backs of the counties
providing services. The federal government must meet its obligation to
pay what is essentially a tax liability just as all its citizens are
required to pay.
Now, let me switch gears. Prior to becoming Gila County Supervisor,
I enjoyed a 25 year career in Natural Resource Management, working
primarily as a contract specialist in collaborative holistic resource
management. My career path let me work throughout the American West,
western Canada, Mexico and eastern Africa--primarily in the countries
of Ethiopia and Somalia.
This career choice arose out of my personal history.
Personal History
When my ancestors came to Gila County in the later part of the
1800's, the now densely forested lands were described to me by my
great-grandmother as ``open, rolling, grassy hillsides with stringers
of trees in the upper elevations and stringers of chaparral in the
lower climes. She drove the wagon that her family came to the area in
and said that she could take that wagon in any direction and the boys
could run a horse in any direction in what she talked about as a
``ponderosa savannah''. Never once did she describe it as a forest--she
said there may have been 30 trees to the acre in the most forested
areas (we now have up to 3,000 per acre in the same area she was
describing)
The streams were perennial and full of a native brown trout (since
my grandfather's day we have lost over 1,000 miles of these same
streams) and the forest was full of now long-gone birds and wild
animals like wild canaries, grizzly bear and wolf.
My family homesteaded and ran livestock on the homestead permit.
They owned a saw mill and logged. They prospected and located mines.
Once the United States Forest Service was established, we ranched on
leased federal lands, all the while bringing cattle, goats, and pigs to
eat the understory and grasses and naturally till the soils. The
animals constantly moved to maximize the grazing and avoid stressing
any one area because the pioneers, with their nomadic style of
livestock handling, knew intuitively that overgrazing was caused by
time and not animal numbers.
Finally there is ``science'' to support this approach, but back
then it was common sense. They understood that they needed the land to
support them, and they had to take care of the land. Lightning strikes
caused fires in the summer when the land was drier than during the
rainier winters, but because the animals--wild and domesticated--grazed
the land and reduced the potential fuel for the fires, the forest fires
were not the deadly threat they are today. In fact, such fires served
to maintain the forest ecosystem. In addition, today the USFS prefers
to burn large swaths during the dead of winter in their ``returning
fire to the ecosystem mantra.'' But that is exactly the time of year
when all the little critters are snug in bed with their winter food
storage. Just in time to get burned out of house and home and either
starve or become coyote bait. This is more of what I call ``failed
federal policy'' reaching all levels of the ecosystem.
With the advent of the USFS, and then the Bureau of Land
Management, came two of their dictates that became particularly
devastating to our dry forests and rangelands (as opposed to the wet
forests and rangelands of the eastern seaboard and the western
peninsula of the U.S., and much of Europe)--a situation they neither
recognized nor understood. They both stopped an historic, almost ever-
present fire within the forested areas and then they fenced up the open
land stopping the nomadic livestock use of the browse and grasses that
mimicked the historic use by wildlife. They also changed the wildlife
free-range with these fences and have devastated whole herds through
time.
And so began 100 years of rule upon rule, policy upon policy (and
continues to this day) to make these initial dictates ``work'' in an
environment that has and will continue to die because of them. We are
seeing the end game in our forests now, in fact.
And over time, our ability to use the federal lands for support of
our families became limited. Logging, mining, and grazing federal lands
in Gila County has all but been completely eliminated. Environmental
regulations and lawsuits created a business environment that shut down
the industries that supported our families for generations. In the name
of ``science,'' the logging mills are gone--that is both the
infrastructure and the capability. As the federal leases for grazing
were eliminated or severely curtailed, families that ranched for
generations lost their herds and their livelihoods and sold out to
folks that could afford a ranch for a lifestyle and did not have to
depend upon them for a livelihood.
As the forests were allowed to grow unchecked by the natural
system, streams dried up and the water table was taxed due to 100 times
as many ``straws'' taking up water--an acre with 30 trees vs. an acre
with 3,000 trees turns every little dry spell into a drought. The drier
conditions, and the artificial droughts, stressed the dense forest and
laid the trees open to pests and disease. And the wildfire fuel build-
up is unprecedented. The threat we live in--virtually a sea of
gasoline--is unfathomable and completely created by poor federal land
management because of 100 years of failed federal policy. The stress on
the ecosystem by this burden created by federal land management
decisions over the last 10 decades, now compounded by a warming
climate, must be addressed. We must start to restore our western
landscapes for their own sake--for their health, functioning and
productivity.
But we must also restore them because they ARE our nation's basic
wealth source--and our ONLY renewable wealth source. Managing renewable
natural resources should NOT cost our nation money--it should, in fact,
make money for our nation. Managing them as our federal government now
does squander our basic wealth source--either we do not add wealth to
the country's coffers or we outrageously cause cost in areas like
`management', fire suppression and subsidized thinning.
Challenges
As described above, we face many challenges living and surviving in
our current environment. These challenges are both environmental and
public safety oriented, as well as economic. In order to meet the
challenges posed by a grossly-overgrown disease-laden forest, we must
look at the environmental and economic causes together. This land was
healthy and thriving not that long ago, and adding to the nation's
treasury through the economy. It can be restored. But the needed
restoration will require a major overhaul of federal land management
policy and implementation. We have seen some improvements, but we have
a long way to go.
The following is a short list of the major reasons I see for the
serious decline in our forests' health and the related health of the
communities dependent on the forests for their livelihood--unchecked
overgrowth:
Reduced timber sales, and the resulting reduced
payments to the counties of 25% of the value of the sales. The
timber sales put people to work and help support our local
economies and governments.
Insufficient funding for thinning allows chronic
overgrowth and building of wildland fire fuel that presents a
terrifying threat to our county's residents.
Hijacked use of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requirements delay needed thinning efforts. We have been
witness to the Forest Service and the environmental groups
battling over tree diameters while we burn. This cannot
continue.
Entrenched bureaucracy limits the flexibility needed
to reach the creative solutions our landscape requires. The
willingness to work collaboratively that is so uniformly and
positively discussed in Washington needs to be effectively
implemented in the field.
Opportunities
I am fond of saying that the federal budget does not have the
needed resources to clean up the forest, but the economy does--i.e.,
there is not enough money in the Treasury to solve this problem--but
there is in the Economy. We need to let the land once again support
itself, and our western culture and ranching families.
While the challenges are steep, there are a number of positive
movements that can help guide more effective federal land management
and best practices of local governments. Here are a few examples:
Collaboration is critical to restore forest health.
We cannot afford to keep fighting about who has the right
approach. My world-wide, multi-cultural experiences and my
involvement with both 4FRI and the Forest Service's
Collaboration Cadre has shown me that we can save time and
money in making land management decisions with all parties
around the table from the beginning of the process to the end
and by having an open and respectful dialogue. By that I mean
that Forest Service management--from the Forest Supervisors to
the Regional Supervisors to Washington--must be on board.
Stewardship contracts can allow the forests to pay
for their own restoration. This is an effective mechanism to
put the forests back to work. To best implement stewardship, I
believe that the contracts must be self-sustaining, that is,
not dependent on federal or state subsidies to make the
business work. From what I have seen from my experience working
around the White Mountain Stewardship contract, as well as 4
FRI, the Forest Service must cultivate and ultimately choose
self-sustaining businesses, but I am not sure the Forest
Service has the expertise to evaluate the business viability. I
recommend that Congress require that the Forest Service
evaluate, in an open manner, the economic health of the
potential contractors, as well as that of their proposals.
Continue to include cellulosic targets in EPA biofuel
standards. On forests like the Tonto, where there is little
high quality lumber, but lots of ``fuel,'' the option of
turning the growth thinned from the forest for biofuels is very
attractive. Recently, attention has turned towards creating an
economically viable cellulosic ethanol process. As in all
developing industries, federal targets help create a market. If
a cellulosic biofuel market can be developed, the Tonto
Forest's thinning program could become self-sufficient.
Gila County's Response to Catastrophic Wildfire
As promised earlier, let's visit about Gila County's response to
having 70% of its assessed value being 100% vulnerable to wildfire--
The geographical area known as Arizona's ``Rim Country'', which is
northern Gila County, has experienced several massive and destructive
forest fires over the years--beginning with the Dude Fire in 1990.
Following the February Fire of 2006, I approached the local Ranger
District of the U.S. Forest Service to see if there was any way the
County could help mitigate these fires.
The Forest Service suggested the best help Gila County could give
would be to figure out how to locate or provide ``enough sources of
adequate water that are helicopter-available for first strike resources
so that all small fires can become non-fires and all medium fires can
be held in place long enough for additional fire-fighting resources to
arrive.''
To make a long story short, Gila County used what we call our
``redneck ingenuity.'' Our Public Works Department bought 20,000 and
50,000 gallon fuel bladders from Desert Storm military surplus. They
had about 80 feet of surplus 10-foot diameter culvert which they then
cut into 10-foot lengths, plumbed with a 3 inch pipe and drain plug,
welded on a steel bottom, hose-clamped used 3 inch hard plastic pipe
around the top (to protect helicopter buckets and snorkels) and
produced what we call a ``Hick's tank'' that holds another 6,000
gallons of helicopter-available water. Initially, there was +/-232,000
gallons of helicopter-available water ready for immediate fire-fighting
use.
Just imagine--a quarter of a million gallons of ``new,'' close,
very strategically located, first response wildfire fighting water that
can be accessed both by helicopters of all size buckets and nozzles,
and also by regular fire-fighting apparatus! Our County Road Department
provides support by placing these bladder-tank units and keeping them
filled with water.
These set-ups are located behind locked gates and are signed
``Wildfire Protection Water--Do Not Disturb. Our ability to help
protect your safety depends upon your helping us protect the safety of
this water source.'' The Sheriff's Posse is making regular rounds to
check on them.
When all was said and done, the 25 set-ups have cost us right at
$750,000 from our General Fund (property tax dollars from that very
limited pool of 1\1/2\% private land in our County) and we spent
another $250,000 of those same dollars to match 5 local communities in
establishing a fuel break on their prevailing wind southwest sides for
fire defensible space. While not completely protected from the
tinderbox that our surrounding forest has become after 100 years of
failed federal policy, our communities now do have a fighting chance of
battling and surviving a forest fire. And we hope the odds of this
County losing 70% of its assessed value in one fire are substantially
lessened for now.
We also hope that we have bought enough time for Industry to come
back into play and let the products of the forest pay for its
restoration. Again, we do not have enough money in the Treasury to
solve this problem--but we do have enough money in the Economy. We MUST
figure out how to use the Economy to pay for this restoration while
also providing the environmental goals of a sustainably healthy,
productive and functioning forest.
But I digress--since initial placement in 2006, the dip tanks have
been used hundreds (probably thousands) of times by helicopters
extracting water to fight fires.
One of our success stories happened on June 20, 2010. That was the
same day the Schultz Fire started in Flagstaff. With the same fuel
loads and the same weather conditions and within the same hour the
Shultz Fire started--a fire began near Kohl's Ranch. Helicopters dipped
out of a bladder-tank system placed just weeks before at the Zane Grey
site. That fire was held to 4 scorched acres while the Schultz Fire
burned 15,000 acres, caused at least one death, and lead to extensive
flooding the following season.
We now have dozens of these stories--each year our `fire-water
system' is used to put out hundreds of fires.
Our most recent success was the Poco Fire north of Young in the
summer of 2012. By their own admission, the USFS predicted they had
another 500,000 acre fire on their hands due to terrain, fuel load,
weather conditions and time of year. Again, by their own admission, the
fact that they were able to hold it to +/-30,000 acres was due entirely
to Gila County's fire-water set-up and its commitment to minimize every
fire.
Eventually, I believe minimizing fires needs to be accomplished
with what is called ``environmental economics'' whereby the clean-up of
the forest pays for the restoration. This leads into discussions about
social, economic and environmental sustainability (or the ``triple
bottom line''), biomass industries, economic development, and so on.
This is where the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) comes in.
But for now, our bottom Line is that we have experienced over 100
fire-starts each fire season since 2006. Eighteen of them were
classified ``catastrophic potential'' by the USFS. One of them burned
150 acres up the face of the Mogollon Rim before it was put out. One
became the 800 acre Water Wheel Fire. The Poco grew and was held at +/
-30,000 acres. ALL of the rest were held to 8 acres or less. There have
now been thousands of helicopter water dips taken out of these tanks.
We are happy to share our data, pictures, ideas and personal
stories with anyone interested in this type of cooperative catastrophic
fire prevention.
We also know that, long-term, there is not enough money in the
Treasury or the pockets of the local citizenry to solve this problem--
but that there is most certainly enough money in the Economy to do so.
We also know that, long-term, there is not enough money in the
pockets of the local citizenry to solve this problem--but that there is
most certainly enough money in forest products for industry to do so.
We also believe it is past time to stop being so willing to let our
forests and watersheds catastrophically burn, and start being willing
to let them earn.
Comments Legislative Proposals Before the Subcommittee
``Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act''
Chairman Hastings's clearly appreciates that American communities
would prefer to receive receipts from a working landscape, but that
until we are allowed to effectively work the land again, that a bridge
is necessary. For this same reason, I support the reauthorization of
Secure Rural Schools (SRS) authority, especially in light of reduced
timber harvests in the foreseeable future. Chairman Hastings' draft
legislation will assist counties like Gila County manage our resources.
I support this draft bill.
Regarding more efficient implementation of NEPA, I offer two
suggestions. First, I have found that lack of available funding for the
required environmental analyses causes significant delays, so I suggest
that the bill include a specific funding authorization for the needed
NEPA analysis. Second, the 180 day deadline for completion of a NEPA
analysis will be helpful, but it will only be effective if the agency
completing the NEPA analysis cannot delay the tolling or start of the
180 day period, which in this bill is the publication of the notice. I
suggest including guidance in the bill to clearly describe when the
notice is required to be published.
``Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013''
Representative Gosar's bipartisan bill addresses many issues of
great importance to Gila County and I strongly support it. Stewardship
contracting is a valuable tool necessary to allow the forests to pay
for their own restoration. Reauthorization of stewardship contracting
is critical, as is authorization for 20 years contracts; I support
both. Under existing authority, which permits 10 year contracts with a
provision to extend another 10 years upon further approval, it is
difficult for business to secure financing and create a viable business
plan. I understand that 20 year contracts are necessary to allow
businesses to recoup the needed infrastructure investments.
I support payments to the counties from the stewardship contract,
especially as I understand that stewardship contracting is a mechanism
the Administration wants to expand. But I question the value of
payments based on 25% of the timber sales receipts from stewardship
contract. I do not believe the value to be comparable to the value of a
timber sale, as timber sales are designed to pull high value product
from the forest, while stewardship is designed to thin and restore the
forests. Clarifying this value question will be important over time to
ensure that counties are appropriately provided for where stewardship
contracts are more widely used than timber contracts.
Finally, I have two questions. First, who makes the determination
of an ``at-risk forest?'' I suggest that local officials have some role
in that process. Second, I appreciate the need for deadlines in the
NEPA process, as we have all seen long delays blamed on NEPA, but I
question whether or not this bill has given the agencies enough time to
complete a meaningful analysis, which should include input from local
officials. I suggest that the subcommittee consider taking into
consideration the size of the parcel that is being analyzed in
determining the length of time allowed to complete an environmental
assessment or an EIS.
Conclusion
On behalf of the residents of Gila County, I express my gratitude
to the Subcommittee for taking up this very important set of issues.
The West is in crisis, and there are only signs of it getting worse.
Federal land management policies must change direction immediately. We
have no time to waste. I urge the Subcommittee to move this legislation
and work with the rest of Congress and the Administration to enact the
changes discussed today to save the West.
______
Attachment to Gila County Supervisor Tommie Martin's Testimony
1. Gila County location map
2. 80 years of change
3. Smokey burning during the Willow Fire (2012)
4. Fire-fighting water site map
5. Water tank
6. Water bladders and helicopter
7. Helicopters and water tanks
8. Strategic Targets for Biomass supply
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. And Mr. Groseta? Am I pronouncing
that properly?
Mr. Groseta. Correct.
Mr. Tipton. We look forward to your testimony on H.R. 1345.
STATEMENT OF ANDY GROSETA, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, ARIZONA CATTLE
GROWERS' ASSOCIATION
Mr. Groseta. Thank you, Chairman Tipton, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify today on H.R. 1345, the Catastrophic
Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013. My name is Andy Groseta, I
serve as President of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association. I
am a past president of the National Cattleman's Beef
Association, and a member of the Public Lands Council. Today I
am speaking on behalf of the livestock industry.
I am a third-generation rancher and our family has been
ranching in the Verde Valley, north-central Arizona, since
1922. We operate on forest, State, and private lands, and take
our jobs as stewards of the land very seriously. We collaborate
with State and Federal agencies to maintain the working
landscapes that are vital to Arizona's economy and its
citizens.
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
production, 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.
Regulations on public lands have all but eliminated logging
and reduced grazing, allowing a build-up of fuels that has been
causing devastating catastrophic wildfires year after year.
When catastrophic wildfire breaks out, there are no winners,
not the watershed, not the wildlife, not air quality, not the
rural communities, and certainly not the taxpayer.
While taxpayers may find staggering the nearly $2 billion
price tag associated with suppressing wildfire last year, I
think what would truly be a shock if a number could be
calculated as the loss of valuable resources and property that
our real communities depend upon. For ranchers, this includes
death/loss of our livestock, displaced stock for which we must
find new pasture, not only for the year of the fire, but also
for several years thereafter, loss of fences, corrals, water
structures, sometimes even barns and homes. I might add that it
takes a heavy toll on your morale, watching several generations
go up in smoke.
In 2011 Arizona faced the most devastating fire season in
history, with over a million acres burned, impacting over 100
ranching families and displacing over 18,000 head of cattle.
That is why we are here today to discuss the Catastrophic
Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013, which would bring real,
immediate relief to the dangerous situation on and near our
public forest lands. It goes to the heart of the problem: the
overgrowth of regulations that have led to the overgrowth of
fuels.
The bill removes the analysis paralysis that typically
accompanies NEPA review on grazing and thinning projects in
high-risk areas, and it allows fuels removal under existing ESA
authorities. It will encourage free enterprise solutions and
State collaboration, which are essential to reducing the threat
of catastrophic wildfire.
Wildfire doesn't wait for endless deliberation, and in
high-risk situations neither should we. The wall of fire
clearly demonstrated how ESA regulations can create
destruction. Because of the Agency's protection of endangered
fish, frogs, and owls in our forest, important fuel reduction
projects were waylaid. When the wall of fire broke out, it
killed a whole generation of these species and their offspring
and caused massive destruction of their habitats. The wall of
fire case study demonstrates how seemingly a never-ending
process required by NEPA often does nothing to protect or
conserve all of these resources, as it is intended to do.
In fact, on the Wallow it did the exact opposite. In
typical fashion, the agencies plan, they studied, they
consulted, and as soon as they made any final decision that
allowed for fuel reduction activities, they got sued by anti-
logging and anti-grazing environmental groups, usually based on
technical and procedural points.
The cycle of analysis and litigation repeats, only the
agencies are now dealing with fewer resources. On the Wallow
this cycle stymied timber thinning and forest management and
fuels build-up to such a degree that the only possible outcome
was a catastrophic wildfire.
Given the current status of our economy and the huge size
of our debt and deficits, two things should be clear to all of
us. One, processes need to be put in place to allow us to save
our forests. And, two, we cannot count on the Federal
Government to single-handedly clean, thin, and properly manage
our forests. The States and local citizens must play a role,
and we must no longer allow the regulatory process to be abused
by those who simply--who do not want us to live and work on the
land. The only way we are going to be able to properly manage
our forests is with private investment from the timber and
ranching industries, which will also provide us with food and
fiber from these lands.
We will know that we are on the right track when we see
wood mills in rural western towns again, and every Forest
Service allotment with capacity for livestock grazing being
grazed. Our forest communities will see increased jobs,
employment opportunities, and economic activity, and our
forests will be safer and healthier. The Catastrophic Wildfire
Prevention Act of 2013 is common sense. Raging, 500,000-acre
wildfires should scare us. But cows and chainsaws shouldn't.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groseta follows:]
Statement of Andy Groseta, Public Land Rancher; President, Arizona
Cattle Growers Association; and Member of Public Lands Council and
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Dear Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The Public Lands Council (PLC), National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA), and Arizona Cattle Growers Association (ACGA)
appreciate the opportunity to voice to the Subcommittee on Public Lands
and Environmental Regulation our strong support for H.R. 1345, the
Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013. PLC is the only national
organization dedicated solely to representing the roughly 22,000
ranchers operating on federal lands. PLC has as affiliates sheep and
cattle organizations from thirteen western states, as well as three
national affiliates: NCBA, the American Sheep Industry Association
(ASI) and the Association of National Grasslands (ANG). NCBA is the
nation's oldest and largest national trade association for cattlemen
and women, representing more than 140,000 cattle producers through
direct membership and their state affiliates. NCBA is producer-directed
and works to preserve the heritage and strength of the industry by
providing a stable business environment for its members. ACGA was
founded over 100 years ago when a small group of concerned cattlemen
took it upon themselves to help structure the future of the cattle
industry in Arizona. Today, ACGA has grown into a vital organization
representing more than 1,000 beef cattle producers and industry leaders
throughout the state.
H.R. 1345 was introduced by Congressman Gosar (AZ) to address the
forest health, public safety, and wildlife habitat threats presented by
the risk of catastrophic wildfire on public lands managed by the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) and 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 to 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 nation's publicly managed forests has
resulted in vast areas 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 USFS, thinning trees would help
put a stop to the growing pine bark beetle epidemic, which in 2011
affected over four million acres across South Dakota, Wyoming and
Colorado alone (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/
stelprdb5337908.pdf). Under current management, however, the
infestation is leading to dead trees, endangering the public with the
imminent danger of falling trees, catastrophic wildfire, and blackouts
due to power line damage.
According the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station
in Missoula, Montana, there are vast areas of federally managed land
that 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 (the
most recent data available), only 31 percent or about 52 million acres
of forested land managed by the federal government were classified as
``condition class I,'' leaving more than two thirds of those forests
with fuel loads exceeding historical levels. This puts those lands and
the surrounding areas at risk of wildfires of such intensity that their
impacts would be catastrophic to ecosystems and communities.
Specifically, lands designated as ``condition class II,'' or lands
characterized by vegetation that is moderately higher than historic
levels, equated to about 66 million acres. Lands classified as
``condition class III,'' or lands characterized by vegetation that is
significantly higher than historic levels, consisted 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 American Forest Resource Council
(AFRC), ``Wildfires burned over 9 million acres in 2012 with a
suppression price tag of almost $2 billion dollars'' (http://
www.amforest.org/images/pdfs/AFRC_Newsletter_1-23-13.pdf). This is only
a fraction of the true cost. The January/February 2013 National Fire
Protection Association Journal stated that ``Focusing solely on
suppression costs can blind us to a long list of additional direct,
indirect, and associated costs, including damages to utilities and
other facilities, timber and agricultural losses, evacuation aid to
displaced residents, long-term rehabilitation costs to watersheds and
other affected areas, post-fire flooding mitigation and damage,
business revenue and property tax losses, public health impacts from
smoke, and, in some cases, the tragic loss of human life. Costs such as
private property losses are often included in media coverage of fires,
but even these figures can hide associated costs that are buried in the
details or are difficult to calculate'' (http://www.nfpa.org/
publicJournalDetail.asp?categoryID=&itemID=59868&src=NFPAJournal).
What are the impacts to livestock producers? Southeastern Oregon's
2012 ``Long Draw'' fire, the biggest Oregon burn since 1865, spanned
over a half-million acres and officially claimed 200 livestock; 400
more cattle were reported missing. Ranchers in this area and across the
west will be in dire need of pasture; forage for tens of thousands of
cattle was destroyed. At least half a dozen ranching families were left
wondering if they will be able to stay in business. Additionally, some
30 percent of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat was destroyed by the
fire.
The 2012 Barry Point fire in south central Oregon and northern
California, which was severe and extreme due to heavy fuel loads
combined with extremely dry conditions, burned 93,000 acres. According
to AFRC, ``In addition to the huge losses of timber, watershed,
wildlife, and other values on national forest lands, there were at
least six grazing permittees and 38 landowners in Oregon that were
directly affected, with property in or adjacent to the fire perimeter.
At least 24 had losses or damage in the fire or due to suppression
activities. No homes were lost, but several were threatened and
required structure protection. Private economic losses included
livestock, (including injury, death of animals, and loss of animal body
weight), forage, fences and corrals, and timber'' (http://
www.amforest.org/images/pdfs/AFRC_Newsletter_1-23-13.pdf).
According to an Associated Press article authored in July of 2012--
only partway through the fire season--livestock losses were already
reaching the hundreds in multiple states. Montana's Ash Creek Fire
claimed roughly 400 cows and calves belonging to one ranching family.
That family was later forced to shoot in mercy killings additional
cattle due to severe burns. Less than half the family's herd remains.
At AP's print time, 200 cattle had been killed in Wyoming and about 225
in Oregon. In remote southeastern Oregon, one family lost a third of
their 300-head cow-calf operation. (http://www.insurancejournal.com/
news/west/2012/07/27/257403.
htm).
This is only a continuation of a trend: 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 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.
The impact to rural communities, such as Oregon's Harney County
where cattle outnumber the people nearly 10 to one, can hardly be
measured. Across the West, hay is in short supply. Thousands of miles
of fence and countless corrals and water improvements must be rebuilt.
Thousands of head of displaced livestock have had to be shipped to
temporary pastures. Dry conditions are expected to persist, delaying
the recovery of burned area. This is expected to force livestock owners
to sell their animals or seek more lasting alternatives to the private
pastures and public lands on which they have operated for generations.
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--oftentimes collecting attorney's fees and court
costs 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 USFS grazing 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, the 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 wiped 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, ACGA 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 25 entities, listed below, endorsed ACGA's original SAFE
plan, including Arizona's state Senate and House. The plan's goal was--
and remains--to reduce fuel loads and take other appropriate actions so
that the risk of catastrophic wildfire 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
2013 shares the core principles of the SAFE plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.012
.epsCatastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013
In an effort to provide efficiencies to the regulatory process for
reducing fuel loads on federal lands, Congressman Gosar has
reintroduced the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013. 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 wildlife--including
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 United States are currently located in fire-prone
wildland/urban interface areas, and the USFS predicts a 40 percent
increase in new homes in similar areas by 2030 (http://
www.idahoforests.org/img/pdf/FUSEE.pdf). The legislation 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 ESA would
be completed under the emergency provisions of the Act. Prior to the
listing of any species under the ESA, research would be conducted to
measure the impact a listing will have on fuel loads. Recovery plans
and critical habitat designations would have catastrophic fire risk
assessment analyses included.
Exemption from 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 within 60 days (or 90 days for an
Environmental Impact Statement) after notice in the federal register
for timber harvest and grazing projects. 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. In all cases, adequate public
review (30 days) would be allowed. In order to prevent litigation, only
those who commented on the draft documents would qualify to comment on
the final decision.
Adding to last year's iteration of the bill, the legislation now
includes contract stewardship and good neighbor authority measures,
which facilitate the completion of forest management projects through
public-private partnerships and cooperation with state governments. For
example, when in Colorado, between 2000 and 2008, the Good Neighbor
Authority program was implemented, thorough engagement of all
stakeholders provided a comprehensive analysis of management objectives
prior to implementation and helped to ensure the most favorable
management outcomes (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/
stelprdb5269069.pdf). Collaborative efforts increased agency
accountability to local communities and facilitated more favorable
relationships between state and regional partners. (http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-09-277)
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 2013 without delay, to enact commonsense solutions to
reduce the threat of wildfire on public lands. H.R. 1345 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
([email protected]) at the Public Lands Council and National
Cattlemen's Beef Association.
______
Response to Questions Submitted for the Record by Andy Groseta on
Behalf of Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
and Arizona Cattle Growers Association
1. As I understand it, the PLC has frequently engaged in litigation
against the federal government. How many times would you say
PLC has participated in a lawsuit against the federal
government in the last ten years?
The Subcommittee has inquired as to the number of legal challenges
to federal actions PLC has filed over the past 10 years. Over the past
10 years, PLC has been plaintiffs in two cases against the federal
government. PLC is the sole organization in Washington, DC dedicated to
representing the some 22,000 ranchers who hold public lands grazing
permits. Livestock grazing in the West predates the existence of U.S.
``public lands,'' and our members are proud of their longstanding
traditions of stewardship and hard work that, for generations, have
combined to produce safe, healthy and affordable food and fiber for an
ever-growing population. Despite their important roles as environmental
stewards and producers, our members frequently find themselves under
attack by predatory special-interest groups whose goal is to remove all
livestock from public lands, regardless of the dire environmental and
economic outcome. These groups use political and legal pressure to
encourage the federal agencies to act outside their statutory authority
in ways that harm PLC members. In most cases, PLC intervenes on the
side of the federal government. However, there have been limited
instances where PLC has challenged federal agency actions when we
believed the agencies acted outside their statutory authority. PLC
files lawsuits against the federal government when all other avenues
have been exhausted. We work through the public comment process and
with Congress to clarify/reassert their intent when we find error with
agency actions; only after having made these efforts do we resort to
the courts for relief. This is in stark contrast to radical groups who
head straight to the courtroom to drive an anti-multiple-use agenda.
Their challenges are oftentimes process-based and include recovery of
attorneys' fees directly to the organization via an in-house lawyer.
This strategy is used as part of their business plans.
As mentioned above, we have been plaintiffs in two cases against
the federal government in the past 10 years:
1. U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule (Federal Forest Resource
Coalition et al v. Vilsack) (D.C. District Court)
Federal Statutes at Issue: Organic Administration Act,
National Forest Management Act, Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield
Act, Administrative Procedures Act
Summary: PLC joined a diverse multiple-use coalition to file
a complaint against the U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule based
on what we believe to be violations of the statutes listed
above. We filed extensive comments expressing our concerns with
the draft rule, which, in our eyes, the agency subsequently
ignored or did not sufficiently respond to. By our estimation,
the final rule was not brought into compliance with federal
statute. We were very engaged in the rulemaking process and
litigated only as a last resort.
2. U.S. Forest Service Payette Plan (Idaho Wool Growers
Association et al v. Vilsack et al) (Idaho District Court)
Federal Statutes at Issue: National Environmental Policy
Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act, Administrative Procedures
Act
In this second case, we joined other livestock industry
groups in challenging the U.S. Forest Service's decision to cut
domestic sheep grazing by nearly 70 percent on the Payette
National Forest, a decision based on spurious science. Industry
was not provided the opportunity to engage in the development
of the risk assessment that ultimately led to the removal of
domestic sheep; therefore, working with Congress was our only
option to ensure sheep ranchers would not be arbitrarily
removed from national forest lands for the supposed protection
of big horn sheep. When this avenue was exhausted, PLC's only
option was to challenge the agency in court.
2. When asked if PLC has ever been a plaintiff in a case against the
federal government where attorneys' fees through Equal Access
to Justice were requested you responded ``No.'' We have found
at least two instances where PLC has requested recovery of
attorney fees. Please provide the Committee with a complete
list of where you have sought recovery fees and indicate if you
have done that through Equal Access to Justice Act.
The Subcommittee inquires about PLC's request for and collection of
attorneys' and other court fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA). I appreciate the opportunity clarify that, when I responded
``no'' to the Honorable Rep. Grijalva's in-person inquiry, I was
responding to whether PLC, as a plaintiff, has ever received fee
reimbursement under EAJA, not whether PLC had requested reimbursement.
PLC formally sought EAJA fees in 1999, Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest
Service. There are two ongoing cases where PLC has included EAJA fees
in the initial complaint (Federal Forest Resource Coalition et al., v.
Vilsack et al.; and Idaho Wool Growers Association et al v. Vilsack et
al.); however to date PLC has not filed a Motion seeking EAJA fees in
either case, because doing so would be premature given the status of
litigation in both.
It is important to draw a distinction between PLC's rare requests
for EAJA reimbursement and the abuse of EAJA regularly practiced by
wealthy radical environmental groups. We have consistently honored the
law's intent, which is to protect small entities in cases where they
must defend themselves against actions of the federal government. As
such, we have supported legislation that would disqualify for payments
organizations whose net worth exceeds $7 million. This $7 million-or-
less requirement currently applies to for-profit entities and
individuals, but does not apply to wealthy ``nonprofits''.
Additionally, we have supported measures to require groups or
individuals to have direct monetary interest in the federal
government's action in order to be eligible for payments. We also
support capping the exorbitant attorney fees these groups claim to be
owed, which are sometimes as much as $700 per hour.
We have also supported efforts to make EAJA payments transparent to
the public. According to attorney Karen Budd-Falen, in 2011, 12
environmental groups alone had filed more than 3,300 lawsuits over the
previous decade, recovering over $37 million in EAJA funds. Budd-Falen
said that this was a conservative estimate, as accounting of EAJA
expenditures has been scant, at best. With no accounting of these
payments, abuse by well-heeled groups will only increase.
3. The disclosure form asks you to list ``all lawsuits or petitions
filed by the organizations you represent at the hearing against
the federal government in the current year and the previous
four years.'' Yet, while your disclosure lists the Federal
Forest case, it does not list a case that was filed against the
government in the District of Idaho, Idaho Wool Growers
Association versus Vilsack. I have the complaint right here, in
fact, I downloaded it from your organization's own website, and
it clearly lists the Public Lands Council as a plaintiff. Why
was this case omitted from your disclosure? What other cases in
which PLC sued the government were similarly omitted?
On behalf of PLC, I apologize for this oversight. As you will note,
subsequent disclosure forms (filed with the Subcommittee for hearings
on 4/16 and 4/18) on behalf of other PLC witnesses did include a
complete list of challenges filed against the federal government in the
current and previous four years. This included just one additional
case, the U.S. Forest Service Payette Plan challenge (Idaho Wool
Growers Association et al v. Vilsack et al).
4. Isn't it true that the PLC is a plaintiff in at least one lawsuit
against the federal government under NEPA and right now? Has
PLC ever been a plaintiff in a case that includes the claims
under the Endangered Species Act?
As mentioned above, PLC is engaged in a lawsuit against the U.S.
Forest Service regarding NEPA (Idaho Wool Growers Association et al v.
Vilsack et al in the Idaho District Court). In this case, we joined
other livestock industry groups in challenging the U.S. Forest
Service's decision to cut domestic sheep grazing by nearly 70 percent
on the Payette National Forest, a decision based on spurious science
that in our view violated NEPA, among other statutes. Neither industry
nor the public were provided the opportunity to engage in the
development of the risk assessment model that ultimately led to the
removal of domestic sheep. The NEPA process, done to identify and
assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid
or minimize adverse effects of proposed actions, was not done at this
stage. NEPA must be done before taking action to assist or approve a
proposed action or project that may significantly affect the
environment. Additionally, in its final decision, the Forest Service
failed to adequately consider and evaluate the direct and indirect
impacts of the proposed action on bighorn sheep, on other wildlife, and
on the human environment.
As for the second question, in reviewing PLC's case history (over
the last 10 years), I do not believe PLC has been a plaintiff against
the federal government where claims were brought under the Endangered
Species Act.
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you for your testimony. And did you have
any questions?
Mr. Grijalva. No, I will just wrap--I am going to have just
one series when we are all done. I am fine.
Mr. Tipton. Very good. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. No, I am waiting for the----
Mr. Tipton. All right. Did we want to wait for Mr. Gosar?
Pardon? OK.
I will go ahead and fill in for Mr. Gosar. I know he is on
the way back.
Mr. Grijalva. Oh, you wanted to do one at a time?
Mr. Tipton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, I can----
Mr. Tipton. Do you want to jump in?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, please.
Mr. Tipton. OK. Great. I will defer to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman.
Supervisor Martin, welcome. And what were your initial
concerns regarding the contract award for Pioneer Forest
Products, can you share that with us?
Ms. Tommie Martin. You bet I can.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you.
Ms. Tommie Martin. I felt like they did not have a good
business plan. And without a good business plan they were not
going to get financing. And they haven't yet. And I feel that
it is way too important, the whole 4FRI conversation. It rested
on a good contractor and told the Forest Service if they didn't
have a good contractor they needed to go back out and get one,
if they felt like they didn't have one of the two that they
had, but to please do not pick a contractor that could not
fulfill the contract.
Mr. Grijalva. And I think you--in your testimony you speak
about the 4FRI effort, how it can work, and the opposition to
the contract was being able to perform. And your point----
Ms. Tommie Martin. Oh, I don't know if they could perform
or not. I didn't believe they had--well, actually, I felt like
the products that they had picked to say that they were going
to sell, one of them was cellulosic biofuel.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Ms. Tommie Martin. There is no such thing at this point.
They're in the laboratory. Second, it was finger-jointed panels
to make furniture out of. And that industry had shipped
overseas 10 years ago. We have a lot of that kind of product
coming back out of Asia, but we don't have much of that product
coming out of the United States. So I felt like, in fact, their
products left a lot to be desired.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Supervisor. Mr. Groseta,
you talked a lot about the impacts of litigation and the
ability of Federal land managers to act. So I want to ask you a
few questions about the lawsuits that Public Lands Council has
been involved with against the Federal Government.
I understand that the Public Lands Council is frequently
engaged in litigation against the Federal Government. So how
many times would you say the organization participated in
lawsuits against the Federal Government the last 10 years, just
a question.
Mr. Groseta. To answer your question, I honestly don't know
how many lawsuits the organization has been involved in the
last 10 years. I do know now that presently we are involved in
litigation regarding the new Forest Planning Rule. And the
reason we are involved in that litigation is that the Forest
Service, under the new proposed rule, is not following their
charge of implementing the multiple-use concept.
Mr. Grijalva. If you wouldn't mind, sir, at some point, for
the Committee's edification, if you could get us a number on
the lawsuits that the Council might be involved with at this
point?
Mr. Groseta. That is the only one that I am aware of.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, equal access to justice, another
question. I don't think you--you don't think very highly of
this Act, I gather, because according to your Web site it says,
``Unfortunately, it had become the means of a radical
environmental groups to target private citizens by challenging
in court their rights to natural resource uses such as
livestock grazing.'' Strong words about the Act, and
particularly about the Act's attorney fee provision.
Has your organization, PLC, ever been a plaintiff in a case
against the Federal Government where attorney's fees were
requested?
Mr. Groseta. First of all, with the Equal Access to Justice
Act, that Act has been abused by----
Mr. Grijalva. But my point is, have you accessed any of the
attorneys fees.
Mr. Groseta. No, we haven't.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. It is my understanding that PLC is the
plaintiff in at least one lawsuit against the Federal
Government under the NEPA, is that happening right now? And has
PLC ever been the plaintiff in a case that includes claims
under the Endangered Species Act, two other areas in which you
outlined as impediments to real management and productivity
from our public lands?
Mr. Groseta. As I said earlier, the only lawsuit I am aware
that we are involved with is the Forest Planning Rule lawsuit.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, in your review there is additional----
Mr. Groseta. We can get back to you.
Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. I believe there is, and if you
can share that with the Chairman and the Committee. I would
appreciate that very much.
My question is just, I guess, a goose-and-gander question
that sometimes we complain a lot about the litigation from
certain groups, but it is a democratic, due process mechanism
available to all of us. And I am glad PLC has been one of the
organizations that has availed itself of that right. With that
I yield back.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Ranking Member. I now yield to
Representative Gosar for his questions.
Dr. Gosar. Well, first of all Tommie and Andy, thank you
very much for traveling and spending a long day in a hearing
room. At least it has aired out a little bit.
Andy, one of the things I know the Ranking Member was
talking about, Equal Access to Justice. And, I mean, we can all
understand where a lot of this litigation is going to. We want
to identify it. In fact, the Department of Justice has not even
provided us with the documentation on who accesses that, and we
are doing that now in our committees. That is how bad we don't
have the numbers. But from what we have seen, it is much more
on the environmental groups than any of the others, in
combination.
My question to you is that a lot of the litigation that you
actually have to come forward with is actually survival, is it
not?
Mr. Groseta. That is correct.
Dr. Gosar. So, let me ask you another question. Have you
ever had and been afforded a private meeting with the
Department-- the Secretary of the Interior?
Mr. Groseta. No, I haven't.
Dr. Gosar. Are you aware of other groups that were afforded
that for endangered species and for specialized groups, for
environmental groups?
Mr. Groseta. Yes.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, that would be the answer. So, I think from
the standpoint of holding our own, we have to have an equal
balance across the board. And the facts set you free.
And so, Supervisor Martin, you are in a--especially out in
the west, but more importantly, you and your aspect as a
Supervisor, I know the burden of the Federal Government's
failure to properly manage our public lands frequently falls on
you and the local government, and particularly county
supervisors. You are not only economically strained by the lack
of a tax base--probably less than 10 percent taxable base,
right, in your county----
Ms. Tommie Martin. One-and-a-half percent.
Dr. Gosar. Wow. Could you say that a lot louder?
Ms. Tommie Martin. One-and-a-half percent.
Dr. Gosar. Wow. But frequently local governments have to
spend scant funds to address emergency situations. Is that
true?
Ms. Tommie Martin. That is true.
Dr. Gosar. How has Gila County specifically responded to
the continuing fire threat posed by the severely overgrown
Tonto Forest? I think everybody needs to hear this, a very
great----
Ms. Tommie Martin. In 2006 we were rated number one for
fire threat in the southwest region. And the one-half percent
that is our land base in the north, in the northern end of that
county, is 70 percent of our assessed valuation. So we are 100
percent vulnerable to wildfire.
We immediately began--we built a collaborative team of all
the fire chiefs, anybody that had a stake in this, and from
that, the county put together what we called firewater. We went
and got 20 to 50,000-gallon fuel bladders, surplus, took a 10-
foot culvert and cut them in 10-foot lengths. We all came off
of ranches and we would do that with 3-foot culvert pipe and
make horse troughs and cow troughs.
So we said we would make a helicopter trough, and we have a
10-foot culvert, 10 foot tall, and what we wound up doing was
having 30,000 gallons of water sitting out there, at the
minimum, helicopter-ready, whether it was a type 1, 2, or 3
helicopter, filled them with water. We have our sheriff's posse
monitor them. I have pictures, if you want them. It is part of
my written testimony, also. We wound up spending about $1
million in putting 25 of those set-ups out plus matching the
communities up to $50,000 a piece to cut a fire break on their
southwest side, which is the vulnerable side in our county, for
fire coming their way, to have a fuel break that they could at
least backfire away from and not burn the community down. Did
those on Federal land.
There are other costs there, we bought 11 Honda pumps to
hook everything up together so that there was water available
all the time. Our most recent success story was last year on
the Poco Fire around Young. We were able to help the Forest
Service hold that fire to 30,000 acres. They thought every day
it would go to 500,000. And when it was all said and done we
all got plaques about, ``Yay, you gave us water.'' But we ran
water into those bladders and into those tanks for those type 1
helicopters to pull 2,500 gallons at a time out, and keep that
fire surrounded. Otherwise, we would have had the last piece of
that rim burn last year.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Well, thank you very much for your
ingenuity. I mean that is the one thing----
Ms. Tommie Martin. I call it our redneck ingenuity, OK?
Dr. Gosar. Before I wrap up--I have 25 seconds here--Andy,
in the President's budget, once again we are in this process of
taxes and spending. I see that the tax increase, as the
President has proposed, has been proposed on an increase in
grazing fees. This is an arbitrary tax that I oppose. Andy,
would you tell me just a little bit about how this would affect
the ranchers, if it was implemented?
Mr. Groseta. Well, Congressman Gosar, I guess the short
answer is it will put a lot of family ranches out of business.
In these times of economic uncertainty, with ranchers facing
drought throughout different pockets in the West, with ranchers
taking voluntary reductions, with ranchers taking forest
reductions implemented by the agency because of ESA issues,
NEPA issues, whatever the issue may be, our capacity to produce
wealth, to produce income, has been diminished over the past
several years.
And we all know what state the economy is in right now. So
this is the worst thing that can happen to the cattle industry
out in the West. It will put a lot of family ranches out of
businesses.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to do
some--put some statistics into the record for if we were to
mitigate, and one of the smaller fires up by the Schultz Pass
Fire in Flagstaff, if we would have mitigated that, the cost
would have been a minimum of one-tenth, at least one-tenth less
than what we saw in mitigation charges for fighting a fire. So
I would like to make sure that is in the record.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that. Without objection, that will
be noted for the record.
And, Congressman Gosar, I am happy to yield my time, even
though you have already used a minute of it, back to you if you
did have a couple of other questions.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If we were to actively--now everybody understands the
situation in Gila County, OK. With a massive amount of land, if
we were to get this project off, what would this mean
financially, potentially, to Gila County?
Ms. Tommie Martin. It would depend upon the value of the
product, I think, at this point in time. It could mean a great
deal to us, and it could not. And that was one of my comments,
what I would like to really take a good, hard look at is there
money there to be had at a 25-percent level, or do we need to
do something else. Is there a creative--the product that Gila
County has, we have some timber but we have mostly brush. OK?
And can I finish answering a question a while ago? I have a
picture that I want to share with you all. We call it smoky
burning, OK? It is what led to that set-up. And I would like to
hand these pictures off to you, also. All righty?
Dr. Gosar. We would love to have them for the record.
Ms. Tommie Martin. To go into this record. Back to the
answer to your question, I would like to know more about
exactly what the value of the product is. If it is in power,
that is one thing. If it is in chip board, that is a whole
different thing. It just depends on the product.
Dr. Gosar. Now--I am sorry, I missed your comments earlier,
I was stepping out. I couldn't help myself. There was a moment,
so I had to run out and grab another witness.
But you shared a story up in Utah about a ranch that
actually is a model.
Ms. Tommie Martin. Oh, it is.
Dr. Gosar. Can you tell us a little bit more about it?
Ms. Tommie Martin. You bet I can. It is the place that I
know of in the inner-mountain west that has a building Sage
Grouse population, building Pronghorn population, Cutthroat
Trout population Sand Hill Crane population, Willow Flycatcher
population. Any endangered species that is on the neighbors is
a building population on that place. They do it in the presence
of up to 11,000 head of livestock cattle, goats, sheep, buffalo
at one time. They net--the last time I looked, they net $7 to
the acre off of their livestock operation, and 3 on their
wildlife operation. So not only is it giving us abundant water,
abundant species, it also is giving us true wealth.
That is not a climate consideration, eco-type
consideration. It is strictly a matter of management. It is a
thinking, decision-making situation. It could happen on any
ranch: Andy's, mine, the gentleman that was here that talked
about ranching. But it comes from shared goals and shared
decisions, true shared decision-making. When we have to give
our decision-making up to a monopoly decision-maker from folks
who may not have lived in our area even a year, it certainly
takes away the opportunities. And Andy and I are left with
people that--I hate to say this, but we are now ranching for
lifestyle, not livelihood. And we could be ranching for
livelihood.
Again, these lands are our basic Nation's wealth.
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Tommie Martin. And we use money to manage them, instead
of taking money from them. We are so upside down in this
conversation.
Dr. Gosar. That is absolutely true. My grandfather was a
sheep and cattle rancher. And he was a true environmentalist,
just like--I have been out to your ranch, Andy. You can't
overdo things, otherwise you stymie yourself the following
year. People don't really understand that.
I want to ask you, when you are talking about the royalties
from not only forest thinning but also grazing, does that not
go into the State land fund, Andy?
Mr. Groseta. The fees off the Federal lands go to the
Federal coffers. And when we graze on State trust lands, those
fees go to the State trust, which goes to education.
Dr. Gosar. Goes to education.
Mr. Groseta. Right.
Dr. Gosar. So this is a possible boon-boon for our
educational systems.
Mr. Groseta. It would be a major windfall.
Dr. Gosar. Wow. Let me ask you a question. In Yavapai
County in the fires last year, what kind of economic set-backs
did it have in Yavapai County?
Mr. Groseta. Well, in our particular county we didn't have
any major, major fires like they had on the Kaibab. On the
Prescott National Forest they did have some prescribed burns.
About 3 or 4 years ago south of Prescott they had the
Indian Creek Fire, and that was on the verge of maybe wiping
out the southern part of the City of Prescott. And so there are
impacts from fires, but not particular to Yavapai County on the
Prescott. But once you get up on the rim, on the Kaibab, on the
Coconino, that is where the bulk of the timber is in Arizona,
and that is where we need some relief. We need regulatory
relief so we can actually go out and produce new wealth off the
land.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding
me that time.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. And, panel, thank you for
taking the time to be able to be here. And if you need to go
ahead and leave, we are going to go ahead and move to our next
panel, and we certainly appreciate your time and your
contribution to this.
So, our next bill is going to be the draft bill by Mr.
DeFazio, and we will begin with Mr. Robertson for your
testimony. Thank you for being here, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG ROBERTSON, COMMISSIONER, DOUGLASS
COUNTY, OREGON
Mr. Robertson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the Committee. I am Doug Robertson. I am Chairman of the
Board of Commissioners in Douglass County, Oregon, and also
President of the Association of O&C Counties. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to be here and testify on the O&C
Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act sponsored by Congressmen
DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden.
The O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act is an attempt to
solve a 20-plus-year jobs, forest health, and funding quagmire.
The Oregon California Railroad Grant lands have played a unique
and critical role in the fabric of Western Oregon communities.
The O&C lands only exist in the State of Oregon and were at one
point all in private ownership.
This land base grows approximately 1.5 billion board feet
of timber every year, and used to have a harvest level of
roughly 1.1 billion board feet. Half of the revenue generated
from the sale of this timber goes to the O&C counties' general
fund, unlike Forest Service revenues, which receipts are shared
at 25 percent and are dedicated to schools and roads.
Unlike the laws governing other Federal forest lands, the
1937 O&C Act is a dominant-use statute which places management
jurisdiction of these lands under the United States Department
of the Interior. These lands are not national forest and are
not managed under the principle of multiple use. These lands
are managed by the Bureau of Land Management under a dominant-
use statute. And that dominant use is timber production within
the principle of sustained yield for the benefit of the
counties in which they are located.
Due to the listing of the Spotted Owl and the adoption of
the Northwest Forest Plan, timber harvest from these lands have
been reduced by more than 80 percent. Today the BLM is
incapable of coming up with a workable management plan or path
forward to meet the stated goals of the O&C Act. Much like
other projects on Federal lands, O&C timber sales are
continuously protested, appealed, and litigated. And this
uncertainty is crushing rural Oregon counties, communities, and
economies.
The O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act places a surface
estate of roughly 1.4 million acres of O&C land into a trust to
be managed by a Board of Trustees under State and Federal laws
that currently apply to private and State lands in Oregon. This
trust concept works very well in the Chairman's own State of
Washington, where the Washington Department of Natural
Resources produces roughly $125 million annually for the
benefit of their communities. This is all accomplished while
protecting fish, wildlife, and water resources, as would be the
case under the O&C Trust, Conservation, and Jobs Act.
This bipartisan proposal is a unique approach to solve the
management issues on a very unique landscape, and was initiated
out of the desire, need to find balance, and to provide
something of substance for all interested parties, while
continuing to observe the principles contained in the 1937 O&C
Act.
We recognize it is no longer 1937. And we don't expect to
return to harvest levels of 1,100,000,000 feet per year. But we
also recognize the Act's sustained yield management principles
are as relevant today as they were then. Our goal has been to
blend those principles with the changing attitudes of today
into a management regimen that provides the balance the public
is seeking. This balance includes designating areas for active
timber management and other areas for conservation purposes.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. I have been an
elected County Commissioner in Douglass County for over 32
years. Many of those years have been spent working on this
issue. I have never seen the discussion of Federal forest
management with its emotion and suggested solutions and concern
elevated to this level before. Clearly, fire, insect
infestation, disease, the declining health of our Federal
forests, and long-term funding of our county governments have
struck a note with you and many of your colleagues.
Having said that, it is absolutely imperative that Federal
forest management legislation be passed by the House of
Representatives and moved to the Senate. For if it is not, the
discussion of improving management on our Federal forest lands
will end here. And that is something we cannot and must not
allow to happen.
Finally, a wise man faced with similar problems as we face
today once said, ``We can no longer afford to sacrifice the
good in pursuit of the perfect.'' There is no perfect solution
to this. We all wish there was, but there isn't. But there are
good solutions. And this is one of them. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Robertson,
Douglas County (Oregon) Commissioner
Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for asking me here today to testify on the O&C Trust
Conservation and Jobs Act (OCTCJA) sponsored by Congressmen DeFazio,
Schrader and Walden.
The O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act (``OCTCJA'') is an attempt
to solve a 20+ year, jobs, forest health and county funding quagmire.
The Oregon and California (``O&C'') Railroad Grant Lands have a unique
history and play a critical role in the fabric of Western Oregon
Communities. The O&C Lands only exist in Oregon and were, at one point,
in private ownership. This land base grows approximately 1.5 billion
board feet of timber every year and used to have a harvest level of
roughly 1.1 billion board feet. Half of the revenue generated from the
sale of this timber goes to the O&C Counties to fund county general
funds (unlike Forest Service receipts which are shared at 25% and are
dedicated to schools and roads). Unlike the laws governing other
federal forestlands, the 1937 O&C Act is a dominant use statute which
places management jurisdiction of the lands under the United States
Department of the Interior, and directs that the timberlands ``shall''
be managed:
. . . for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon
shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the
principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a
permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds,
regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic
stability of local communities and industries, and providing
recreational facilities . . . (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1181a)
Due to the listing of the spotted owl and the adoption of the
Northwest Forest Plan, which has failed to produce even its modest
targets, timber harvests from these lands have been reduced by more
than 80%. Today the BLM is incapable of coming up with a workable
management plan or path forward. Much like other projects on Federal
lands, O&C timber sales are continuously protested, appealed and
litigated. This uncertainty is crushing rural Oregon counties,
communities and economies.
The OCTCJA places the surface estate of roughly 1.4 million acres
of the O&C lands into a trust to be managed by a board of trustees
under State and Federal laws that currently apply to private, local and
state lands in Oregon. This trust concept works very well in the
Chairman's own State of Washington where the Washington Department of
Natural Resources produces roughly 125+ million dollars, annually, for
the benefit of their communities. This is all accomplished while
protecting fish, wildlife and water resources . . . as would be the
case under the OCTCJA.
This bipartisan proposal is a unique approach to solve the
management issues on a very unique landscape. Once again, these lands
only exist in the State of Oregon, and yet the catalyst that initiated
this discussion was the requirement to find balance, and to provide
something of substance for all interested parties while continuing to
observe the principles contained in the 1937 O&C Act. We recognize that
this is no longer 1937, and we do not expect to return to harvest
levels of 1.1 billion board feet per year. But we also recognize the
Act's sustained-yield management principles are as relevant today as
they were then. Our goal has been to blend those principles with the
changing attitudes of today into a management regime that provides the
balance the public is seeking. This balance includes designating areas
for active timber management and other areas for conservation purposes.
Finally Mr. Chairman, let me just say this; I have been an elected
Commissioner in Douglas County, Oregon for 32 years. Many of those
years have been spent working on this issue. But I have never seen the
discussion of Federal forest management with as many suggested
solutions and concern on this level. Clearly jobs, fire, insect
infestation, disease, the declining health of our Federal forests, and
the long-term funding of our local, county governments after the loss
of secure rural schools payments, have struck a note with you and many
of your colleagues. Having said that, it is absolutely imperative that
Federal forest management legislation be passed by the House of
Representatives and move to the Senate, for if it does not, the
discussion of improving management on our federal lands will end here
and we cannot and must not allow that to happen.
Someone much wiser than I once said . . . we can no longer afford
to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. There is no perfect
solution to this issue, but there are good solutions, and this is one
of them. Thank you for your time and attention.
______
Mr. Tipton. Good testimony. Thank you, Mr. Robertson. We
appreciate that.
Now proceed to Mr. Tuchmann for your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF TOM TUCHMANN, FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION FINANCE
ADVISOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JOHN A. KITZHABER, STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Tuchmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Tom Tuchmann and I serve as Governor John
Kitzhaber's Forestry and Conservation Finance Advisor. The
Governor thanks you very much for the invitation to participate
today. I think you know he is unable to do so, as the Oregon
Legislature is in session.
The Governor would also like to recognize Congressman Peter
DeFazio, Congressman Walden, and Congressman Schrader for their
strong leadership on this very, very difficult issue.
Oregonians--indeed, all Americans--feel very strongly about
their public lands, and it takes real courage to step forward
and propose changes that are reflected in the O&C Trust,
Conservation, and Jobs Act. And your leadership is greatly
appreciated back home.
Mr. Chairman, the Governor holds very strong conservation
values and believes public lands can and should be managed to
provide clean water, threatened-endangered species habitat,
recreational values, and a diversity of forest types and ages.
Yet he also believes a portion of these lands can
simultaneously provide some sustainable level of timber to
support local communities and regional economies. Some say
these are mutually incompatible goals. But given our large,
resource-rich public land system, the Governor respectfully
disagrees.
Commissioner Robertson went into detail on the background
of the O&C Act and I would like to really cut to the chase here
and say that the Governor feels that the pendulum has swung
from harvest levels in the 1980s that largely did not sustain a
wide array of conservation attributes to current practices that
forecast only a 15- to 25-year window of thinning sales that
are left.
Timber volume produced from thinnings is good. It provides
valuable resource to mills, but does not provide adequate
quantity and quality of logs to local mills, nor do they
produce adequate funds for basic public services in the 18 O&C
counties that Commissioner Robertson referenced.
The Northwest Forest Plan is working with regard to
conservation objectives, but it is not working with regard to
its timber objectives. While increased Federal timber harvests
will not solve all of Oregon's economic challenges, it can and
should serve as the foundation for doing so.
So, where do we go from here? While the Governor would like
to work with Congress to make changes that incorporate broader
conservation protections, he appreciates that the O&C
discussion draft provides predictability for local timber
industry, county governments, and for old growth protection.
The Governor stands ready to do his part, has already been
deeply involved in this issue. His written statement summarizes
both a report based on the results of a panel convened--this
panel included conservation, timber, and county
representatives--and also his recommendations based on that
report.
The Governor encourages Congress to use elements of the O&C
Act discussion draft, the panel report, and his recommendations
to craft a bill that can be signed into law this session. He
feels confident that if we think creatively and outside the
box, as he says, that we can optimize what everybody wants from
our O&C forests.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kitzhaber follows:]
Statement of Governor John A. Kitzhaber, MD, State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Governor John
Kitzhaber and I am pleased to provide my perspective on issues related
to the Oregon and California (O&C) lands in Oregon.
I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee for taking the time to address this important and unique
issue in my state. I would also like to recognize Congressman Peter
DeFazio, Congressman Greg Walden and Congressman Kurt Schrader for
their strong leadership on this very difficult issue. Oregonians,
indeed all Americans, have strong and diverse views regarding how
public forests should be managed. It takes real courage to step up and
propose the changes that are reflected in the O&C Trust, Conservation
and Jobs Act. Thank you for your leadership and please know it is
appreciated back home.
Mr. Chairman, I hold very strong conservation values. I believe
that our public lands can and should be managed to provide a diversity
of forest types, including ecosystems ranging from early to late
successional stages and preserving old growth. Our forests should
provide clean water for domestic uses and for aquatic ecosystems to
flourish. Our forests should be managed so that Americans have places
to recreate and come to appreciate the tremendous natural values of our
forests, grasslands and waterways. Yet, I also believe a portion of
these public lands can simultaneously provide some sustainable level of
timber to support local and regional economies.
Some say these are mutually incompatible goals, but given our
large, resource rich public lands system, I respectfully disagree. We
are currently at a place regarding Oregon's O&C lands where the
pendulum has swung from harvest levels in the 1980s that largely did
not sustain a wide array of conservation attributes to current practice
that only forecasts a 15 to 25 year window of thinning sales. Timber
volume levels from thinning alone do not provide adequate quantity and
quality of logs to local mills, nor do they produce adequate funds for
basic public services in the 18 O&C Counties.
So where do we go from here? The status quo is not working and
while increasing federal timber harvest will not solve all of rural
Oregon's economic challenges, it can serve as a foundation. Congress
should act to find a solution for O&C lands that helps Oregon counties
improve financial stability, ensures adequate supplies of timber to
support mills and jobs, and continues to meet aquatic and land
conservation goals.
I am a strong supporter of our nation's environmental laws, but I
believe it is time to modernize the O&C Act and to update the
application of the Northwest Forest Plan in a manner that provides more
certainty for conservation, timber supply and County revenues. The O&C
Act was written decades ago and the Northwest Forest Plan is now 20
years old and has not delivered on all of its timber supply
commitments. I believe we can adapt the O&C Act and the Northwest
Forest Plan in a manner that optimizes what we conserve and produce
from our public lands. In the case of the O&C forests, here is our
story and here are some ideas for the Committee's consideration on how
you might build on the O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act moving
forward.
O&C Lands--A Brief Background
The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management
Act of 1937 (O&C Act) revested 2.6 million acres of forestland in
western Oregon to the Federal government. The O&C Lands had been
intended as compensation for the construction of a railroad but were
revested after discovery that sales of the O&C Railroad Company
violated Federal law. After revestiture, the Federal government agreed
to share timber revenue, in lieu of foregone property taxes, with the
18 counties within which the O&C lands were located. In addition to
establishing a fiscal relationship, the O&C Act included a mandate to
provide a sustained level of timber harvest and a community stability
clause to ensure the economic viability of local economies. The Act
also included conservation requirements in calling for the protection
of watersheds and regulations of stream flows.
Through the late 1980s, the O&C Lands were managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to produce timber under the sustained yield
mandate. For a 30 year period through 1989, timber harvests on the O&C
Lands averaged 1.1 billion board feet (BBF). The resulting payments to
the O&C Counties over the same time period averaged $151 million (in
2011$). Figure 1 shows annual timber harvest and payments derived from
the O&C lands from 1960-2011. Note that even prior to significantly
reduced timber harvest levels beginning in the early 1990s that timber
harvest levels and total payments to counties (blue shaded area)
demonstrate appreciable annual fluctuation due primarily to conditions
in timber markets. Most notable is the recession that spanned the late
1970s and early 1980s. One can speculate that if payments were coupled
to timber harvests today, a similar response would have occurred during
our recent economy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.004
.epsO&C Lands Sustain Multiple Values
In its original interpretation, sustained yield is a relationship
where the volume of timber harvest equals the volume of forest growth
on an annual basis. During the 1960s and 1970s, many American's felt
that the concept of sustainability, particularly as it relates to the
management of our federally-owned forests, should be broadened to
incorporate not just fiber supply but other forest attributes. The
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960) required federal agencies to
manage for non-timber values in addition to producing forest products.
The Federal Land Management Policy Act (1976) and the National Forest
Management Act (1976), along with the Endangered Species Act (1973) and
Clean Water Act (1972), collectively broadened sustainability criteria
in forest planning and management.
Throughout the mid-to-late 1980s, a series of lawsuits sought to
further interpret these environmental laws regarding forest management
practices in the Pacific Northwest. Litigants sought injunctions
against the harvest of timber in northern spotted owl (NSO) habitat.
Between 1985 and 1990, Congress bypassed court-granted injunctions and
provided certainty of timber harvests in the region through so-called
``sufficiency language''. This language declared certain federal
actions (i.e. USDA Forest Service timber sales) ``sufficient'' to meet
existing environmental laws. New information indicating the decline of
NSO population ultimately led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to list the NSO as `threatened' under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) in 1990. Subsequently, U.S. District Courts entered
injunctions barring timber harvests on forests managed by both the U.S.
Forest Service (1991) and Bureau of Land Management (1992).
The Courts required that the BLM maintain habitat for threatened
and endangered species per the ESA. To simultaneously satisfy these
requirements, the Clinton Administration initiated the development of
the NW Forest Plan that applied the same Standards and Guidelines on
both USFS and BLM jurisdictions.
The NW Forest Plan created and applied two unique conservation
strategies in an attempt to remove the injunctions on timber harvests:
1) the role and allocation of late-successional old-growth forest
reserves and 2) the development of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS)--a holistic approach to manage water quality and quantity by
implementing a watershed analysis and restoration strategy. These
strategies were integrated into a mix of land allocations, including
old growth/habitat, riparian reserves and Matrix lands for timber
production. The majority of O&C Lands are in some form of reserve,
leaving 25% available for timber production.
Under the NW Forest Plan, conservation objectives have trended
upward. Results from a 15-year monitoring report \1\ underscore the
role of federal forests in maintaining old-growth in western Oregon.
Old-growth has experienced a slight net loss but that loss is well
below the projected 2.5% decadal loss rate projected when the NW Forest
Plan was written. Watershed evaluation showed that 69% of watersheds
\2\ have experienced a positive change. Populations of and habitat for
NSO and marbeled murrelets are still in decline across the region
largely due to the fact that recruitment of suitable habitat is slow,
often requiring 100+ years to develop from young forests. Projections
of trends show substantial representation of 150+ year old stands by
2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/15yr-report/index.shtml.
\2\ Watersheds were analyzed at 6th field hydrologic units (HUC),
approximately equivalent to 20,000 acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual timber supply from the O&C Lands was projected at
203 million board feet (MMBF).\3\ Since 1995, the BLM has offered for
sale 84% of that volume target.\4\ Actual average annual harvest on O&C
lands has averaged 120 mmbf/year,\5\ ranging from 38 mmbf (2001) to 288
mmbf (1996). Figure 2-a shows annual timber metrics since 1995. Note
that Congress measures the BLMs annual performance against `Volume
Sold' and that timber purchases typically have 3-5 years to conduct
harvests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ All volume numbers included here are for `long logs' for
comparison with the NW Forest Plan. The BLM standard is to report in
`short logs'. To convert to short logs, divide by 0.825.
\4\ Since 1995, the BLM has offered 96% of the volume Congress has
funded them to produce.
\5\ From 1962-1990, the BLM timber harvest averaged 1.0 billion
board feet per year. Annual harvest under the NW Forest Plan is only
12% of this historical volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, primarily resulting from a 2006 settlement,\6\ O&C
timber volume has matched the NW Forest Plan projections. However,
Figure 2-b shows that thinning volume has increasingly constituted the
majority of total volume sold. In contrast, the NW Forest Plan
projected that 80% of timber volume would result from regeneration
harvests. A little-known accompanying report to FEMAT \7\ showed a
potential increase in timber harvest after initial implementation as
second-growth forests matured and became economically-available for
harvest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In 2004, the USFS and BLM issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
attempting to remove Survey & Manage from the NW Forest Plan entirely
but it was overturned in 2006. As part of this decision, parties agreed
to the `Pechman exemptions' whereby four categories of actions,
including thinning of forest stands less than 80 years old, would be
permitted.
\7\ The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team conducted a
risk analysis for management of forests in the region of the Northern
Spotted Owl which became the foundation for the NW Forest Plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.005
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.006
.epsFuture thinning opportunities on O&C Lands vary by BLM
District, resulting in geographic disparity and generally reduce the
size, quality and species diversity of timber supply. At current, mills
in western Oregon report an additional 1 billion board feet (BBF) of
milling capacity, however, issues such as log exports and the housing
market also have an effect 0n capacity.
While thinning is a valuable ecological forest management tool and
provides fiber for manufacturing facilities, the economics of thinning
operations make it difficult to simultaneously achieve County payment
objectives. Although impacted by the economy, harvest volume between
2004-2010 would have yielded only $12.9 million in payments to O&C
Counties (compared against $113.9 million funded through Secure Rural
Schools). The O&C Counties indicate that this total is roughly one-
tenth of the revenue needed to fund basic services provided by local
governments. Not surprisingly, O&C Counties are facing unprecedented
financial challenges with 5 or 6 counties facing insolvency and another
5 or 6 facing significant challenges.
With this in mind, I believe it is time modernize the O&C Act and
The Northwest Forest Plan in a manner that provides more certainty for
conservation, timber supply and county revenues. I believe we can draw
upon our experience implementing these guiding laws and administrative
actions to adapt them without weakening their intent though I know that
some may feel differently.
Exploring Potential Management Scenarios for the O&C Lands
In October 2012, I convened a panel to address challenges related
to O&C issues and to advise me on potential O&C solutions. The O&C
Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act along with a set of principles drafted
by Senator Ron Wyden and another set drafted by myself served as the
starting point for our discussions. The Panel met 15 times over a 3-
month period and my staff published a report based on these meetings
that can be downloaded at http://www.oregon.gov/gov/GNRO/docs/
OCLandsReport.pdf.
While most people think of O&C lands as those 2.1 million acres
managed by the BLM, there are additional categories of O&C and BLM
lands that the Panel chose to include in its analysis. Table 1 provides
a breakdown of these 2.8 million acres.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.007
.epsThe Panel agreed to analyze a range of management scenarios
including the current ``thin only'' approach, two runs based on the O&C
Trust Act concepts, two ecological forestry runs, and options that
included a small land sale and community forestry component. More
description of the modeling runs is included the report.
Modeling results demonstrated a wide range of potential timber
harvest and associated county revenues. Table 2 shows that continuing
the ``thin only'' approach (Run A) would generate the current timber
volume for less than 25 years and only return less than $15 million
annually to the O&C Counties. On the high end of the range, a Trust
authorized by the O&C Trust Act managed under the Oregon Forest
Practices Act (Run B) would generate 700 MMBF of timber supply and $165
million of county revenues annually.
The runs that included some kind of ecological forestry component
(Runs D, E, F, G) generated slightly increased annual timber supply
volumes in excess of NW Forest Plan timber targets. Revenue projections
were similar among this group with the exception of Run F that
evaluated the sale of 200,000 acres of O&C Lands. The thinking is that
sale proceeds would be used to create a financial trust for benefit of
the O&C Counties. Analysis suggested the sale would generate $910
million that, if placed in a financial fund with a conservative rate of
return at 5%, would produce consistent annual revenue of $46 million
for the O&C Counties. Timber receipts would generate the additional
revenue projected to meet the total shown in Table 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.008
.epsEcological Effects
A major challenge given the Panel's timeframe was completing a
robust analysis of the ecological effects of these management
scenarios. Relating to habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) and
marbeled murrelet (MAMU), the Panel did undertake an analysis of the
intersection of proposed harvest units to two measures: Suitable
Habitat and Critical Habitat. Due to time and budget constraints, the
Panel contracted this analysis for selected runs (Run A, Run C, Run D,
and Run F).
Suitable habitat is assessed at the stand level and combines an
array of measurements including canopy closure, tree diameter, and
structural diversity. A rough approximation for suitable habitat is any
native forests older than 120 years although stands between 80-120
years serve as habitat where distribution of older forest is limited.
Our analysis showed that suitable habitat for NSO increased as
after 50 years of implementation for all runs. However, projection of
suitable habitat for MAMU declined when applying the Trust in Run C but
increased under Runs D & F.
In the midst of the Panel's work, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) released their final Critical Habitat rule for the
Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). Critical habitat is a network of large
landscape areas designed specifically to fulfill an endangered specie's
range of needs, including nesting, roosting and foraging habitat.
In general, implementation of Run C as modeled would have
significant impact on Critical Habitat as identified by USFWS. For Run
C, approximately 27% of the identified Critical Habitat acres on the
O&C Lands were scheduled for a regeneration harvest over the first 50
years of management. With additional thinning, 55% of Critical Habitat
on O&C Lands would experience a harvest in the first 50 years. By
design, no regeneration harvests were scheduled in Critical Habitat for
Runs A, D & F. Thinning was prescribed however and was scheduled in 35%
of stands identified by the USFWS. Due to time constraints, the Panel
was not able to conduct population modeling as used by USFWS but
ultimately it would be important to do so to understand the risk of
increased harvest to future species viability.
Conclusions and Recommendations \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See letter submitted to the Oregon Congressional Delegation on
February 6, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/gov/GNRO/docs/
OCDelegationLetter.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the short timeframe allowed and recognizing the inherent role
of Congress in the ultimate resolution, development of a detailed
proposal proved difficult for the O&C Panel. However, I believe
significant process was made in three important areas:
First, a foundation of understanding and trust was
created between Panel participants.
Second, it is clear that federal legislation is
needed to achieve any significant progress.
Third, O&C Lands Report contains an array of ideas
that could be integrated in different ways to create a durable
solution for all parties.
Based on the Panel's consideration and these conclusions, I believe
a legislative solution can and should be passed into law that includes
the following equally important elements.
Stable Timber Supply--Stable and predictable timber
sale levels above current harvest levels can and should be
achieved with minimal impact old growth and aquatic ecosystems.
Adequate County Funding--Timber harvest and/or
revenues generated from land disposition can significantly
improve the stability of O&C counties. Oregon and state and
local governments should share in the responsibility to fill
any gap that may remain between timber revenues and the funding
required to keep counties fiscally viable.
Protect Unique and Special Places--There are
approximately 118,000 acres deserving of wilderness protection
and an additional 30,000 acres worthy of protection as part of
a conservation network. Additional acres should be considered
for protection as priority watersheds for fish habitat as
salmon strongholds and Wild and Scenic River designation.
Durable and Adaptive Conservation Standards--To
achieve timber harvest goals on Federal land, ecological
forestry-based regeneration harvest should be used in stands
120 years old or younger, and certain riparian buffers should
be modified in recognition of evolving science that concludes
such modifications can be made. Once these modifications have
been made, the late successional old growth strategy and
aquatic conservation strategy components of the Northwest
Forest Plan should be institutionalized in a manner that
dedicates those areas to the conservation of endangered species
and other conservation values as the dominant use. And adaptive
management process should be developed to incorporate future
scientific findings where and when appropriate.
Achieve Certainty--The O&C Act should be amended to
include some combination of a dominant use mandate on certain
acres for timber production and on other acres for
conservation. In addition, a reallocation of some non-strategic
acres should be made to a trust and/or sold to a community
nonprofit or private buyer. Together such actions would create
certainty for an array of different forest uses and outputs.
Tribal Considerations--A number of tribes exist with
ceded lands and ancestral history tied to the O&C land area. I
believe an O&C solution should consider land management impacts
on these tribes' ancestral lands, participation in management
authority and/or land restoration requests.
In closing Mr. Chairman, I would strongly encourage the Committee
to pass legislation that includes the elements outlined above and then
work with your colleagues in the Senate to craft a balanced long-term
solution. I feel confident that if we think in creative new ways that
we can provide for most of what everybody wants from our O&C forests.
Conversely, failure to act is bad for our rural communities and in the
long run bad for our conservation efforts as well.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Appendix
Item A. Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Lands Principles
Stable County Funding--Recognize the O&C Act's unique
community stability mandate and provide adequate and stable
county revenues sufficient to meet needs for basic public
services.
Stable Timber Supply--Provide adequate and stable
timber supply that will provide for employment opportunities,
forest products and renewable energy.
Protect Unique Places--Permanently protect
ecologically unique places.
Durable & Adaptive Conservation Standards--Maintain
Northwest Forest Plan forest management standards--Late
Successional/Old Growth Reserves & Aquatic Conservation
Strategy--in an adaptive manner where and when required to
comply with environmental laws.
Conservation Opportunities--Promote conservation
advances on private ``checkerboard'' lands through voluntary,
non-regulatory incentives--financial, technical, regulatory
relief, etc.
Federal Budget Neutral--Recognize that O&C solution
will need to be budget neutral or positive at the Federal
level.
Achieve Certainty--Develop a policy framework that
will provide for certainty in achieving all of these
principles.
Item B. Participants on Governor Kitzhaber's O&C Panel
O&C County Representatives
Jamie Damon--Clackamas County Commissioner
Doug Robertson--Douglas County Commissioner
Simon Hare--Josephine County Commissioner
Tony Hyde--Columbia County Commissioner
Conservation Representatives
Sybil Ackerman--Sybil Ackerman Strategies
Greg Block--Wild Salmon Center
Bob Davison--Defenders of Wildlife
David Dreher--Pew Charitable Trust
John Kober--Pacific Rivers Council
Jack Williams--Trout Unlimited
Timber Industry Representatives
Allyn Ford--Roseburg Forest Products
Ray Jones--Stimson Lumber Company
Jennifer Phillipi--Rough and Ready Lumber Company
Dale Riddle--Seneca Sawmill Company
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you very much, Mr. Tuchmann. And Mr.
Kulakowski--did I get that right?
Dr. Kulakowski. You did.
Mr. Tipton. Great. If you would like to give us your
testimony.
Dr. Kulakowski. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DOMINIK KULAKOWSKI, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
SCHOOL OF GEOGRAPHY, ADJUNCT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOLOGY, CLARK UNIVERSITY
Dr. Kulakowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Dominik Kulakowski. I have been
researching insect outbreaks and fires in the Rocky Mountain
Forest for 15 years. I have authored numerous peer-reviewed
scientific papers on these topics. During this time I have
worked as a research scientist at the University of Colorado,
and I am now a professor at Clark University, where I continue
this research.
In recent decades wildfires have burned millions of acres
of forests, and insect outbreaks have killed trees over an even
larger area. My research, as well as that of many other
scientists, indicates that both of these disturbances are being
driven by climate.
A critical issue in this context is whether and to what
degree outbreaks may heighten the risk of active crown fires,
which are particularly dangerous, due to their high intensity
and rate of speed.
The answer to this question is complex. But the bottom line
is that any influence of outbreaks on fire risk is small
compared to the overarching influence of weather, which is much
more important.
For example, my research group recently completed a study
in which we examined the occurrence of severe wildfires in
Lodge Pole Pine forests in Colorado over the past century. We
found no detectable increase in the occurrence of high-severity
fires following Mountain Pine Beetle outbreaks. Instead, we
found that wildfires have overwhelmingly occurred in years of
drought. We also found a similar overarching influence of
drought on fires in spruce forests that had been affected by
outbreaks. In sum, catastrophic fire is not an inevitable
outcome of Bark Beetle outbreaks. Instead, climate exerts the
dominant influence on fire risks in these forests.
Given prolonged and recurring drought conditions, there is
a need to protect homes and communities from wildfire. Previous
research has shown that reducing flammable material in the
immediate vicinity of structures and replacing flammable
building materials such as wooden decks with non-flammable
alternatives most effectively protects structures against fire.
Our research has found that focusing fuel-reduction
treatments in the immediate vicinity of structures rather than
in remote forests would not only be more effective at reducing
fire risk to those structures, but would also involve treating
less land, and thus would lead to lower financial and
ecological costs.
Furthermore, much of the land that primarily determines
flammability of homes is not in national forests but, rather,
is private land that is adjacent to homes and communities. It
is on that private land that fire hazard mitigation is likely
to be most effective for protecting structures.
The larger context is that, as a Nation, we are
increasingly building homes in fire-prone ecosystems. This type
of development in the wildland-urban interface, especially when
coupled with prolonged drought, is putting homes and lives at
risk. Therefore, an important way of reducing this risk would
be to reduce the number of structures that are being built in
harm's way.
In addition to protecting communities from wildfire,
another important goal of forest management is promoting
ecosystem resilience. Over the past century, forests of the
Rocky Mountains have been resilient to both wildfires and Bark
Beetle outbreaks. Currently, it is unknown whether forest
resilience has been compromised by the magnitude and extent of
these disturbances, and by an unfavorable post-disturbance
climate. Nevertheless, following even very severe Bark Beetle
outbreaks, some trees and seedlings survive, and viable seeds
remain in the soil. Therefore, promoting ecosystem resilience
should complement existing resilience and natural regeneration.
Although ongoing outbreaks understandably have led to
widespread public concern about increased fire risk, the
effects of outbreaks are not as important as the controlling
influence of weather and climate. During drought the risk of
fires is often high. And the most effective way of protecting
homes from that risk is by treating land in their immediate
vicinity.
More broadly, any comprehensive forest management plan will
eventually need to address housing development in the wildland-
urban interface, as well as trends in climate. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kulakowski follows:]
Statement of Dr. Dominik Kulakowski, Assistant Professor, Clark
University, on H.R. _ Depleting Risk From Insect Infestation, Soil
Erosion, and Catastrophic Fire Act of 2013
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the Committee:
My name is Dominik Kulakowski. I have been researching insect outbreaks
and fires in Rocky Mountain forests for fifteen years. During that time
I have worked as a research scientist at the University of Colorado and
I am now a professor at Clark University where I continue this
research. I have authored numerous scientific papers on these topics, I
have peer-reviewed numerous scientific studies and research proposals,
and I have testified before subcommittees of the United States House of
Representatives and the United States Senate. My testimony is based on
the findings of my own research as well as on the research of other
scientists.
Climate is driving outbreaks and fires
In recent decades wildfires have burned millions of acres of
western forests and insect outbreaks have killed trees over an even
larger area. My research as well as that of many other scientists
indicates that both of these disturbances are being driven by climate.
Mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle are responsible for most insect-
caused mortality across the western United States. Both of these insect
species are native to the region and have been important in the
development of these forests for centuries. However, recent climatic
conditions have favored the growth of beetle populations and have at
the same time stressed trees and reduced their capacity to defend
themselves against attack. This perfect storm has contributed to the
largest outbreaks of bark beetles in recorded history. As with bark
beetle outbreaks, large severe wildfires have been important in the
development of many western U.S. forests for centuries. However, recent
warm and dry conditions have been particularly conducive to wildfires.
It is these climatic conditions that are driving the increase in
wildfires over the past decades.
A critical issue in the context of recent increases of outbreaks
and wildfires is whether, and to what degree, outbreaks may heighten
the risk of active crown fires, which are particularly dangerous due to
their high intensity and rate of speed. The answer to this question is
complex and contingent on the type of forest, the time since the
outbreak, as well as the particular fire characteristics in question.
Studies based on mathematical models disagree about whether bark beetle
outbreaks may increase the risk of fire in some forest types and under
very specific weather conditions. While more research remains to be
done, it is important to stress that any influence of outbreaks on fire
risk appears to be small compared to the overarching influence of
weather, which is much more important. Furthermore, modeling results
may be highly contingent on the type of model used and the assumptions
upon which that model is built. In contrast, empirical research that
has examined how beetle outbreaks have affected actual wildfires has
overwhelmingly deemphasized the importance of outbreaks versus other
variables, including weather. For example, my research group recently
completed a study in which we examined the occurrence of severe
wildfires in lodgepole pine forests in Colorado over the past century.
We found no detectable increase in the occurrence of high-severity
fires following mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Instead, we found that
wildfires have overwhelmingly occurred in years of drought.
Another example is that of a major outbreak of spruce beetle in
spruce and fir forests in Colorado in the 1940s, following which there
was substantial concern about increased risk of fire. But although over
300 fires occurred in that region in the decades that followed, our
research found that the forests affected by beetles were no more likely
to have burned than other forests. Furthermore, no major fires occurred
in those beetle-affected forests in the years and decades that followed
the outbreak despite the abundance of dead trees. The most likely
explanation for this lack of large severe fires is that climatic
conditions in these forests are a more important factor in determining
fire risk than is the presence of dead trees. In fact, it was not until
a severe drought in 2002 that a large fire affected these forests.
During that year there were many wildfires in Colorado, the majority of
which burned forests with no recent history of outbreaks.
During the drought of 2002, wildfires also burned some forests in
northern Colorado that were attacked by beetles just prior to 2002. The
potential increase of fire risk immediately following bark beetle
outbreaks is the subject of active research. During this so-called
``red phase'' dry red needles persist on recently killed trees. It has
been hypothesized that the risk of active crown fire may therefore
increase during and immediately after outbreaks of bark beetles.
Relatively little research has examined fires during the red phase of
outbreaks and more research is necessary. However, our examination of
the 2002 fires found that outbreaks that immediately preceded those
fires affected neither the extent nor severity of fires, most likely
because changes in fuels brought about by outbreaks were overridden by
weather conditions and other variables.
In sum, catastrophic fire is not an inevitable outcome of bark
beetle outbreaks. Instead climate exerts the dominant influence on fire
risk in these forests. Therefore, it is primarily climate that we
should be focusing on if we want to assess and mitigate fire risk. If
conditions are dry enough then the risk of fire is likely to be high
and if conditions are not dry enough then the risk of fire is not
likely to be high, regardless of the effect of outbreaks. Even when
lodgepole pine and spruce forests are made up of live green trees and
may not appear to be flammable, the fact is that during drought
conditions the risk of wildfire can be extremely high. Although it may
be possible that under certain particular conditions there may be a
minor increase in the likelihood of fire following outbreaks, the
larger and more important context is that the effects of outbreaks are
not as important as the controlling influence of weather.
Protecting homes and communities by reducing fire hazard in their
immediate vicinity
Given prolonged and recurring drought conditions there is a need to
protect homes and communities from wildfire. Generally speaking, fuel-
reduction strategies designed to protect homes and communities from
wildfire risk can be categorized as those that primarily aim to reduce
fuels in remote forest lands or in the immediate vicinity of homes and
communities. Previous research has shown that reducing flammable
material in the immediate vicinity of structures and replacing
flammable building materials such as wooden decks with non-flammable
alternatives most effectively protects structures against fire.
Our recent research indicates that almost all of the forests
affected by outbreaks are in remote areas rather than in the wildland-
urban interface. Furthermore, in the context of limited resources and
the goal of protecting homes and communities from wildfire, our
research found that focusing fuel reduction treatments in the immediate
vicinity of homes and communities, rather than in remote beetle-
affected forests, would not only be more effective at reducing fire
risk to those homes and other structures, but would also involve
treating less land and thus would lead to lower financial and
ecological costs. Furthermore, most of the land that primarily
determines flammability of homes is not in National Forests, but rather
is private land that is adjacent to homes and communities. It is on
that private land that fire hazard mitigation is likely to be most
effective for protecting homes and other structures.
By focusing treatments in remote forests, we will be using up
limited funds and resources while leaving homes and communities at risk
of wildfire. Overall, it is going to be more effective and less
expensive to focus fire-hazard reduction efforts around homes and
communities as opposed to making a wholesale modification of forest
structure over large landscapes. Pine branches touching wooden decks
are much more relevant to community fire risk than are beetle outbreaks
in remote forests. Replacing wooden shingles with a metal roof will do
much more to protect homes than treating remote beetle-affected
forests.
A larger context is that as a nation, we are increasingly building
our homes in fire-prone ecosystems. This type of development in the
wildland-urban interface, especially when coupled with prolonged
drought, is putting homes and lives at risk. Therefore, an important
way of reducing this risk would be to reduce the number of structures
that are being built in harm's way.
Promoting existing ecosystem resilience
In addition to protecting communities from wildfire, another
important goal of forest management is promoting ecosystem resilience.
Over the past centuries, forests of the Rocky Mountains have been
resilient to both wildfires and bark beetle outbreaks. Currently, it is
unknown whether forest resilience has been compromised by the magnitude
and extent these disturbances and by an unfavorable post-disturbance
climate. Nevertheless, following even very severe bark beetle
outbreaks, some trees and seedlings survive and viable seeds remain in
the soil. Therefore, promoting ecosystem resilience is likely to be
most effective if it complements existing resilience and natural
regeneration.
Conclusion
Although ongoing outbreaks understandably have led to widespread
public concern about increased fire risk, the effects of outbreaks are
not as important as the controlling influence of weather and climate.
The ongoing outbreaks have not increased the risk of wildfire as much
as they have drawn attention to the risk that is there due to recurring
and prolonged warm, dry conditions. During drought, the risk of fires
is often high and the most effective way of protecting homes from fire
risk is by removing flammable material from the immediate vicinity of
homes and communities and by using fire resistant building materials,
not by modifying forest structure in remote areas that have been
affected by outbreaks. The former approach would be less expensive,
much more effective at protecting public safety interests, and
consistent with the best available science. More broadly, any
comprehensive forest management plan will eventually need to address
housing development in the wildland-urban interface as well as trends
in climate.
______
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Doctor, for your testimony. And we
will now move on to the questions. And I will go ahead and
start.
And, Doctor, I probably just have one question, really, for
the panel. We have covered a lot of ground here today during
the course of these hearings. But you, like previous panelists,
seem to suggest that the beetle outbreaks do not contribute to
the fire danger. But what about simple overstocking of the
forests? We can't control the weather, we certainly can,
though, control the fuel that is going to be available to burn.
Wouldn't it be prudent to undertake forest thinning to be able
to reduce the intensity of the fires, rather than just to sit
back and blame change for the uncharacteristic fires that have
resulted from forest overgrowth?
Dr. Kulakowski. Yes. In principle that makes sense. But
when we examine how fires have actually behaved in areas that
have been thinned, we actually don't see any meaningful effect
of those thinning treatments.
So, for example, in the Hayman Fire in Colorado, there were
areas that had burned that were treated prior to that fire. And
when researchers examined the behavior of the fire, they found
actually no effect of those thinning treatments.
Similarly, in Northern Colorado there was quite a large
area that was treated after the wind storm that blew down
forests in 1997. Again, when wildfires occurred in that area in
2002, our own research found that fires were just as extensive
and just as severe in areas that had been treated versus areas
that had not been treated.
The reason, I would guess, is because timber harvesting, by
design, is intended as an economic endeavor. The small
branches, twigs, et cetera, are not as valuable as the larger
stems. So the finer fuels are essentially left behind. During
wildfire it is those fine fuels that carry fires through
treated forests.
Mr. Tipton. You know, and that's a great point. It is
always interesting on studies to where you can find to be able
to support your position. One that you might want to actually
take a look at--you have been in Colorado--it was a 2010 study
of the Tripod Fire. It was published by the Forest Service and
the Joint Fire Science Program. And it found that 57 percent of
the trees survived in areas where recent mechanical thinning
combined with the prescribed burns had occurred, and only 14
percent of the trees survived in areas where no timber
management had actually taken place.
And so it is probably trying to find that actual good,
common-sense balance to be able to get in and address these
areas and to look for the win-win to be able to turn some of
these biofuels actually into usable electricity, as well. So, I
appreciate your comments.
I would now like to yield to Mr. DeFazio for his questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel
for sitting through a long day and traveling a long way to give
your testimony.
There are some policymakers--and I just already saw a quote
in a story regarding today's hearing from the Pacific Rivers
Council--saying that, in fact, under status quo, we could
produce more timber and more revenues for the counties. And I
direct my question first to Mr. Tuchmann.
I believe the Governor's task force looked at this issue.
And what conclusions did they come to regarding that?
Mr. Tuchmann. Congressman DeFazio, thank you for that
question. As I mentioned in our written testimony, we looked at
seven different runs we called them, different options for
managing the O&C forests, and Run A was the status quo. It was
not how the Northwest Forest Plan was originally intended, but
how it is currently being operated on the ground, and that is
primarily through thinnings. And that produced about 185
million board feet for probably 15 to 25 years, depending on
one's perspective, and I think around $13 million to counties.
That is not Secure Rural Schools money, that is if it was just
completely dependent on timber harvest and the revenues
generated from that.
And with that in mind, I mean, that is an area where the
Governor feels the status quo was not working, that O&C Act and
the Northwest Forest Plan need to be modernized, modernized in
a way that increases Federal timber supply, payments to
counties, and also institutionalizes the conservation
components of the plan, as well.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Institutionalizes, meaning
permanent protections?
Mr. Tuchmann. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. The riparian issue was discussed by the
panel, or the task force, as I understand it. And there were
some comments and concerns about the riparian provisions. Could
you address that briefly?
Mr. Tuchmann. Congressman, yes. The conservation strategy
in the Northwest Forest Plan is a success story. We have seen
increases in water quality. The 1998 monitoring report has some
statistics on that. And some of the concerns--I don't want to
speak for the panel members--the concerns from the conservation
panelist was that the current discussion draft does not include
protections within the trust for riparian areas, and there was
a robust discussion of that.
The Governor feels that is an area that he would like to
see improved and strengthened in any final resolution to this
issue, and it is something that I think would be rationalized
not just by the monitoring report, but also new science that
shows that--let me back up.
These buffers were interim buffers. And so, there was the
thought when the Northwest Forest Plan was passed that over
time there would be more watershed analysis. And based on the
particular watershed, that would be increased or decreased.
That never happened. And there is some science that is evolving
that says, ``Hey, we should be doing that. You can reduce a
portion of the buffers.'' Not all of them, but a portion of
them, 20 to 60 percent, I think, based on the watershed, and
not have an effect on water quality.
Mr. DeFazio. And I believe you looked at an option that
would incorporate some of additional public domain lands which
are interspersed----
Mr. Tuchmann. That is right.
Mr. DeFazio. And applied, then, those buffers, and that did
get both a higher water quality and higher harvest levels.
Mr. Tuchmann. That is right.
Mr. DeFazio. That is correct.
Mr. Tuchmann. Mr. Robertson, do you have any comment on
that issue, on the water issue, riparian?
Mr. Robertson. Congressman DeFazio, there is no question
that water is a very serious topic for all Oregonians. And as
Mr. Tuchmann pointed out, it was a robust discussion within the
panel. We feel there is an opportunity for movement to increase
protection without having a negative impact on outputs on the
land.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Quickly, and I will have a
second round, if I can, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tipton. Sure.
Mr. DeFazio. This is very important to us. The discussion
draft did not include the recent legislation introduced by
Senators Wyden and Merkley regarding settlement with two Tribes
that has never been brought to fruition. Do either of you have
a comment on the inclusion of those in a final version of this
bill?
Mr. Robertson. Congressman DeFazio, Senators Wyden and
Merkley have introduced a discussion draft, as you know,
proposing something in the neighborhood of 32,000 acres divided
between the two unlanded Tribes left in the State of Oregon.
Our concern initially was that if that land was going to
come from the O&C land base, that there be something in the way
of equal acres value or volume to replace it. In other words, a
no-net-loss to the O&C land base. Through discussions
subsequent to the release of the draft, Senator Wyden has
agreed to that, and we are confident that there will be no
negative impact on the O&C land base.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. And the Governor would favor--
--
Mr. Tuchmann. Congressman, the Governor would favor that,
as well.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
have another round. Thank you.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. Congressman Walden?
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly
appreciate the great work that you are doing on these issues.
Long ago and far away, when this room was of a different color,
I want to commend you, by the way, with what you have done with
the room. It looks pretty nice. I served on this Committee and
know its importance to our State and our country.
And I want to thank our witnesses today for your testimony
and your collaboration and your help with us on this
legislation.
Mr. Robertson, Commissioner, you have certainly been on the
forefront of this. I think it sort of sprung from an idea that
you had many, many years ago, or the O&C counties did. Are you
confident there is the right balance here between the lands
going into trust and not going into trust, in terms of the
ability to actually produce the revenue and the jobs while
operating under Oregon Forest Practices Act, which is a--I
think a very responsible statute, when it comes to stewardship
of Federal forests? Is this going to get the job done to give
you the certainty, as you represent communities all over
Oregon, as our witness today, is this going to give you the
certainty?
Mr. Robertson. We feel if this proposal were adopted in its
current form, it would do that.
As you know, you and your staff, Congressmen DeFazio and
Schrader, have worked very hard with many others in trying to
ensure that the outputs do meet the requirements both of the
counties providing a predictable supply of raw material for the
industry, and ensuring significant conservation gains.
Understanding that all of those sectors had to be addressed,
our feeling is, representing the Association of O&C Counties,
that this would get us there. We feel confident it would.
Mr. Walden. So you are--and, Mr. Tuchmann, does the
Governor feel that way, as well, that we have struck the right
balance here, realizing I know you have some suggestions here.
Mr. Tuchmann. Congressman, this is an area that the
Governor would like to work with you more on, over 50 percent
of the land base. There are no numbers in the bill, as you
know. Some models that we have seen and projected are that over
50 percent of the land base would be put in this type of
management. It is an issue that causes great concern to a
number of Oregonians, and we would like to work with you on
that.
Mr. Walden. I appreciate that. Obviously, I assume the
Governor supports the Forest Practices Act in the State of
Oregon as a responsible management tool for our Federal
forests--or our State and county and local forests, private
forests, right?
Mr. Tuchmann. Yes.
Mr. Walden. And do you feel--I mean, because that is kind
of why we went there as the overriding management tool. Because
I feel that. I mean I think it is a responsible way to manage.
I am a lifelong, native-born Oregonian.
And so, I think we have to keep in mind that part of the
trade-offs here is that there is a chunk of O&C land that then
would not be necessarily active managed, and this would be. And
what I want to guard against, because I have seen it happen
over time, is the lands we set aside for active management,
then get a whole new layer of restrictions, and eventually you
haven't accomplished a thing. And that is why there are some
interesting handcuffs and release points in here, that if this
is thrown out, then the O&C Act comes back, and the wilderness
comes back out, and all of those.
Are you all comfortable with those provisions, the sort of
handshake provisions?
Mr. Tuchmann. Congressman, the Governor came out with a
report that has seven different options. He thinks that some
combination of a trust, a land sale, or dominant use would
provide a solution that would be acceptable to all parties. He
has not specified what he thinks that right mix is.
I mean, frankly, the view is that the foundation we set
with our panel in Oregon should also be brought to Washington
and we should finish the job here.
Mr. Walden. Well, and that is obviously what my colleague
from Lane County and I have tried to do with our colleague from
Clackamas County over the years, is come to something we think
can move here, in this environment. And so we have made a lot
of trade-offs to get to this point. And we will continue to
work that. As Peter said this morning, there are things in here
he doesn't like, things in here I don't like, and I can tell
you some of my constituents don't like and some of his don't
like.
So, I am just sort of laying out there I don't know how
much more wiggle room there is, but obviously we are open,
and--as we have been in the meetings in Portland we had with
you and the Governor and others. We are willing to continue the
discussion. But I would just caution that this is about trying
to get certainty for jobs, certainty for management, certainty
for revenues before these counties go broke. And I am committed
to continuing in that effort, as I have in the past on
legislation like forest restoration and others that became law,
that we just have to get this done.
So I appreciate the Governor's leadership on it. I know he
has taken some knocks as well. And the Commissioner, thank you
for your leadership. And my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Walden. And we will go to a
second round. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in following up
on that, you mentioned the new science, Mr. Tuchmann. As I
understand it, you are probably referring to Gordon Reeves'
work at OSU, which has looked at the Northwest Forest Plan
where the interim standards were two mature tree-lengths in all
areas, and has concluded that in many areas that could be
reduced to one. Not necessarily all areas, but depending upon
the sensitivity, the slopes, the soils, et cetera, et cetera.
Is that what you are referring to there?
Mr. Tuchmann. That is what I am referring to. And I think
it is important to clarify that, as we have heard on panels
past, this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. What I think
Dr. Reeves and his colleagues would recommend is that we need
to go in on a watershed-by-watershed basis. And, based on that
watershed and what that analysis provides, you can, on these
riparian areas make that reduction on--the number I have heard
is 20 to 50, 60 percent. But some riparian areas it may be 0
and some riparians it might be 80 percent, it depends on the
particular condition of that watershed.
Mr. DeFazio. One idea which has been put forward would be
the idea to use potentially some of the revenues to work with
willing private property owners in critical areas and enhance
riparian buffers in those areas. And, I mean, are the
commissioners--that made sense that would be coming out of some
of your potential revenue. Have the commissioners taken a
position on that, Mr. Robertson?
Mr. Robertson. We support that. The reality is that the
physical nature of these lands are in a checkerboard. You have
industrial owners contiguous to BLM contiguous to industrial
owners and so on. It is very difficult to manage a watershed in
that regard.
So, the possibility of using some of the resources that
come from management of the lands to address this issue working
with private land owners, willing private land owners, is
something under consideration.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. And I assume the Governor would
be supportive of that?
Mr. Tuchmann. Not only supportive, but strongly supportive,
and would also like to participate both through the State's
agencies and financially in contributing, as well. We want to
be part of the solution.
Mr. DeFazio. That would be great. Now, as Greg mentioned,
there are parts that cause us each some heartburn. And one area
would be the wilderness protection for the Rogue, in
particular. And I know, Commissioner Robertson, you are perhaps
not a tremendous fan of wilderness designations--not saying
that you are against them, but--as the--have the O&C counties
evaluated this package as a whole, looking at the inclusion of
the wilderness?
Mr. Robertson. That has been a difficult area for us, as
you pointed out. However, understanding the discussions that
have gone on for many years, the identification of sensitive
areas surrounded by O&C lands, and the opportunity to reach an
agreement and move forward in terms of management, and
recognizing protecting some of these special areas, our board
has accepted that and is prepared to move forward.
So, it is a tough discussion, as you know. We have been
involved in it for many, many years. It seems that at a time
when counties are struggling, industry is struggling, forest
health is declining, that simply putting more land in a reserve
status not to be managed, perhaps, is not the right decision to
make. However, understanding also the dynamics that we are
dealing with, and our commitment to address the issues of all
stakeholders, we are prepared to move forward with the
provisions that are in the Act.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. Tuchmann, is the inclusion of those
provisions important to the Governor, from his----
Mr. Tuchmann. They are.
Mr. DeFazio. And to the task force?
Mr. Tuchmann. They were. Yes, they were.
Mr. DeFazio. And I believe that the industry--I mean I
guess we can--I don't know who is confident, but I have not
heard that the industry objected to those provisions.
Mr. Tuchmann. Well, let me clarify. The report that was
drafted was a staff report that my colleague and I drafted. And
the panel members did not take a position on the particular
components. They did release a statement. Each individual
panelist has their own position on a wide array of these
issues.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Tuchmann. As far as the Governor, his position is that
he thinks additional protections for special places as outlined
in our testimony, in his testimony, should be included in any
final bill.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. And just--if I could, the
indulgence of the Chairman, just one question for Dr.
Kulakowski. And I appreciate his contributing to the debate.
We have some communities that have adopted--well, it is
actually required in some areas, like where I have a cabin in
Central Oregon--what are called fire-wise steps. Have you seen
a significant difference in terms of destruction of property
and/or those areas which have taken these preventative steps?
Mr. Kulakowski. I have. And everything I have seen
indicates that these fire-wise practices, which involve
treating the land in the immediate vicinity of homes and
communities, is the best way to go, if our goal is to protect
those homes and communities.
Mr. DeFazio. So this would be sort of along the lines of
the original provisions of HFRA, where we were going to start
in what is called the ``wooies'' and kind of work our way out
from there, and emphasize the area within the wooies to protect
communities and individual properties.
Mr. Kulakowski. Exactly. Everything I have seen indicates
that if we want to prioritize protecting homes from wildfires,
we should start in the wildland-urban interface and start by
creating defensible space in the immediate vicinity of
structures.
Mr. DeFazio. And so your concerns that you expressed about
using harvest as a mechanism, which is considered a bit
unsettled to deal with fire and intensity, but at least in this
limited instance you would support that because that is what
this does involve, is getting a certain setback and----
Mr. Kulakowski. Right. I didn't intend to express an
opinion against harvest. Instead I am thinking about what are
our real goals. If our goals are to harvest forests, we should
do that. If our goals are to protect homes and communities from
wildfires, we should do that. And if we are talking about the
latter case, it makes the most sense to begin in the wildland-
urban interface and by creating defensible space.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. And are there any other
questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Tipton. With none, I certainly want to thank you. You
are the most hearty of all. You sat through the entire
afternoon. And we certainly appreciate your testimony, taking
the time to be able to be here. These are important issues, and
I think we can obviously see the passion that exists here, with
the goal of getting healthy forests, to be able to address the
threat of wildfire and how best to be able to proceed. And so,
thank you for being able to be here. And I would again thank
all of our witnesses today for their valuable testimony and
patience, and to the Members for their participation.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses. And if there are, we ask that those be
submitted in writing, and get the responses back for those. The
hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive the
responses.
If there is no further business to come before the
Committee, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Responses Submitted for the Record to The Honorable Tom Tidwell
Questions submitted by Representative Rob Bishop
Question 1. What is the sustained yield of timber in the National
Forest System?
Answer: Long-term sustained yield has been the term used in forest
planning for estimating sustained yield of timber, defined as the yield
that a forest can produce continuously at a given intensity of
management, though it implies continuous production so planned as to
achieve, at the earliest practical time, a balance between growth and
cutting. (Dictionary of Forestry, Society of American Foresters). Long
term sustained yield (LTSY) is only calculated when plans are initially
developed or revised, which was mostly in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The sum total of long term sustained yield estimates published with
initial and revised forest plans is approximately 12.5 billion board
feet, including firewood. It is important to note there have been many
changes affecting land management on national forests since these
initial plans were developed or revised. These changes, which do not
trigger adjustments in the underlying plans' LTSY data, tend to reduce
the significance of the cumulative total of the LTSY in our existing
plans. Some of these changes include:
The Northwest Forest Plan that amended forest plans to protect old
growth, northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and aquatic
species such as salmon in Washington, Oregon, and Northern
California.
The Sierra Nevada Framework that amended forest plans to provide
for old growth and California spotted owls, and to reduce the
risk of wildfire.
Amendments and other changes to address other listed species such
as Canada lynx, grizzly bear, Mexican spotted owl, and others.
New knowledge and understanding of the ability to harvest timber
while managing national forests for multiple use.
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule and the State Roadless rules
for Idaho and Colorado.
Major fires and fire behavior that have altered potential for long-
term timber production.
Question 2. What is the sustained yield of the agency's commercial
timber land capable of producing twenty cubic feet of timber per acre,
excluding lands that have been designated by Congress as a component of
the National Wilderness Preservation System?
Answer: The long term sustained yield total in response to question
1 is based on lands that can produce twenty cubic feet per acre per
year and excludes wilderness areas that were in existence when the
initial plans were developed or revised. The estimates also excluded
other lands that were not suitable for timber production when the plan
was developed or revised. The long term sustained yield estimates were
not revised for added wilderness areas or other lands removed from
timber production after initial development or revision of land
management plans.
Question 2a. Please provide a map of the commercial timber land meeting
the description described above.
Answer: We do not have a national map of such lands.
Question 3. In response to a question from Ranking Member Grijalva, you
stated that the Forest Service currently manages ``20 million acres of
roaded lands that is more work than we can do.'' Can you please provide
a map identifying these acres as well as provide the sustained yield of
those areas?
Answer: We do not have such a map. The Chief was referring to the
2012 Report, ``Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on
our National Forests'', in which we have identified over 12.5 million
acres of roaded national forests, located throughout the national
forest system, that need mechanical treatment (timber harvest) to
restore the forest resiliency. Just to complete this restoration work
on these roaded acres will take decades.
Question 4. You cited ``public comments'' received in explaining the
Agency's rationale for increasing land acquisition funding by 10% while
significantly cutting a number of land management line items, including
a 37% reduction in hazardous fuels reduction funding. You also cited
``public comments'' received in defending the agency's current approach
to managing these forests, which has caused severe economic harm in
many neighboring rural communities. Please provide a detailed
description of how the agency collects and analyzes public comments in
determining its management and budget priorities.
Answer: At all levels of the organization, the Agency works to
communicate, both formally and informally, with citizens regarding
management of their national forests. Depending on the circumstance,
news releases, websites, visitor information centers, open houses,
public comment periods, conferences and day to day meetings and
telephone conversations with citizens and elected officials are some of
the many ways the Forest Service reaches out to the public, and also
receives public comment.
Question 4a. Since you also indicated that your budget request
reflected a balanced approach, please also provide specific examples of
public comments that the agency received that support the
Administration's proposed budget request to increase land acquisition
funding and decrease land management funding, including hazardous fuels
reduction activities.
Answer: Over the summer of 2010, the Administration America's Great
Outdoors (AGO) initiative held 51 public ``listening sessions'', an
extensive public conversation about conservation. More than 10,000
Americans participated in these live sessions and more than 105,000
comments were provided. According to the multi-agency February 2011 AGO
report, support for full funding of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) for land acquisition was one of the most common comments
received during these listening sessions.(See America's Great Outdoors:
A Promise to Future Generations (February 2011) pg. 32 available at
(http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5333333.pdf.)
Land acquisitions directly address public demand, as outlined in
the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) Initiative. Acquisitions support
access, restoration, and can improve management effectiveness. The
competitive LWCF funding process, which is the Forest Service's primary
source for funding for land acquisition, requires that National Forests
seeking funding for a project demonstrate evidence of public support.
Public support is most often demonstrated through funding from broad
based interest groups including conservationists, outdoor recreation
enthusiasts and traditional sportsmen's groups representing hunting and
fishing interests. Support is also demonstrated in requests from
Members of Congress and in the appropriation of funding. Local support
often comes from communities and state and local governments and their
agencies. Examples of this local support include: a letter from County
Commissioners in Lake County Montana supporting the Montana Legacy
Completion acquisition project; a resolution of the Teton County Board
of County Commissioners offering ``full and enthusiastic support'' to
the Greater Yellowstone acquisition project.
Question 5. What is your agency's policy regarding when an event or
public notice should be placed in the Federal Register?
Answer: There are several laws and regulations that govern when
public notice should be placed in the Federal Register.
The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et. seq.) is
the basic government-wide authority for rulemaking. It specifies
procedures to be followed in the rulemaking process, including the
requirement to give public notice of and the opportunity to comment on
proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 533). The APA exempts from the notice and
opportunity to comment requirements interpretative rules, general
statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice. However, it is USDA policy to require that the public be
given notice of proposed rules and the opportunity to comment on them.
Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR Part 216 implement section 11
of the National Forest Management Act and generally require the Agency
personnel to publish for notice and comment proposed ``standards,
criteria, and guidelines'' issued through the Forest Service Manual.
Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.15) provides guidance for
implementing the NEPA. Under our NEPA guidance we must publish notices
in the Federal Register for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) at
the beginning of the NEPA process, with a Notice of Intent, and twice
during the process with draft and final documents using a Notice of
Availability.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that the advice
provided by a committee as defined by this Act be objective and
accessible to the public. The Forest Service (FSM 1356) policy for
publishing a committee meeting in the Federal Register requires that
the notice must be published at least 15 and not more than 45 calendar
days prior to the date of the meeting; ``every portion of every meeting
of an agency shall be open to public observation'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)).
FACA also requires Federal Register notice of the establishment of a
committee.
Question 6. Please specifically describe what kinds of activities are
and are not subject to a public comment period, with notice published
in the Federal Register.
Answer: Meeting notices are the only publications not subject to
the public comment period requirements identified in question 5.
Notices of Availability of Environmental Statements, advance
notices of rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking, or notices of
intent to prepare an EIS are initiated and information about the scope
and purpose of action invite the public to comment and provide
suggestions in www.regulations.gov. The Forest Service also publishes
in the Federal Register notices of Records of Decision and significant
new or revised policy or procedure that will be issued in the Forest
Service's Directive System.
Under exigent circumstances, the Forest Service may implement a
notice for an interim directive or directive supplement upon
publication for public notice and comment. This notice must identify
the exigent circumstances. (36 CFR Part 216.4)
Question 7. Are there times when an event is not required to be
noticed?
Answer: An event notice is generally not required, except when the
proposed directive or regulation will:
Alter budget impact of user fee programs,
Have a large or negative impact on the economy, or
Raise legal controversy.
Question 8. Does your agency have a specific policy of waiting for the
event to be physically published in the register before releasing
details to the public via other means?
Answer: No.
Question 9. What are the repercussions of improperly noticing an event?
Answer: The failure to properly notice an advisory committee
meeting would violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Any
repercussions related to improperly noticing other types of events--
such as public meetings related to a rulemaking or a tribal
consultation session--would depend on the circumstances.
Question 10. In response to a question from Ranking Member Grijalva,
you quoted statistics on the number of Forest Service projects that are
appealed and litigated. Specifically, you stated that an average of 6%
of all Forest Service projects are appealed and an average of 2%are
litigated. Do those percentages include projects in which there is no
merchantable material (i.e., timber sales and stewardship contacts with
merchantable timber)? If so, please provide the percentages of all
projects with merchantable materials that are appealed and litigated.
Please also list these percentages by Forest Service region.
Answer: The percentages provided include statistics on appeals and
litigation as a percentage of all Forest Service decisions analyzed
under the National Environmental Policy Act, including those analyzed
in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental Assessment
(EA), or those categorically excluded from analysis and documented in a
Decision Memo. Not included are those projects categorically excluded
from analysis in an EIS or EA but not documented in a decision memo.
These numbers include projects with and without merchantable material,
and moreover included decisions where timber and other merchantable
material was not under consideration at all (for example, decisions
related to recreation, grazing, fish stocking, invasive species
management, land exchanges, etc.)
In response to Chairman Bishop's question regarding appeals
percentages, the Forest Service project planning, appeals, and
litigation system (PALS) was queried for appeals on decisions involving
green or salvage timber sale activities for Fiscal years 2008-2012.
PALS does not yet track all current litigation records, so litigation
data were derived from Agency litigation case files for the same years.
It should be noted that the numbers and percentages of lawsuits include
wins, losses, and settlements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.014
.epsQuestion 11. At several points in response to questions you
indicated that the timber market remained depressed and that stumpage
values were low for Forest Service timber sales. The Committee has
reviewed stumpage rates from state timber sale programs in Washington,
Idaho and Montana. These values have stayed relatively constant during
the downturn and remain quite strong today. Can you please clarify your
statements related to a weak timber market by indicating whether the
reason for the low values received by the Forest Service are primarily
due to weaker timber markets or the low value of the materials the
Forest Service includes in its timber sales.
Answer: It is a combination of both. Forest Service timber stumpage
prices (Figure 1) are following timber industry price trends (Figures 2
and 3), although there can be local variance. Figure 1 shows Forest
Service timber stumpage prices from Fiscal Years 2005 to 2012. stumpage
value declines from just above $100 per thousand board foot in 2005 to
a low of approximately $50 per thousand board foot in 2009. However,
stumpage prices are now increasing. The lower value, nonsawlog stumpage
actually declined at a lower rate than the sawlog stumpage value.
Figures 2 and 3 show similar industry trends.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.015
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.016
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80441.017
.epsQuestion 12. What is the cost per acre for the Forest Service to
conduct a hazardous fuels reduction project?
Answer: Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels ranges from $50/
acre to more than $4,000 per acre. Prescribed fire treatment of
hazardous fuels ranges from $30/acre to $1,900/acre. Prices vary
considerably because of many factors, including but not limited to type
of vegetation, steepness of terrain, proximity to structures, type of
equipment needed, marketability of product, and the remoteness of the
site.
Question 13. What is the cost per acre for a vegetation management
project involving commercial wood products?
Answer: We do not have a cost per acre, but we do have cost per
thousand board feet. That figure is approximately $157/thousand board
feet (mbf), a decrease of approximately 23% when adjusted for inflation
over the last 14 years; this, despite a 31% decrease in funding, and a
49% reduction in forest management staff. The $157/mbf figure includes
all timber sale related costs at the regional, forest and district
offices. It also includes: cost of surveys, inventories, environmental
analysis and disclosure (NEPA), sale layout, volume and value
determination, contract preparation and award, and sale administration;
costs associated with appeals and litigation, rework of timber sales,
and administration of personal use for firewood and special forest
products.
Questions submitted by Representative Matt Cartwright
Question 1. There has been considerable emphasis on the timber
potential in our Forests but our National Forests are more than timber
factories. They provide critical clean drinking water supplies for the
country. They also provide world-class recreational opportunities for
all Americans and the economic benefits that come from those
opportunities to local communities.
According to the Forest Service, about 124 million people nationwide
rely on national forest watersheds for their drinking water. That's
roughly /1/3/ of the entire U.S. population. The estimated value of
that potable water is between $4 and $27 billion annually. Is there a
link between intensive logging and declines in water quality, Chief
Tidwell?
Answer: First, let me clarify the statistics in your question. EPA
estimated that 66 million U.S. citizens (approximately 20%) get their
water from the National Forests. The annual marginal economic value of
water from the National Forests is approximately $7.2 billion.
National Forest System lands are managed using a multiple-use
approach with the goal of sustaining healthy terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems while addressing the need for resources, commodities, and
services for the American people. We developed the Watershed Condition
Framework (WCF) as a comprehensive approach for proactively
implementing integrated restoration on priority watersheds on national
forests and grasslands.
The mix of multiple use benefits is influenced by public input
during the development of forest plans. With a growing population and a
finite fresh water resource, providing high-quality fresh water
supplies is more critical than ever to the social and economic well-
being of the United States.
In response to your question on logging and water quality, if
timber sales are appropriately designed with mitigation measures and
Best Management Practices (BMPs), there is no measurable decline in
water quality. Forests and grasslands generally produce high-quality
water, especially when the ecosystems are healthy and functioning
properly. Water quality is influenced by the pattern, magnitude,
intensity, and location of land use and management activities. Some
land uses can protect or restore water quality, while others may
degrade or pose risks to clean water.
Preventing negative water quality impacts is more efficient and
effective than attempting to restore the damage. To ensure water
quality is protected, the Forest Service has developed procedures,
methods, and controls, consistent with Federal and State requirements,
to address potential pollutants and pollution at their source.
Implementation and monitoring of these Best Management Practices is the
fundamental basis of the Forest Service water quality management
program to protect, restore, or mitigate water quality impacts from
activities on National Forest System lands.
Question 2. What about recreation? Outdoor recreation industry supports
nearly 6.1 million jobs andcontributes over $646 billion annually to
the U.S. economy, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. And,
according to the Forest Service, visitor spending in communities near
national forests sustain more than 200,000 full and part time jobs. If
that is correct, would there be overlap between areas identified for
logging in the bills with areas currently used for recreational access,
Chief Tidwell?
Answer: Yes there could be some overlap in some areas. However,
restoration work is not necessarily incompatible with recreation
visitation, especially in the long run. Restoration work can enhance
visitor safety through reduction of wildfire threats, improve access by
removing hazardous trees, as well as improve both visual quality and
wildlife habitat. All of these are very important to our visitors. In
addition, restoration work diversifies and strengthens the economies of
local communities, which in turn has positive effects on both
visitation and its economic contributions.
______
The documents listed below have been retained in the Committee's
official files.
Action 22 Southern Colorado, H.R. 818 Support Letter
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest
Foundation, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, et al.,
H.R. 818 Support Letter
Association of O&C Counties, Letter of support for
``O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act''
Baertschiger, Hon. Herman E,, Oregon State Senate,
SJM10 Draft
Baertschiger, Hon. Herman E,, Oregon State Senate,
``O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act'' Support Letter.
Colorado Timber Industry Association, H.R. 818
Support Letter
Delta County, Colorado, H.R. 818 Support Letter
Eagle County (Colorado) Board of Commissioners, H.R.
818 Support Letter
Environmentalist Groups Comments For the Record
Graham, Owen, Executive Director, Alaska Forest
Association, H.R. 1294 Support Letter
Hinsdale County, Colorado, H.R. 818 Support Letter
Huerfano County Board of Commissioners, Colorado,
H.R. 818 Support Letter
Intertribal Timber Council, Letter submitted for the
record on Federal forest management bills: H.R. 1294, H.R. 818,
H.R. 1354, H.R. 1442, and draft bills by Chairman Hastings,
``the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act''
and by Rep. Peter DeFazio, ``the O&C Trust, Conservation and
Jobs Act.''
Kitazhaber, John, Governor of Oregon, National Forest
Health Restoration
Maisch, Chris, Administrative Order 258: Final Report
Maisch, Chris, NASF Resolution No. 2011-2: Landscape-
Scale Forest Management in the Vicinity of Federal Lands
Mesa County Board of Commissioners, Colorado, H.R.
818 Support Letter
Moffat County Commissioners, Colorado, H.R. 818
Support Letter, FTR
Montrose County Board of Commissioners, Colorado,
H.R. 818 Support Letter
The Pew Charitable Trusts, Mike Matz, Director, U.S.
Public Lands Conservation, Letter expressing concerns on draft
legislation entitled ``Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy
Communities Act''
Pueblo County Board of Commissioners, H.R. 818
Support Letter
Routt County Board of Community Commissioners, H.R.
818 Support Letter
San Luis Valley County Commissioners Association,
H.R. 818 Support Letter
San Luis Water Conservancy District, H.R. 818 Support
Letter
Trinity County Board of Supervisors, Letter submitted
for the record on reauthorization of Stewardship Contracting
Provisoins of Secure Rural Schools
Trout Unlimited, Letter submitted for the record on
``the O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act.''