    [Senate Hearing 114-503]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-503

       DISCUSSION DRAFT ENTITLED THE ``WILDFIRE BUDGETING, RESPONSE, AND
                        FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2016''

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 23, 2016
                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    21-993                         WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
      Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands and Natural Resources
                                    Director
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
            Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Bonnie, Robert, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
      Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture....................    12
    Rice, Bryan, Director, Office of Wildland Fire, U.S. Department
      of the Interior................................................    23
    Goldmark, Dr. Peter, Commissioner of Public Lands, Washington
      State Department of Natural Resources..........................    47
    Altemus, Julia, Executive Director, Montana Wood Products
      Association....................................................    51
    Humphries, Becky, Chief Conservation Officer, National Wild
      Turkey Federation..............................................    60
    Nelson, Peter, Senior Policy Advisor for Federal Lands, Defenders
      of
      Wildlife.......................................................    70
    Nichols, Eric, Partner, Alcan Forest Products and Evergreen
      Timber.........................................................    80
    Pimlott, Ken, Director, California Department of Forestry and
      Fire Protection................................................    86

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Alaska Forest Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   195
        Letter to Mr. Earl Stewart dated February 22, 2016...........   201
        Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce Presentation...................   216
    Alaska Miners Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   231
        Letter to Mr. Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor, Tongass
          National Forest, dated May 13, 2013........................   232
    Alaska State Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................   237
    Altemus, Julia:
        Opening Statement............................................    51
        Written Testimony............................................    53
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   178
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Written Statement............................................   238
    Bonnie, Robert:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
        Written Testimony............................................    15
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   150
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Chart entitled ``National Prioritization of Hazardous Fuel
          Treatment Areas''..........................................     5
        Chart entitled ``Recent Highest Cost, Loss, and/or Damage
          Forest Fires in Relation to Native Ponderosa Pine
          Distribution (2000-2014)''.................................     7
        Chart entitled ``Timber Impacts Broken Out by State''........    11
    City of Craig, Alaska:
        Letter for the Record........................................   240
    City of Ketchikan, Alaska:
        Letter and Resolution No. 16-2622 for the Record.............   241
    Coose, Dick:
        Letter for the Record........................................   244
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Map entitled ``Lands Suitable for Timber Management, Flathead
          National Forest''..........................................    36
    Discussion Draft entitled the ``Wildfire Budgeting, Response, and
      Forest Management Act of 2016''................................   108
    DuRette, Butch and Jackie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   245
    First Things First Alaska Foundation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   246
    Goldmark, Dr. Peter:
        Opening Statement............................................    47
        Written Testimony............................................    49
        Response to Questions for the Record.........................   177
    Hardwood Federation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   247
    Heatherdale Resources Ltd.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   249
    Humphries, Becky:
        Opening Statement............................................    60
        Written Testimony............................................    62
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   180
    Josephson, Brenda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   250
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Letter to Secretary Thomas Vilsack, U.S. Department of
          Agriculture, dated July 1, 2010............................   251
    National Association of State Foresters:
         Letter for the Record.......................................   256
    National Parks Conservation Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   258
    National Water Resources Association, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   261
    Nelson, Peter:
        Opening Statement............................................    70
        Written Testimony............................................    72
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   181
    Nichols, Eric:
        Opening Statement............................................    80
        Written Testimony............................................    82
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   182
    Pimlott, Ken:
        Opening Statement............................................    86
        Written Testimony............................................    88
        Chart entitled ``Tree Mortality, Northern Fresno County''....   103
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   193
    Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   264
    Rice, Bryan:
        Opening Statement............................................    23
        Written Testimony............................................    25
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   167
    Sivertsen, Bob:
        Letter for the Record........................................   265
    Society of American Foresters:
        Letter for the Record........................................   266
    Southeast Conference:
        Letter for the Record........................................   269
    U.S. Senate (Senators Enzi, Wyden, Murkowski, Cantwell, Crapo,
      McCain, Flake, Barrasso, Merkley, Daines and Tester):
        Colloquy on Wildfire Funding dated August 6, 2015............   270

       DISCUSSION DRAFT ENTITLED THE ``WILDFIRE BUDGETING, RESPONSE, AND
                        FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2016''

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                 ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order.
        We are meeting this morning to receive testimony on the
    legislative discussion draft entitled, ``Wildfire Budgeting,
    Response, and Management Act of 2016.''
        I want to thank those who joined Ranking Member Cantwell
    and me to release this draft on May 25th. Senator Wyden, you
    and Senator Crapo have been working on the wildfire issue for a
    very long time. We thank you for your leadership. Senator Risch
    joined us too. So we have had a good, strong team with this
    draft. We have taken public comments on it, and we are taking
    the next step today because I think we recognize we face some
    serious challenges in an area that needs to be addressed.
        People across the country are realizing that wildfires are
    a growing crisis. We certainly know in Alaska the devastation
    that wildfires bring to our state. About half of the ten
    million acres that burned last year were in Alaska. We have
    already seen over 200 fires this season alone, so there is a
    recognition that it is a real problem. It is a growing problem,
    and resolving it will require a comprehensive approach that
    addresses both wildfire funding and forest management. We need
    to do both at once because we know the wildfire problem is not
    just a budgeting problem. It is also a management problem.
        I have worked through the Appropriations process to provide
    temporary fixes to ensure that our firefighters and forest
    managers have the resources that they need. I added $1.6
    billion for wildfire suppression to last year's Omnibus, $600
    million above the average cost over the past ten years, likely
    enough to prevent fire borrowing this year.
        Last year's bill also included targeted increases in
    hazardous fuels reduction and timber programs that will help
    mitigate wildfire hazards and keep our forested rural economies
    going.
        It was close to two weeks ago that we reported the Interior
    Appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. It, again,
    includes full funding for wildfire suppression as well as a
    substantial commitment to prevention and forest management
    efforts. I am proud of that work, but I will also be among the
    first to say that our yearly appropriations bills are just
    temporary solutions. They get us from one year to the next,
    designed to hold us over as we develop longer-term solutions.
        Our draft bill includes a fiscally responsible fix to
    permanently end the destructive practice of fire borrowing.
    This is where agencies raid non-fire programs like recreation,
    wildlife and timber to pay for firefighting. Our fix requires
    Congress to provide resources to the agencies up front, enough
    to cover 100 percent of the average annual cost of firefighting
    over the past ten years while allowing for a limited cap
    adjustment in those truly catastrophic fire years.
        In low fire years, we allow the agencies to invest left
    over suppression funds in prevention projects.
        Ending fire borrowing is something that members on and off
    the Committee have called for, so this is not just a Western
    issue. Just this week Senator Schumer complained that fire
    borrowing takes federal dollars away from efforts to fight the
    emerald ash borer and other invasive species in New York. Under
    Secretary Bonnie told this Committee last year that fire
    borrowing has significant and lasting impacts across the entire
    Forest Service, not to mention its negative impacts on local
    businesses and economies.
        Yet despite widespread agreement that we need to end this
    unsustainable practice, the Administration is not yet willing
    to embrace our bipartisan proposal to do just that. Instead, it
    insists that Congress should fund just 70 percent of the ten-
    year average of suppression costs. A proposed cap adjustment
    would pay for the rest as well as any costs above the ten-year
    average. Congress has rejected this idea every year that it has
    been proposed.
        The Administration claims that it will use the difference
    between 70 percent and 100 percent for forest restoration and
    other measures that allow you to get ahead of the problem, but
    regrettably, the President's budget request for the Forest
    Service simply does not bear this out. Using the 70/30 split,
    the Forest Service would move about $273 million off budget
    next year, but the Administration does not seek to plus up
    wildland preparedness or vegetation management. Those accounts
    are flat. It did not seek to increase forest health management
    on federal lands. That request is actually down. Both the
    National Forest System budget and the Forest Service overall
    budgets are down. This just does not comport with the reality
    here.
        You can begin to see why wildfires are also a management
    problem. Healthy, resilient forests are fire resistant forests,
    yet despite knowing the value of fuel reduction treatments in
    mitigating wildfire risks, increasing firefighter safety and
    restoring the health of our forests, active management is still
    often met with a series of discouraging and sometimes
    insurmountable obstacles.
        High up-front costs, long planning horizons and difficult
    regulatory requirements are impeding our ability to implement
    treatments at the pace and scale that wildfires are occurring.
    Our discussion draft would take steps to reduce these hurdles
    without abandoning important environmental protections by
    building on authorities within the existing Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act.
        We focus and expedite environmental reviews by limiting the
    number of alternatives that need to be analyzed for
    collaboratively developed projects, including those contained
    in community wildfire protection plans.
        Our bill also pilots a new emergency environmental
    assessment for native ponderosa pine forests which are highly
    susceptible to burning, in order to reduce the risk of the
    large, destructive and expensive wildfires that are,
    unfortunately, becoming the norm.
        Addressing the management problem would not be complete
    without attention to our nation's largest national forest, and
    that is the Tongass in Southeast Alaska. When it comes to the
    Tongass, I think we recognize that there is not always going to
    be agreement. But I hope that we can at least agree that that
    transition to a program focused on predominately young growth
    timber needs to be real and not just something that looks good
    on paper.
        The Forest Service needs to do what is right and undertake
    what the Tongass Advisory Committee, the TAC, called for in its
    recommendations. They called for a comprehensive, stand level
    inventory to address the uncertainties that exist in the
    supply, volume and timing of the available young growth to
    support a transition.
        On January 21 of this year the TAC reiterated the
    importance of an inventory calling it the number one priority
    investment, because modeling is not good enough for a clear
    picture of when young growth will come online. A successful
    transition will only be possible if it is grounded in strong
    science and backed by comprehensive data. The point of our
    Tongass provision in this draft is not to delay the transition
    that is already underway but to allow for a meaningful
    inventory to take place before the land plan is amended.
        The last thing that I want to highlight is our emphasis on
    federal engagement with state and local fire agencies and other
    partners. This is critical to mitigate risk to communities and
    to manage and respond to wildfires. The investments we
    authorize will help communities become fire adapted which is an
    important piece of the solution to escalating wildfire
    suppression costs in the Wildland Urban Interface.
        I would like to close by thanking my colleagues for working
    with us on this discussion draft. I intend to advance it to the
    Senate floor as soon as possible, and I would hope that members
    of our Committee will recognize what is at stake here and join
    me in the effort.
        With that, I turn to Senator Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for
    having this hearing this morning. I think this is a culmination
    this morning of a lot of hard work on this discussion draft,
    more than two years, and if you include the work by our
    predecessors, probably two or three more years before that. I
    am so glad that our colleagues, Senator Wyden and Senator
    Stabenow, are both here because of the roles that they have
    played on this issue as well.
        I, too, could start with some statistics. Last year, ten
    million acres burned, 4,600 houses were destroyed, and
    obviously, we very sadly observed fatalities with our
    firefighters.
        We are going to hear from Commissioner Goldmark, who is
    here from our state. He is going to tell us in more detail
    about all of that, but I appreciate him being on the second
    panel.
        Instead of going over more statistics, I would like to
    spend some time talking about what I think we should do to
    reduce the risk, reduce the intensity and reduce the cost.
        Scientists are telling us that these seasons, these fire
    seasons, are both longer and hotter. An April report from
    Headwaters Economics said that a one-degree increase in
    temperature change, one degree, results in a doubling of
    firefighting costs, a 25-percent increase in the number of
    wildland fires and a 35-percent increase in the number of acres
    burned. So just one-degree of temperature change will make our
    national fire problems even more complex.
        I believe we must effectively address the root cause of the
    problems with fire risk and fire budgeting. If this is the new
    normal, we need better strategies to deal with the problem. I
    am glad that Under Secretary Bonnie and Mr. Rice are here to
    talk about some of those strategies today, because I do not
    think the temperature change we are seeing is going to stop. I
    think we are going to have continued risk.
        Our efforts need to be guided by scientists, and the
    science is telling us that we need policies that will make our
    at-risk forests more resilient to fires and keep our
    firefighters safer and protect our western communities from the
    impacts of wildfire. We have seen the huge economic impacts of
    this in the last couple of years with the Colville Tribes alone
    losing over $0.5 billion of timber revenue.
        The Director of CAL Fire will be joining us on the second
    panel, and Chief Pimlott's testimony discusses at length the
    need to treat the fuels that have built up on national forests.
    The discussion draft includes a Pine Pilot, as the Chair said,
    and I think it is a key provision that any Western Senator
    should be interested in.
        As part of this, I say federal land management agencies
    need a new strategy for firefighting. They need the tools to
    complete their jobs. We need to be proactive in reducing fire
    risk, and the discussion draft today contains a number of tools
    for doing that.
        I want to talk about the Pine Pilot in specific. That
    section directs the agencies to focus their efforts in areas
    that are most at risk. We have printed out a couple of charts
    that hopefully we can show to people that this science is built
    on.
        The Forest Service, as you can see, has ranked the
    different parts of the national forest based on fire risk. The
    most at-risk are in the red areas.
        [The information referred to follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The next chart was made by the former head of wildfire
    management for the Forest Service. He published in academic
    papers the close correlation between ponderosa pine forests and
    the large fires that we've been experiencing.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Scientists are telling us that restoring the health of the
    ponderosa pine forest, through thinning and prescribed fire, is
    the best way, most effective way, to deal with this issue.
    After merging these two maps, the result that we have
    identified is about two million acres that we want the Forest
    Service to place a priority on treating. These two million
    acres are simultaneously the most at-risk for fire, the place
    that projects have the largest impact in reducing fuels and the
    places that are best supported by the science and the public.
        In this pilot we would provide the tools to the agency,
    such as long-term contracts to individual mills and preferences
    for cross-laminated timber, so that we are actually securing
    more sustainable buildings. These tools will help us get this
    work done and will help us in, I believe, a much more proactive
    discussion than the discussion that happens after the fire.
        We need to do fuel reduction in the places that make the
    most sense. Implementing this program would change the fire
    risk to our most vulnerable forests. The science is showing
    that it can happen and there is actually video on the web that
    proves it.
        The Spokane Tribe just recently published a video of their
    recent fuel treatment and how it fared last year in the
    Carpenter Road fire. I recommend it to anybody who wants to
    look at that. In the Carpenter Road fire, the fuel treatment
    was effective. They actually installed time-lapse cameras in
    the pine forest where the fire burned through in the treated
    areas and untreated areas. The video shows compelling evidence
    of the value that this Pine Pilot could have to both BLM land
    and National Forest System land.
        More broadly, of course, there are other provisions of this
    bill that I think we also need to implement. But to me, with
    one-degree temperature change driving the challenge, this is
    the most important. The scientists are saying that this kind of
    investment actually reduces the size and severity of the fires.
    I think that that is what we need to try to target.
        Other provisions in the discussion draft include community
    preparedness, $600 million would be authorized to help at-risk
    communities. I know that my colleagues from the West understand
    this, but whether you are talking about Twisp or Wenatchee or
    the Yakama reservation, these communities are at-risk and they
    need help and support. We need to make sure that small
    communities who are on the front lines of fighting these fires
    have some immediate capital ready to do what we call hasty
    response.
        We also have a section in the draft requiring the use of a
    new technology--to deploy GPS and drones. Wildfire Today refers
    to this technology as the ``Holy Grail of firefighting.'' For
    the first time ever incident managers would be able to see, in
    real time, the location of the fire and their crews.
        Dozers and other equipment will be treated more communally;
    we will work together effectively ensuring that agencies use
    all the firefighting equipment available. That can do wonders
    in helping to engage in what has, again, been defined in
    Washington State by various entities as ``hasty response.''
        Last year, as I traveled through the state thinking that I
    was going to be reviewing the previous year's fire season,
    obviously as we know a huge new fire season opened up.
    Community after community, including a round table we held with
    Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, this issue could not
    have been clearer from my constituents. Work together
    cooperatively so that those on the front lines who have the
    tools to do some immediate response don't all of sudden get
    stopped at a property line. It does not make sense to hear DNR
    or Forest Service say you do not have the right to cross.
        Figure it out because there is so much capacity where
    people want to help and coordinate, and I know we can do it. I
    know our community came together in the aftermath of Oso and
    the Federal Government, the county government and the local
    government worked diligently to try to find those individuals
    impacted by a devastating landslide. I am sure that we can do
    the same in fighting our wildfires.
        The discussion draft also helps ensure communication
    infrastructure remains functioning during wildfire season.
    Again, this was an issue where emergency centers in communities
    have been activated but no broadband communication exists, no
    one can get access to emergency broadband equipment until the
    emergency is declared by the Governor or the President, which
    is like filing paperwork and sending it away for a month of
    deliberation. At that time they are still trying to
    communicate! We have to come up with plans to help and this
    draft includes them.
        Now I am ready to declare fire borrowing ``the great
    debate.'' This senator is agnostic as to how we solve it, but I
    do have a couple of principles in general.
        First, we cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The Forest Service
    needs both the amount of money to fight the fires and they need
    the money dedicated to do fuel reduction. We have to produce a
    draft out of here, Madam Chair, that gives them the ability to
    do both.
        On the implementation of the pine forest, I would just say,
    Washington State invested $18 million in 2014 to rebuild salmon
    habitat, but most of it was burned up in 2015. So we need to
    have dedicated funds to protect our investments, the Federal
    Government's investments. We are going to deal with the fire
    problem.
        We have to have both dedicated funds to doing fuel
    reduction and dedicated funds to fighting the fires.
        Today firefighting constitutes 50 percent of the Forest
    Service budget and reports say that the proportion will go to
    67 percent over the next ten years. That means over $700
    million less for those non-fire accounts if we continue to try
    to solve it this way.
        I hope that we will all work together. I look forward to
    Under Secretary Bonnie's comments on how we are going to solve
    this because we are having a shift in temperature that demands
    a new response.
        Senator Murkowski and I have received a number of letters
    on this draft. A number of groups want more things included in
    the bill. I personally want a more robust controlled burn
    section. This is a very complex issue, and I know many of my
    constituents do not want to see smoke in their communities. We
    understand that, but trying to manage wildland fires in the
    dry, hot months of August is the wrong idea. We need the
    flexibility to do it in the wetter months of the Pacific
    Northwest, not when the fuel is so built up and our conditions
    are so dry. So we need to work together on that.
        A number of groups want draft provisions removed like the
    Tongass piece, and a number of groups have provided feedback on
    how to make sections more useful, like discussions on the Pine
    Pilot. All I know is that we have to come together to solve
    this issue.
        I appreciate so much, as I said, my colleagues here today.
    They have been working on this issue for several years as well
    and want to benefit so many impacted communities.
        I would like to submit also this chart that would show
    where the board feet of potential pine forest reductions would
    come from by state and so my colleagues could see this.
        [The information referred to follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cantwell. This is not something, Madam Chair, that
    I come to easily. But I think this is a better path forward
    than the route we have been going: in the aftermath of a fire
    trying to decide what to do with salvaged logs.
        If the Federal Government is going to be spending between
    $2 and $3 billion a year on fighting fires because of the
    increasing risk, we need to do something to reduce the risk and
    I think this is a suggestion worth considering.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, I appreciate the
    level of detail there.
        We will now turn to our first panel. We will have two
    panels this morning. I know that there is much to be put on the
    table, so we will proceed immediately to it.
        On the first panel we are joined by Mr. Robert Bonnie, who
    is the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
    for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as Mr. Bryan
    Rice, who is the Director from the Office of Wildland Fire at
    the Department of the Interior.
        Gentlemen, welcome to the Committee. I must tell you that I
    was very disappointed that we did not receive your testimony
    until at least 11 o'clock last night. I think for colleagues
    that were quite anxious to see the direction and the comments
    of the Administration, to not be able to receive them until
    early this morning when folks came in, is unacceptable. You can
    do a heck of a lot better and I just need to start the hearing,
    unfortunately, with an admonishment that I think the Committee
    deserves a little more respect from the Administration in terms
    of your statements.
        With that, Mr. Bonnie, if you would proceed.

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT BONNIE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL
       RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Bonnie. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members
    of the Committee, thank you for having me here today and more
    importantly thank you for scheduling this hearing on an issue
    of such vital importance.
        Everything that the Forest Service does, everything, is
    being negatively impacted because of the ever growing
    proportion of the agency's budget spent fighting fire.
        Two decades ago the agency spent one-sixth of its budget on
    fire. Today it routinely spends more than half of its budget on
    firefighting.
        Non-fire staff in the agency has dropped by 39 percent
    since 1998, meaning we have fewer staff to restore forests,
    provide recreation, manage wildlife habitat, you name it.
        Investing in forest restoration is critical to addressing
    the wildfire threat. Since 2009 the Administration has
    increased the number of acres restored across the national
    forest through thinning, prescribed fire and other means. And
    by investing in collaboration and landscape scale management,
    we've increased timber production by 20 percent.
        Yet over the long term the agency won't be able to sustain
    these gains, much less further increase the number of acres we
    restore unless Congress fixes the fire budget.
        The good news is that there's broad agreement among diverse
    stakeholders, Republicans and Democrats, that this problem
    needs to be fixed. And while wildland fires might be thought of
    as a Western problem, the truth is that the budget impacts to
    the Forest Service are felt everywhere the agency works, East,
    West, North and South.
        Fixing the fire budget problem requires doing two things.
        First, we must end fire borrowing so that when the agency
    exhausts its fire suppression budget, as it does in most years,
    it doesn't have to transfer dollars from non-fire programs to
    fund firefighting. While Congress typically reimburses the
    agency for the transferred funds, fire borrowing, nonetheless,
    disrupts the agency's ability to get work done.
        The second problem, the growth of fire suppression
    expenditures and the erosion of the rest of the Forest Service
    budget, is actually far more debilitating to the agency than
    fire borrowing. Let me explain. By law the Forest Service has
    to fund fire suppression based on the average of suppression
    expenditures over the previous ten years. Yet the costs of
    firefighting are rising dramatically due to longer fire
    seasons, increased fuel loads and development into the Wildland
    Urban Interface. So every year the Forest Service must set
    aside more money for fire.
        Over each of the last two years the Forest Service has
    transferred more than $100 million from its non-fire programs
    to firefighting. That money wasn't borrowed. As long as fire
    costs keep rising, as they surely will, that money is
    permanently moved out of our non-fire programs and into
    firefighting.
        So if we want to restore forests to reduce the threat of
    catastrophic fire, we have to solve the second problem. If we
    want to increase recreational access or fix our $300 million
    backlog in trails, we have to solve it. If we want to address
    the 66 million dead trees we have standing in California right
    now, we have to solve this problem.
        The bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act solves both
    problems by allowing the Forest Service to access disaster
    funds when it spends 70 percent of its suppression budget. This
    both prevents fire transfers and allows the agency to invest
    additional resources in forest management.
        But there are other ways Congress could address the second
    issue as well by providing additional capacity to the agency.
    For example, you could cap the suppression budget at 100
    percent of 2015 levels and take the additional money that
    Congress has currently investing in firefighting and devote it
    to restoration or recreation or what have you.
        With a comprehensive budget fix the Administration could
    support efforts to provide the agency with additional forest
    management tools to increase the pace and scale of restoration.
    Such provisions should be built on collaboration among
    stakeholders and have strong environmental safeguards.
        The forest management provisions Congress passed in the
    2014 Farm bill struck the right balance and demonstrated it was
    possible to pass legislation with both forest, industry and
    conservation support.
        Finally, let me address the Tongass National Forest. For
    decades the Tongass has been mired in controversy. USDA and the
    Forest Service have invested in collaboration through the
    Tongass Advisory Committee in order to find a path forward that
    sustains the viable timber industry while transitioning away
    from old growth timber harvesting over the next 15 years. We
    oppose provisions delaying the amendment. Most importantly, I
    want to stress that we look forward to working with this
    Committee and others in Congress to put together a legislative
    package that fixes the fire budget and provides balanced tools
    to increase forest restoration and management.
        Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bonnie follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bonnie.
        Mr. Rice, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF BRYAN RICE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE,
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Rice. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to come in today and provide the testimony from the
    Department of the Interior regarding the Wildfire Budgeting
    Response and Forest Management Act of 2016.
        For introduction, the Department of the Interior Office of
    Wildland Fire works with the bureaus within the department that
    have wildland fire responsibility and we provide the
    leadership, the oversight, focusing on budgets and policies
    that affects nearly 500 million acres across the Department of
    Interior's land base.
        We appropriate. We work closely with other federal
    agencies, states, tribes and our external partners as well as
    organizations to provide strategic leadership and support as
    well, focusing on the tenants of the cohesive strategy as well
    as implementation of Secretarial Order 3336, Rangeland Fire
    Management.
        The Department would like to express thanks to our partners
    in Congress for support for the Wildland Fire Resilience
    Landscapes program. That continued support is a critical step
    forward as we've recently received over 75 preproposals for
    this next year that has nearly $74 million of requests.
        This, on the heels of the 2015 fire season being the
    costliest on record and burning the most acres since we've been
    recording since 1960. And as in past fire seasons, the wildfire
    risks that we're seeing in this season is going to be highly
    dependent upon weather as well as other human factors.
        We're seeing cumulative impacts from climate change,
    drought, invasive species as well as our other factors and
    they're creating this landscape for more susceptibility to
    devastating wildfire.
        With an ever expanding Wildland Urban Interface and the
    inherent complexities associated with it, the need for
    partnerships is continuing to grow.
        We're also continuing to make proactive investments in
    fuels management and those resilient landscapes activities
    across the landscape to better address the growing impact of
    wildland fire on communities and the public lands.
        The resilient landscapes activity is coordinated with and
    supported by those resource management programs within the fire
    management bureaus of the Department of the Interior, the
    National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
    Wildlife Service as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Those
    programs are also working in concert with tribes, states and
    other organizations that are involved.
        On another note that I'd like to highlight, the Department
    is showing leadership in providing training and job
    opportunities for our veterans that are coming back and wishing
    to continue their service in working in natural resources or
    other natural resource management programs. We're taking great
    pride in those men and women that are coming back to serve, and
    DOI's Bureau of Land Management has provided Wildfire
    Firefighter 1 and 2 training for over 400 veteran volunteers
    over the last year.
        In regards to the draft bill, the Department continues to
    support an approach to fixing the fire funding that ends
    transfers, recognizes that catastrophic fire is a natural
    disaster and ensures that our efforts to suppress those
    catastrophic fires does not diminish our efforts to create more
    resilient landscapes.
        The Department strongly opposes Section 201 in Title II as
    currently written and looks forward to working with the
    Committee to find language that identifies standards that meet
    the goals of overall safety, interoperability and efficiencies.
        The Department is also leading many activities focusing on
    UAS, unmanned aerial systems, that seek to provide firefighter
    and public safety while ensuring operations are continued and
    carried on. We have examples from 2014, 2015, most recently
    here in 2016 on the North fire in New Mexico where we have UASs
    that are providing real time mapping capabilities as well as
    infrared video.
        In regards to the last title and focusing on some of the
    other land management activities, the Department is focused on
    ensuring strong environmental safeguards are maintained and to
    further support increased resilience in landscape across the
    DOI Bureaus.
        In closing, the Department of the Interior works closely
    with our federal, tribal, state and local partners and last, we
    will continue to improve interagency forest and rangeland
    management while importantly upholding our trust
    responsibilities.
        This concludes my statement and I'll be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rice follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rice.
        We will begin with a round of questions. Let me begin with
    you, Mr. Bonnie.
        I want to start with the Tongass inventory because I will
    tell you, I am quite disturbed by the statement in your written
    testimony. You, kind of, glossed over it in your oral remarks
    here this morning, but you make a statement that says that the
    requirement for inventory would be, ``contrary to the
    recommendations of the Tongass Advisory Committee, as well as
    causing an unnecessary delay.''
        I am really stunned by that statement. When you look to
    Forest Service's own website, when you talk about the Tongass
    inventory and the plan amendment, you, on your website, say an
    inventory is needed to address the uncertainties. The plan
    amendment needs to have credible information to accurately
    predict the timing and supply of young growth. This can only be
    obtained by a comprehensive stand level inventory.
        The statement from the Secretary in the July 2013
    Secretarial Memo emphasizes that the transition must take place
    in a way that preserves a viable timber industry that provides
    jobs and opportunities for residents of Southeast Alaska. We
    all agree on that.
        On January 21, the TAC said there are a number of
    investments that need to be made. The number one priority
    investment is a forest inventory because modeling is not good
    enough for a clear picture of when young growth will come
    online during the next 15-year period. So for you to say that
    this is contrary to the recommendations of the TAC just does
    not comport with what the TAC has said and said very, very
    clearly, as well as what you have on your own website and the
    Secretary's own memorandum.
        What's up?
        Mr. Bonnie. So we are carrying out an inventory right now,
    as you know.
        The Chairman. I understand.
        Mr. Bonnie. In parallel with what the TAC recommended in
    their final report.
        The level of the inventory that, I think, you're talking
    about is unnecessary for us to arrive at a decision on the plan
    amendment. What we need is--
        The Chairman. Who has decided that that is unnecessary to
    do a comprehensive inventory to arrive at a decision at the
    plan level on this amendment?
        Mr. Bonnie. So the inventory that we're carrying out now
    will give us information that will allow us to do stand level
    projects and other things. I think we have the information we
    need right now to do a broad plan level amendment.
        The Chairman. So--
        Mr. Bonnie. What the inventory is helpful in doing is allow
    us to plan sales.
        The Chairman. The inventory has been recognized as
    necessary to provide for that level of certainty for the plan.
    Forest Service recognizes it. The TAC recognizes it. To suggest
    that we know enough now that we can just move forward with the
    plan that requires a complete transition in just 16 years
    belies the concern from everyone saying we need to understand
    where we are in the growth stage, in terms of the availability
    for harvest. We recognize that an inventory in the Tongass is
    tough because the Tongass is a tough area, but in order to have
    a plan that is based in reality, everyone recognizes we need to
    understand what we are dealing with with the trees here--where
    they are located, the volume available and the quality.
        Are you going against the TAC recommendation then?
        Mr. Bonnie. No, we're, I think, we're in line with the TAC
    recommendation. They asked us. They were very concerned about
    implementation. They asked us to move forward with the
    inventory we're doing now. As you know, we're doing it in
    partnership with the state. And so, I think we're very much in
    keeping with what the TAC has asked.
        The Chairman. But what you are suggesting to me here, in
    your words, is the requirement to inventory, and I will use
    your statement here, ``All 462,000 acres of young growth sites
    on the Tongass before issuing a record of decision will cause
    an unnecessary delay would be contrary to the recommendations
    of the Tongass Advisory Committee.''
        I will just take you back to the statement from the TAC
    itself on January 21 that says the number one priority
    investment is a forest inventory because modeling is not good
    enough for a clear picture of when young growth will come
    online during the next 15-year period.
        Know that the reason that we have included this requirement
    within this draft legislation is to follow out the intent of
    the TAC as well as what Forest Service has been saying all
    throughout this discussion, that we need to understand what we
    have in terms of available young growth so that we can make
    sure to use the Secretary's words, that we preserve a viable
    timber industry that provides jobs and opportunities for the
    residents of Southeast.
        I am going to turn to Senator Cantwell now.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Under Secretary Bonnie, and
    thank you for your testimony this morning.
        I wanted to go over this issue of fuel reduction, because
    it is so important to so many of us. This issue about fuel
    reduction by limiting NEPA considerations is one thing that,
    kind of, hits at me. I know your testimony for the
    Administration also talked about that, and I hoped you could
    elaborate on that point.
        Mr. Bonnie. So I think what we said all along is that we,
    with a comprehensive fix, are happy to look at provisions to
    look at forest management on the national forests. Those
    provisions need to have strong, environmental safeguards, they
    need to be based on collaboratively designed projects and we
    think that those two things can be really important in allowing
    us to move forward with those types of tools. And so, any
    provisions that we look at, I think those are going to be
    important.
        We recognize the need to get more work done. And critical
    to that is thinking about larger landscapes, as you talked
    about, but also working in collaboration so that we can reduce
    litigation risk and so that we can move forward with these
    projects more quickly.
        Senator Cantwell. That language would be problematic if it
    stayed in the draft? NEPA?
        Mr. Bonnie. So I think what we would suggest, if you're
    talking about the action/no action section, I think what we
    would suggest is making sure it's got strong, environmental
    safeguards. It needs to be discretionary, not mandatory. I
    think the language right now is mandatory and I think that's
    problematic. And we'd suggest, maybe, adding a third
    alternative as well.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        Then on the Pine Pilot, in general, what are your thoughts
    on it as a fuel reduction tool?
        Mr. Bonnie. So, I think you were thinking exactly right
    about thinking about large landscapes and thinking about how we
    get fire back into these ecosystems. And so I think that's
    important. I think the title collaboration is important. I
    think environmental safeguards are important. I've told your
    staff that I think we're anxious to work with you all on it.
    There's some provisions I think we have questions about and
    concerns about but are willing to work through that.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        Mr. Rice, on reducing risks by doing some fuel reduction,
    what are your thoughts about the Pine Pilot?
        Mr. Rice. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think for many of the projects, specifically the Pine
    Pilot that you're referring to, the Department, in many
    instances, will defer to USDA to address many of these issues
    as it is focused on Forest Service lands.
        But the overriding themes, as you've pointed out in several
    cases so far, of ensuring environmental safeguards, strong
    environmental safeguards are in place and further developing
    landscape resilience is important.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, there is no secret here. I have
    discussed this issue with various people. This is about whether
    we all can get comfortable with the response to what is
    happening. Can we all agree?
        I am hearing from scientists in my state, at the University
    of Washington and others, who are saying these pine forests are
    going to burn down. I would prefer to keep them, but if they
    are going to burn down, guess what? I don't get to keep them.
        I can get them managed. I can get the fuel reduced. I can
    put the products from these treatments in Cross-Laminated
    Timber (CLT). I can make sure that the mills stay open by
    giving them long-term contracts so that they can continue to
    process the products from these treatments.
        To me that is a win/win/win situation because if I don't
    get to keep the pine forests because they are going to burn
    down, I would rather have some of it reduced and save the
    Federal Government dollars, secure our communities and actually
    be proud of the management of our forests and the use of our
    timber products for CLT.
        I guess it is really a question of whether both your
    agencies agree with these assessments that have been presented
    here today about the forests and temperature increases. Is this
    the hazard that we are facing? Do either of you have a comment
    about that?
        Mr. Bonnie. There's no question we've got to get more
    restoration done. Many of our forests look differently than
    they did 100 years ago because we've taken fire out. That,
    combined with climate change, as you spoke about, is changing
    the nature of the fires we've seen now. They're making them
    more destructive and larger and restoration is a key to reduce
    the severity of those fires.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Daines?
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chair Murkowski and Ranking
    Member Cantwell.
        I gratefully put forward this draft. This is tireless work,
    and I like the bipartisan spirit that made this possible.
        Secretary Bonnie, it is good to see you again.
        I must say I am particularly dismayed and outraged this
    morning. We had breaking news coming out of Montana that hit
    us. The Twittersphere lit up as just yesterday Weyerhaeuser
    announced it is closing two mills in Columbia Falls, Montana
    this summer.
        One hundred Montanans are going to lose their jobs. These
    are good paying jobs on top of another 100 job cuts that were
    previously announced.
        The company said they have been running below capacity
    because of an ongoing shortage of logs in the region. I want to
    put to rest this nonsense I hear from folks who are opposed to
    forest management saying the reason the mills are closing in
    Montana is because of lack of demand. That is absolutely false.
    The issue is lack of logs. And by the way, it is not lack of
    available timber.
        Some of our mills today in Montana are getting logs over
    500 miles away. We go to other states to get logs. We go to
    another country. We go to Canada to get logs.
        It is ridiculous. It has got to end. This body needs to act
    to help save, right now, our forests through healthy, more
    forest management practices and these jobs.
        I want to draw your attention to the Flathead National
    Forest which surrounds much of Columbia Falls. The map behind
    me, the section in orange are the acres suitable for timber
    harvest in the forest.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In fact, if you look at where the red circle is, that is
    where the Weyerhaeuser operation is at.
        We just put this map together, literally, last night when
    we got news. Nobody saw this coming. We knew that our timber
    industry has been very clear, that they cannot get logs. Now we
    just saw 100 Montanans lose their jobs as the results of this.
        But if you look at that map, there are about 700,000 acres
    of suitable timber for harvest there we could get to in
    national forest. That is the colors on that chart. That is all
    within 100 miles of that Weyerhaeuser operation.
        Despite the hard work of the Flatheads Forest Service
    workers, the volumes off this harvest coming off this forest,
    the nearby national forest, is not anywhere where it can and
    should be.
        The latest mill closings are deeply unfortunate. They are
    also not surprising. Over the past generation, since I was a
    kid growing up in Montana, we have lost two-thirds of our
    mills. We had over 30 when I was a kid. We are down to ten.
        Here is one more to put on the list. We have lost 40
    percent of our wood products workforce, 4,000 jobs. The irony
    is that we are told with this job loss we go into other
    committee hearings telling the importance to keep PILT and SRS
    going forward here so our counties that are surrounded by
    federal lands, who have lost their natural resource base, no
    longer have a tax base to fund their schools and their teachers
    and their infrastructure. And we have these dying communities.
        In fact, a family up in Eureka, which is Lincoln County
    just nearby where this plant closing occurred, a couple years
    ago was having dinner and they said basically we describe
    Northwest Montana as poverty with a view. That is what is going
    on.
        So we have previously discussed the impacts of litigation
    in Montana, and we have had hearing after hearing after hearing
    as we talk about getting to one of the core challenges if we
    are going to fix this problem and move forward toward
    responsible timber harvest, we need to have some reforms in
    litigation.
        There are currently, listen to this, there are currently 21
    projects under litigation. Thirteen of these were developed
    using collaborative processes, and recent objections filed by
    these fringe environmental extremist groups do not represent
    the 80 to 90 percent of most Montanans. They are stopping these
    projects, and they are signaling there is going to be more
    litigation that lies ahead.
        So my question with that as a background. As the Committee
    continues to work on this draft, I am convinced we can find
    common ground on meaningful litigation reforms such as
    expanding HFRA's balance of harms protections and closing
    loopholes that fringe groups have exploited in the courtroom as
    we have seen in the Cottonwood vs. Forest Service case. For
    instance, strengthening the objections process and establishing
    a pilot arbitration authority.
        Can I get your commitment to work with us, to work with me
    and other members of this Committee, toward finding consensus
    on such solutions that can be incorporated into this emerging
    legislation?
        Mr. Bonnie. So, we're happy to work with you on forest
    management reforms. My concern about litigation is whether or
    not we can maintain a middle so that we can move something
    forward.
        Senator Daines. Do you believe that litigation is a--
        Mr. Bonnie. Litigation is a challenge and it's a big
    challenge in your part of the world. There's no question.
        Senator Daines. So can I get your commitment to work with
    us to find some common ground?
        Mr. Bonnie. We'll continue to work with you and I'll just
    say understand--
        Senator Daines. But that is not a yes. Can I get a yes that
    you will work with us on--
        Mr. Bonnie. Absolutely, we'll work with you.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. I appreciate that because we are
    to the point now, I mean, this is something when your phones
    are ringing and you are seeing 100 Montana families losing jobs
    because of lack of logs when you are surrounded by timber.
    Something has got to change here.
        Alright, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. First I want to thank the Chair and the
    Ranking Member for their work on this issue. This issue of how
    we fund our forests and our management of our forests is
    critical to communities across the West. It is absolutely
    critical in many communities in New Mexico.
        As we speak right now, the Doghead Fire continues to burn
    in the East Mountains, not far from my home in Albuquerque
    actually. Last week we lost 24 homes and 21 other structures
    when that fire raced out of the mountains and into a
    subdivision. It is only thanks, really, to luck and favorable
    winds and the very hard work of our firefighters on the ground
    that the structure losses numbered in the dozens and not in the
    hundreds and that we had zero loss of life. Thank goodness.
        This fire actually overlaps with a collaborative forest
    project which includes partners like the Nature Conservancy,
    the Pueblo of Isleta, the Chilili land grant. Even though the
    NEPA process review on this project was completed back in 2012,
    the Forest Service did not have the funds to pay to do the
    actual work in the forest. It took two more years for the
    project partners to come up with the funds to start the work
    and still only 7,000 of 12,000 acres in the project were
    treated before the fire was ignited. So it is hard not to think
    about how things might have been different if this entire area
    had been successfully treated and restored before the fire
    broke out last week.
        I know we all wish the Forest Service could approve
    projects faster, more efficiently. But the fact is that project
    approval is only the first hurdle in getting work done to make
    our forests healthier. Without a robust and stable budget, all
    the process streamlining in the world doesn't get trees cut.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and to
    hearing what they have to say about the issues, but we cannot
    wait any longer to get large-scale forest health projects
    implemented in New Mexico, and for that matter, across the
    West.
        Under Secretary Bonnie, I want to ask you a question. The
    fire program at the Forest Service is consuming a larger
    percentage of the overall forest budget every year. Last year,
    for the first time, the Forest Service spent more than half its
    budget on fire activities. In 2025 the fire program is expected
    to consume two-thirds of the budget. Obviously this cuts out
    money. It crowds out money for non-fire related programs,
    recreational programs, personal firewood use permits (which are
    so important in New Mexico), road and trail maintenance, forest
    restoration and watershed health.
        I want to ask you, does this draft that we are discussing
    today do anything to address the growth over time in that 10-
    year average?
        Mr. Bonnie. No, it doesn't. It just addresses the first
    problem I talked about in my testimony, fire borrowing.
        Senator Heinrich. So if we fix the fire borrowing but do
    not fix the growth in the 10-year average and do not take into
    account the continued changes we are seeing in climate, what
    does that mean for the non-fire programs at the Forest Service
    over time?
        Mr. Bonnie. So, I think, as you point out, the biggest
    impediment right now to the Forest Service getting more work
    done, more restoration work, is a lack of capacity. Thirty-nine
    percent fewer employees across the agency in the non-fire side
    versus the fire side of the organization, and it's affecting
    everything, again, as you point out.
        To your specific point on restoration, if we want to get
    more work done, we have to solve this problem.
        Senator Heinrich. We have got to figure this out because we
    have projects all over in forests across New Mexico where the
    community has come to a generalized consensus about what needs
    to be done. The relationships with the Forest Service are
    positive. People generally agree on what we need to be done and
    oftentimes much of the planning has been done. But we can't get
    the needed funding because we are spending it all on
    firefighting. We have got to find a way to move that back over
    time.
        Before my time expires I want to ask you a little bit about
    the Ponderosa Pine/Mixed-Conifer Pilot Project. The draft
    project describes eligible projects as hazardous fuel reduction
    projects. Under the current draft would that include prescribed
    fire as well as mechanical thinning or do we need to clarify
    that? Because obviously the idea is the first wave you go in
    and thin mechanically and that has a certain cost to it and
    then the second wave, hopefully, you maintain that by restoring
    fire into a fire-based system at a much lower cost to the
    taxpayer.
        Mr. Bonnie. We would read that it does include that but
    clarification, I think, would be welcome.
        Senator Heinrich. Great.
        It looks like my time has expired, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me
    commend you and the bipartisan leadership for all the effort
    that went into the draft. This is not an easy lift, and I very
    much appreciate--
        The Chairman. You know that.
        Senator Wyden. I do indeed.
        Madam Chair and colleagues, ending the plague of fire
    borrowing is now the longest running battle since the Trojan
    War and it is time to bring this to an end.
        Madam Chair, I note this is a little unorthodox, but I want
    to give a little history on this on behalf of Senator Crapo and
    I. As you know, the two of us have worked together on this and
    with you, our proposal to end fire borrowing now has the
    support of 258 organizations and given the history on this, I
    especially appreciate your desire to get this done before the
    next fire season.
        In terms of advancing that effort, I would just like to put
    into the record that we have had 11 of us a year ago saying we
    were going to get it done and to your credit, you have picked
    up on that proposition and that now is clearly the time to get
    this done.
        Now I want to make sure we are clear on the major issue--
    the mix of ending fire borrowing and improving forest
    management. The Chair and I have talked about this often
    because I have been supportive of management efforts as has
    Senator Crapo. The concern is that if you take on too many
    difficult management issues you will not end fire borrowing,
    and that has been the history.
        It seems to me the Chair and the Ranking Member on our side
    are saying here is where we would like to begin the discussion.
    We just want to make sure we end up getting something done. We
    want to get something done.
        As the Chair and I have talked about, getting something
    done is also a bicameral effort because I thought we were
    pretty close last year to finally getting it done, and it broke
    down in discussions between the Senate and the House.
        So on the fire borrowing issue I just want to make sure we
    are clear on the Administration's position. I believe the
    Administration believes that to deal with fire borrowing you
    have to freeze, and I use that word specifically, you have to
    freeze the amount of money that is spent on fighting fire at a
    fixed number, like the current 10-year average. If you don't
    have a freeze or something that resembles a freeze, we are not
    going to get this done. Do you all support the concept of a
    freeze?
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes.
        We've talked about both a freeze and the 70 percent in your
    legislation as ways to do exactly what you're talking about.
        Senator Wyden. How about your colleague? What is his view
    with respect to this?
        Mr. Rice. Thank you, Senator.
        I'm in the same place. I think the Administration's
    proposal of 70 percent as well as looking at the 1 percent of
    fires and categorizing them as catastrophic wildfire and
    focusing on that element that will give us the flexibility to
    focus on landscape restoration. Thanks.
        Senator Wyden. So, that is your take on what we need to do
    to fix fire borrowing.
        Now as I have indicated, I support management as well. I
    mean, clearly management is a central part of this, and it is
    certainly going to be a central part of getting any kind of
    agreement with the other body.
        Mr. Bonnie, what are the bipartisan opportunities for
    management reforms in your view? In other words, the Chair and
    the Ranking Member represent all of us in these discussions
    with the House. We are going to be working with you on this
    because we want to get it done this time. We are going to make
    it happen before the serious fire season. The other part of the
    Congress is going to insist on some management reforms. What
    are the kind of management reforms you could support in those
    discussions?
        Mr. Bonnie. So I think you and many others here worked on
    the 2014 Farm bill and some of the provisions in there. They
    require collaboration. They require environmental safeguards.
        And I think using that as a basis and looking for things
    that, to use your language, something that Congress and the
    Administration can get done. That, and I think there is common
    ground that we can find across the conservation community,
    industry and elsewhere.
        Senator Wyden. My time is up.
        Could you get to the Chair and the Ranking Member and the
    rest of us on this Committee, the specifics of what management
    reforms the Administration would support in addition to the
    effort to end, finally, once and for all, the fire borrowing
    because that is going to have to be part of actually getting
    this done?
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes.
        Senator Wyden. And can we have that within two weeks?
        Mr. Bonnie. We'll try.
        Senator Wyden. Well we better have it within two weeks
    because the fire season is on us, and there are not many days
    left in the Congress. Two weeks?
        Mr. Bonnie. I'm on it.
        Senator Wyden. Alright.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I appreciate you
    pushing for the specifics.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is my intention
    to be moving this proposal in a relatively direct manner. We
    don't have a lot of legislative days remaining before we
    conclude for mid-July recess, so I would reiterate the request
    from Senator Wyden and ask that you be most expeditious within
    these next two weeks with specifics.
        Let's turn to Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for
    holding this hearing on the Wildfire Budgeting and Forest
    Management Act.
        Welcome to the Committee, thank you very much for being
    here.
        Thank you to Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    Senators Wyden, Risch and Crapo for the work on this
    discussion, is it a draft, and to reaffirm my commitment to all
    of us and the U.S. Forest Service to address this very critical
    issue. It is something I hear about from county commissioners,
    legislators, every time I go back to Colorado, the importance
    of addressing this issue.
        Colorado, as well as many Western states, who have mostly
    on this Committee have talked about today, I am sure, the
    impacts, significant loss, that can occur from a forest fire,
    issues of funding and staff to manage the forests, the big
    issue and of course, with over 14 million acres of national
    forests and grasslands. Whether it is grazing, timber or
    recreation, it is all affected by drastic impacts we have had
    from budget reductions and other things on how we currently
    fund wildfire suppression.
        I want to turn to you, Mr. Bonnie. Thank you for being
    here, and thanks for your commitment to working with my office
    on these issues. We have got to find an end to this fire
    borrowing practice.
        Just this past week we have seen a wildfire balloon in
    Northwestern Colorado. It is the Beaver Creek fire. It is not
    what many people think when they hear Beaver Creek. It is a
    different area than Beaver Creek, Colorado, but it is up on the
    Wyoming/Colorado border area. Our office has been in touch with
    the Forest Service officials and local offices, and I am very
    thankful for the work the firefighters on the scene are doing
    at this time.
        I know a couple, at least two, of other fires are also
    burning in Colorado as we speak, so this is an important issue
    in real time.
        In the context of wildfire borrowing and fire suppression,
    I am acutely concerned that the recreation program in the
    country's most heavily visited national forest, the White River
    National Forest. Reports have shown that this forest has lost
    over 40 percent of budget and staff in the last five years
    while the recreation use has continued to increase. Again, it
    is the most heavily visited national forest.
        One of the most negative effects of this trend is that the
    agency is unable to be a responsible partner to deliver
    recreation to millions of visitors. The White River is home to
    several world class ski resorts. The industry generates
    tremendous economic benefits to the Treasury, the states and
    local communities.
        During the Forest Service budget hearing for the FY 2017
    budget request I asked Chief Tidwell how the agency planned to
    address this issue in the White River National Forest. Since
    then he has agreed to meet with me and ski resorts in early
    July to further address this question. I very much appreciate
    that commitment.
        I would ask you if you were aware of any plans to address
    the immediate issues with the White River National Forest?
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes, I think as you know, I think we used to
    have eight full time staff members that worked directly with
    the ski industry there, and I think we're around two now. And
    you're absolutely right. We're not providing the level of
    service we need to be, and it's the same capacity problem.
        So I've been in touch. Folks from the ski industry have
    talked to me. Absolutely willing to engage and be creative
    about how we can solve this problem.
        Senator Gardner. Very good, I appreciate that.
        Turning now to another area of Colorado, the Durango and
    Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad in Southwestern Colorado. It is
    an incredible railroad, a great part of our history, a crown
    jewel in Colorado and really, the West. But because it is a
    coal-fired old railroad they are required to have firefighting
    capabilities in place to address any spot fires that might come
    up, and these firefighting capabilities that they possess
    include water tanks and pumps following the train, men trying
    to combat fires and a helicopter that is on standby to make
    water drops.
        While the railroad is rightfully responsible for addressing
    fires that come up along the railroad right-of-way, it is my
    understanding that they are prohibited from fighting fires
    which come up beyond their rights-of-way in the forest service
    land and must, instead, just report it instead of actually
    using their resources to help fight it.
        On November 17, 2015 I asked questions at this Committee
    during a hearing on wildfires. We talked about certification
    issues, trained wildland fire entities and how they could be
    empowered to fight fires before they get out of control when
    they are spotted.
        Section 201 of the discussion draft would require a single
    system for credentialing both federal and state certified
    wildfire aircraft and provide interim acceptance of both
    standards. It is my hope that Section 201 will assist in
    addressing the Narrow Gauge Railroad situation, at least in
    Colorado.
        Could you talk a little bit more about the Forest Service's
    policies toward partnership with private entities like the
    Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad in combating
    wildfires?
        Mr. Bonnie. So we do a lot of work with contractors,
    obviously, to provide helicopters. The vast majority are
    through contractors.
        The caution I will raise on the certification issue has to
    do with air safety. We have, we've had a number of accidents,
    and so the standards we set are very important to the Forest
    Service. Safety comes first. So happy to work with your office
    on the issue. I think the flag I would raise is we just want to
    make sure whatever we do, we're being as safe as we can.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, I look forward to ongoing
    conversations. Again, thanks for the work that you are doing in
    Colorado as we speak.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    the work that you and Senator Cantwell have done.
        Last year Chief Tidwell testified to this Committee on the
    interaction of wildfire and climate change. As the Chief
    shared, science has shown that climate change is one of the
    major factors leading to the recent trends of longer fire
    seasons with wildfires and wildfires that are larger and more
    intense. In fact, fire seasons are now, on average, nearly 80
    days longer than they were in 1970, and wildfires burn twice as
    many acres today as they did 30 years ago.
        Our climate is warming and we are experiencing unfamiliar
    and unprecedented conditions. Drought may be the new normal.
    Invasive species and insect outbreaks may be the new normal.
    Larger than average fire seasons may be the new normal.
        Under Secretary Bonnie, in your opinion, to what extent has
    climate change driven the increases in fire suppression costs
    that we have been seeing?
        Mr. Bonnie. There's no question it's had a significant
    impact. We're seeing larger, more catastrophic fires. It's not
    the only thing. Also, because we've taken more natural fires
    out of these ecosystems, we've built fuel loads up. Because we
    have more development in the Wildland-Urban Interface, costs
    have been driven up. But you throw climate in the mix and the
    trends are not good.
        Senator Franken. So clearly, climate change has a cost, and
    this cost is having a serious impact.
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes.
        Senator Franken. On your agency.
        Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle seem to be in
    denial about the real cost of climate change and for some of
    them whether climate change even exists.
        Do you expect the costs to rise as climate change continues
    to get worse?
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes, and Forest Service scientists believe
    we'll double the acreage that we're burning annually by mid-
    century, more than double, actually.
        Senator Franken. In Minnesota non-native invasive species
    threaten the health of our forests. Minnesota has about one
    billion ash trees and is home to the largest concentration of
    ash in the country. Unfortunately, the invasive emerald ash
    borer has already destroyed tens of millions of ash trees
    throughout the U.S. since it was first detected in 2002. Under
    Secretary Bonnie, I want to thank your agency for the work that
    you are doing at the Forest Service's Northern Research Station
    to combat emerald ash borer in my state and throughout the
    country.
        But I am concerned that the growing cost of wildfire
    suppression is draining your budget and hindering some of this
    and other great work that the Forest Service is doing outside
    of fighting wildfires. In fact, the Forest Service has, as I
    think has been mentioned in this hearing, 39 percent fewer
    staff in non-fire positions today than it did less than 20
    years ago.
        Mr. Under Secretary, as you know, it is not uncommon for
    funds or even staff to get transferred mid-season to fight
    wildfires. The bill we are discussing today addresses the fire
    borrowing issue but it does not fix the fact that wildfire
    suppression costs continue to grow and erode the overall forest
    budget. Isn't that right?
        Mr. Bonnie. That's right.
        Senator Franken. Okay.
        Thankfully Minnesota typically does not experience the
    catastrophic fires we see out West, but the ever expanding
    costs of wildfire suppression still significantly impacts my
    state. I want to make sure that any wildfire legislation
    addresses the needs of Minnesota so that we, too, can tackle
    our most threatening issues like the emerald ash borer and
    protect our cherished resources.
        One thing I would like to see in any comprehensive wildfire
    legislation is finding a market for hazardous fuel and forest
    waste. Communities are increasingly built in the Wildland-Urban
    Interface in heavily wooded areas where they are at risk from
    economic damage from forest fires. We know that. We are
    removing hazardous fuel like underbrush and immature trees. It
    can help reduce the severity of wildfires and mitigate economic
    damages, especially when this is done right, around communities
    near or within our forests.
        I see an opportunity to help pay for the removal of
    hazardous fuels by using this waste as a source of electricity
    for nearby communities. This could simultaneously reduce fire
    risk and bring economic benefit. Combined heat and power and
    other facilities that use woody biomass are ideal options.
        As my time runs out, Under Secretary Bonnie, once it is
    cut, what is done with hazardous fuel today?
        Mr. Bonnie. Well, in so many places we're paying people to
    remove them. To your point, if we had greater markets for
    hazardous fuels, we'd actually be able to get more work done.
    The Forest Service is making investments here, but there's more
    to do and the budget constraints we're operating under makes it
    more difficult.
        Senator Franken. I know I am over, but can I ask this one
    last half a question?
        The Chairman. Wrap it up very quickly.
        Senator Franken. Okay.
        In your experience what are the major road blocks to using
    hazardous fuel for biomass power which, as we are saying, could
    help both mitigate fire risk and play a role in clean energy
    generation?
        Mr. Bonnie. Well, one of the challenges is just the lack of
    markets and cheap natural gas and other things. So, it's going
    to require investment.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am trying to figure out relationships here between fires,
    climate change and management of the forests. My impression is,
    and I think your chart indicates this but I may be wrong, that
    part of preventing fires is more intensive management of the
    forests. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes.
        Senator King. Yet the increase in fires is, kind of, a
    vicious circle. The increase in fires is sopping up so much of
    your budget you do not have the money left to do the management
    which then makes fires more likely, which then takes more of
    the budget. Is that the dynamic that is in play here?
        Mr. Bonnie. We can't do the management at the scale we need
    in order to confront the problem. That's right.
        Senator King. So we really need to be talking about
    different ways of funding the fire danger that does not eat up
    the rest of your budget.
        I met with Secretary Vilsack this week and I cannot
    remember the exact figures but, as I recall, the fire budget is
    basically eating up everything else.
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes, we'll typically spend more than half of
    our budget every year now just on firefighting. If you add in
    other fire costs it can go north of that.
        Senator King. I think he said that 15 or 20 years ago it
    was like 15 percent of the budget.
        Mr. Bonnie. About a sixth of the budget in 1995, one-sixth.
        Senator King. And now it is over half.
        Mr. Bonnie. Yes.
        Senator King. The point I am getting at and I think you
    confirmed is that to the extent that that happens, it crowds
    out spending on other forest management, for example, clearing
    the undergrowth, selective thinning and that kind of thing.
    That, in turn, makes more fires, and fires more likely.
        Mr. Bonnie. That's exactly right. And in states like Maine
    where you don't have as much federal land, we're working with
    your state foresters to provide help to them so they can work
    with private landowners and those budget funds are less as
    well.
        Senator King. Madam Chair, that is all I have.
        But I think this is a very important issue, and I know you
    recognize we are inadvertently making the problem worse by not
    providing sufficient funds for the management of these lands.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.
        I think the discussion was/is important, recognizing that
    when you borrow from other accounts to pay for suppression that
    does not work. It is not sustainable, so making sure that we
    get the fix right, I think, is very important.
        Mr. Bonnie, I have multiple questions that I would like you
    to answer for the record including one that is specific to the
    issue of an updated projection for total suppression resources
    needed based on that 10-year average. So you will see that.
        Again, if you can provide responses as quickly as possible
    to the Committee, that will be greatly appreciated.
        I would like to do another round, but we have six witnesses
    on the second panel that we want to make sure that we get to
    before the noon hour, so we will excuse both of you and thank
    you for appearing before the Committee this morning.
        Mr. Bonnie. Thank you.
        The Chairman. As the next panel is finding their seats, I
    will introduce each of you to the Committee and I will offer
    apologies on behalf of other colleagues on the Committee this
    morning. As Senator Risch, who was here just a few moments ago,
    whispered into my ear, I have three different committees that
    are meeting at the same time here this morning. Please do not
    take this as an indication of lack of interest, but you can
    only be at one place at a time or at least that is what we
    believe.
        I would like to welcome the second panel before the
    Committee. We will lead off this morning with Dr. Peter
    Goldmark, who is the Commissioner of Public Lands at the
    Washington State Department of Natural Resources. It is nice to
    have you here. He will be followed by Ms. Julia Altemus, who is
    the Executive Director of the Montana Wood Products
    Association. She will be followed by Rebecca Humphries. Ms.
    Humphries is the Chief Conservation Officer at the National
    Wildlife Turkey Federation. We appreciate you being here this
    morning. Mr. Peter Nelson is with us. He is a Senior Policy
    Advisor for Federal Lands for the Defenders of Wildlife.
    Welcome. Mr. Eric Nichols is a constituent from the State of
    Alaska. He is a partner at Alcan Forest Products. Rounding out
    our panel is Mr. Ken Pimlott, who is the Director for CAL Fire.
    Again, welcome to each of you.
        I would ask that you keep your comments to less than five
    minutes. Your full statement will be included as part of the
    record, but again we want to be able to get through everyone's
    testimony and have an opportunity for a few questions before we
    have to conclude just around noon.
        Dr. Goldmark, if you would like to lead us off?
        Thank you all.

    STATEMENT OF DR. PETER GOLDMARK, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS,
            WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Dr. Goldmark. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Senator
    Cantwell, members of the Committee.
        To begin with I'd like to thank Senators Cantwell,
    Murkowski, Wyden and Crapo for their leadership and dedication
    to improving response and resources for wildfires. I appreciate
    the invitation to appear before you today.
        My name is Peter Goldmark, and I am the Commissioner of
    Public Lands for the State of Washington. Elected directly by
    the people of my state, I am charged with managing and
    protecting Washington's natural resources.
        For over 150 years, citizens of our state have looked
    eastward for help and partnership from Congress on critical
    issues. Today, one of those critical issues is wildfire, and I
    appreciate this opportunity.
        That responsibility that I bear includes leading our
    state's firefight against wildfire and overseeing forest health
    across all jurisdictions and all ownerships. Recently it has
    been a heavy responsibility to bear. We have lost about 3.5
    percent of Washington State to wildfire over the past two
    catastrophic years, and most terrible of all was the death of
    three young firefighters who died protecting homes during the
    Twisp River fire last August. The impact on our people and the
    landscape has been horrific to witness and difficult to bring
    to the halls of Olympia or the halls of Washington, DC, in the
    damage and danger and trauma to our people.
        In Washington our extreme climatic conditions have created
    a hotter, drier landscape. Our forests are sick and ripe for
    wildfire. For too many years investments in forest health,
    thinning and fuel reduction have not kept pace with the amount
    of risk on the landscape. We know what we need to do to allow
    Washington to remain the Evergreen State. We must aggressively
    treat and manage our forests using fuel reduction treatments
    and prescribed fire when appropriate.
        There is broad community and scientific support for
    accelerated forest restoration. I encourage you to develop the
    Pine Pilot concept discussed in Title III, Subtitle D, to
    achieve the needed faster pace of restoration. We depend on our
    forests for clean water, wildlife habitat, jobs and carbon
    storage. They are a resource to conserve and protect, not to
    squander.
        Since I took office in 2009 I've secured almost $25 million
    in state investment to build resilient forests. Sadly, federal
    investment has not kept up. This legislation under
    consideration would end the practice of fire borrowing that
    robs from prevention and fuel treatment programs; however, it
    does not address the continued structural erosion of the Forest
    Service land management budget by rising fire costs.
        A different budget formulation that eliminates use of the
    10-year average of suppression costs or at least freezes it in
    time, is crucial to a realistic federal wildfire budget policy.
    Failure to fix this problem will trap us in a cycle of more
    costly fires. Others before me have acknowledged this. You,
    Senator Murkowski, you, Senator Cantwell, know full well this
    problem.
        I'm speaking, of course, in support of this draft proposal
    including a particular concern to me is that credentials for
    firefighters and aircraft must be standardized to ensure safe
    and rapid response when wildfire threatens. We must expand the
    use of drones and particularly, retardant aircraft, to keep
    fires small. A location tracking system will help keep fire
    crews safe. Expanded use of Firewise programs and fire-risk
    maps will give communities the knowledge and tools to prepare
    for wildfire, and improved telecommunications infrastructure
    will help people who live in fire-prone areas keep track of
    evacuations and road closures if wildfire threatens.
        I believe we are at a critical moment. These last two
    wildfire seasons are a brutal warning. We must now do the vital
    work, as described in this discussion draft, to prepare for and
    respond to wildfire.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Goldmark follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Goldmark, we appreciate your
    considered remarks.
        Ms. Altemus, I hope I am pronouncing that right.

     STATEMENT OF JULIA ALTEMUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MONTANA WOOD
                          PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Altemus. That is correct. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Very good, thank you.
        Ms. Altemus. Good morning. My name is Julia Altemus. I'm
    the Executive Director of the Montana Wood Products Association
    and a member of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition Policy
    Committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify
    today.
        We appreciate the efforts of this Committee, including the
    Chairwoman, Ranking Member as well as Senators Wyden and Crapo
    to tackle the tough issues facing the Forest Service. We are
    committed to finding workable solutions to the problems of the
    federal forest management and fire borrowing and stand ready to
    work with the Committee.
        The Montana Wood Products Association represents the wood
    manufacturing industry in Montana. Our industry is the state's
    primary manufacturing sector with roughly 7,500 direct and
    indirect jobs, a payroll of $319 million and sales of $900
    million.
        Roughly two-thirds of Montana's timber base is managed by
    federal agencies. In the last quarter century, we have lost 30
    mills including the two yesterday and roughly 4,000 jobs as a
    direct result of litigation and declining federal timber sales.
    None of our remaining mills are run at full capacity and all
    depend on a sustainable supply of federal timber.
        According to forest inventory analysis data, Montana's
    federal forests grow 567 million cubic feet of wood fiber
    annually. Five hundred ten million cubic feet, or an
    astonishing 89.9 percent, suffers annual mortality as a direct
    result of insect and disease. We only harvest about 4.5 percent
    of the annual growth and 5 percent of the mortality each year
    leading to chronic buildup of fuels for future wildfires.
        Unfortunately, the Forest Service lacks authorities to plan
    and implement needed management projects in a timely fashion.
    Badly needed forest thinning, restoration and vegetative
    treatments can take years to get through NEPA only to meet
    opposition by fringe groups critical of timber harvest.
        The 2014 Farm bill provided some tools to address these
    issues and Region One is very creative in their approach and is
    moving as expeditiously as possible but to date only one
    project is pending a decision, four have completed NEPA, seven
    are under analysis and 19 are on deck.
        With 82 million acres identified by the Forest Service as
    high priority landscapes nationally, we fear that the new tools
    in the 2014 Farm bill are not enough to address the challenges
    we face.
        Therefore, we applaud the Committee's commitment to solving
    some of our toughest challenges, providing our federal partners
    with a suite of tools and opportunities to increase the pace
    and scale of resource management and restoration is one of our
    top priorities.
        Our written statement makes specific recommendations but we
    offer the following thoughts.
        Under Title I, we appreciate the budgetary relief provided
    by this Title but would urge you to consider freezing the 10-
    year average at the 2015 levels and expand the use of wildfire
    risk reduction projects to lands in Fire Regime IV. This is
    particularly important for the work in the Northern Rockies as
    these landscapes traditionally lack age class diversity.
    There's 181,000 acres in this age class in Region One, 175 of
    those acres are in Montana alone.
        Under Title III, we are concerned about provisions limiting
    the use of streamlined NEPA in lands designated as critical
    habitat. Montana has roughly 3.6 million designated acres
    within the suitable base much of which is susceptible to
    catastrophic fire but it is important to add these lands to the
    mix.
        The need to treat fuels in dry and wet forest types is the
    same, communities surrounded by forest types that experience
    low frequency, high intensity wildfire are at the same for loss
    of life and property. Of the three things that drive wildfire,
    fuel, topography and weather, the only driver we can modify is
    fuel.
        The above-mentioned provisions address NEPA, timeliness and
    pace and scale. What it does not address is how to confront
    legal challenges affecting project implementation.
        Montana has suffered the effects of the timber wars for
    decades. In order to break the gridlock, local people
    representing diverse interests have gathered to find solutions
    to tough issues. Over the years roughly 30 collaboratives have
    formed. They're working together within a zone of agreement
    that includes restoring ecological function, offers economic
    stability and honors social values.
        Even so, fringe groups continue to challenge projects in
    court. Currently, there are 220 million board feet of timber in
    litigation, 45 million board feet in a notice of intent to sue
    and 202 million board feet over objection. This will impact
    51,000 acres. Projects under litigation alone affects 44,000
    truckloads of logs and thousands of jobs. Montana Wood Products
    Association suggests judicial reforms are needed.
        I'm about out of time so I will be happy--they're in our
    written statement. I'll be happy to offer that for further
    discussion.
        In closing, we do want to thank you for all your effort in
    bringing this draft discussion to us, and we know that the
    Forest Service is working hard to solve these problems, but
    they do need your help.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Altemus follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Altemus, we appreciate the
    specifics that you have offered the Committee.
        Ms. Humphries, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF BECKY HUMPHRIES, CHIEF CONSERVATION OFFICER,
                    NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION

        Ms. Humphries. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairwoman Murkowski. My name is Becky
    Humphries, and I am the Chief Conservation Officer for the
    National Wild Turkey Federation. In a prior life I was also the
    Agency Director in the State of Michigan that oversaw the
    management of a four-million-acre state forest system and the
    Wildlife Chief.
        The National Wild Turkey Federation is a nationwide, non-
    profit but we do on-the-ground conservation work. We were
    originally formed to restore the wild turkey to its original
    habitat in this country, but we now have shifted into save the
    habitat, save the hunt, and through this initiative we are a
    large partner with the U.S. Forest Service.
        We have state chapters in every state of the nation, and we
    also have a team of biologists and foresters that work on the
    landscape. We had one of the first stewardship agreements. We
    have a formal partnership with the U.S. Forest Service that was
    signed in 1986 and continues today, and we've delivered
    thousands of projects across the United States.
        We're a leader in stewardship contracting and even though
    we don't have a mill and do anything with the wood products,
    but through stewardship contracting we're consistently listed
    as one of the top ten timber buyers in the country. And a few
    years ago we were number five.
        We strongly support the discussion draft we have before us
    today. We appreciate the Committee is considering both a fix to
    fire borrowing and active management of our forests, because we
    feel very strongly that they go hand in glove. We must fix both
    if we're going to be successful.
        We strongly applaud active management. Wildlife biologists
    across this country know that diversity is the key to really
    good wildlife habitat out there. Wildlife takes food, water,
    shelter and space in order to live and active management
    creates that diversity on that landscape.
        Lack of proper management has resulted in species declines
    and in the Eastern United States, 59 percent of the birds
    species depending on young forests have declined over the last
    two decades. We have species like the golden winged warbler
    that's now a candidate for the Endangered Species Act. Ruffed
    grouse, that used to be very, very prevalent, have disappeared
    in the Midwest and in the Eastern United States. And the wild
    turkey population is declining. The gopher tortoise which is a
    keystone species and is found in pine savannahs is really,
    represents 360 other wildlife species on the landscape that it
    is needed by that habitat.
        In the Western U.S. we see similar situations where we
    manage for old growth we may benefit only 14 species, but while
    there are over 70 species that are dependent on those young
    forest types and we need to do more for those species.
        The U.S. Forest Service allocates funding and guidance to
    provide such young habitat but fire borrowing, as we've heard
    today, and our broken management system preclude us getting
    that work done. The pace of creating young forests needs to
    greatly increase if we're going to be successful.
        We appreciate the proposed fire borrowing fix. We have, as
    we look at the fire system on budgets you've heard today, over
    50 percent of it is going into fire suppression efforts. There
    are real consequences to this.
        When we look at some of the fire systems over the fires
    activities that have occurred, we've seen over 60 percent on
    some of our fire areas that are most fire prone and those have
    severely hampered our efforts.
        The rolling 10-year average as outlined in the bill is an
    improvement for sure, but we really need to freeze it, as we've
    talked about, so that we don't continue to erode the money
    that's available to do active management. We request the
    Committee consider using as a benchmark, the 10-year, the last
    10-year average for that and freeze it at that amount. We
    acknowledge that that's the jurisdiction of the Budget
    Committee and we ask you to move forward and work with them on
    trying to find a resolution to that.
        We strongly support collaboratives and the provisions in
    those of action/no action. We really think that can affect
    state agency's management capabilities on wildlife. And the
    National Wild Turkey Federation partners with every state
    wildlife agency across the state and that state/federal
    cooperation is really, really important. We think it will
    enhance that.
        We support collaboratives that qualify for expedited NEPA
    review, restricting alternatives reduces the overhead and it
    helps break some of the gridlock and the paralysis that we see
    in our system.
        Management needs to be returned to the professionals.
        In moving forward on a couple items, we strongly support
    the ponderosa pine forest and the dry sites and what we can do
    to help move that forward. We think that's good.
        Also, Tongass National Forest, we think it's reasonable and
    prudent to do that inventory. We don't want to slow down that
    process but we do think that maintaining our markets and the
    local economies is very important.
        Overall, we strongly applaud your efforts to move this
    forward.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Humphries follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Humphries, we appreciate it.
        Mr. Nelson, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF PETER NELSON, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR FOR FEDERAL
                      LANDS, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

        Mr. Nelson. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Senator Daines.
        My name is Pete Nelson. I'm a Senior Policy Advisor at
    Defenders of Wildlife where I manage our National Forest Policy
    Program. Thank you for inviting my testimony today.
        I've been professionally involved in National Forest
    science, policy and management for nearly 20 years. I'm a
    member of the Federal Advisory Committee overseeing
    implementation of the Forest Service's 2012 Planning Rule, and
    I'm also a member of the
    Beaverhead-Deerlodge Collaborative Working Group in Southwest
    Montana.
        We are in a new era of wildfire. A warming climate is
    drying out Western forests and leading to more and larger
    wildfires and a longer fire season. Just look at California and
    New Mexico today.
        However, existing policies and approaches are not adapted
    to this new reality. The wildfire budget is a prime example.
    The current budget structure is not capable of responding to
    today's wildfires and its costs spiral out of control. The
    wildfire budget consumes the very programs that are essential
    to sustaining communities and forests over the long-term.
    Without a comprehensive fix to that problem, anything else we
    try will be futile.
        We also need to make our forests more resilient to
    wildfire. A failure to do so risks losing all of the values
    they provide.
        And while we appreciate improved planning for at risk
    communities, wildfire risk mapping, prioritization within the
    Wildland Urban Interface, other management provisions in the
    discussion draft do not work and may, in fact, do more harm
    than good.
        You can't solve today's problems with yesterday's thinking.
    Proposals to bypass NEPA and undermine public and judicial
    review are outdated and ineffective. We need innovative
    approaches to forest restoration.
        Producing defensible restoration projects requires smarter,
    not less, analysis, and we simply can't legislate our way to
    good decisions.
        NEPA shortcuts aren't likely to yield better outcomes on
    the ground. For example, limiting analysis to action/no action
    alternatives may ignore better solutions while increasing the
    likelihood of making uninformed decisions. We can't afford
    taking that risk in places like community drinking watersheds
    for the sake of expediency.
        Meddling with NEPA is also divisive. A letter submitted to
    the Committee by dozens of conservation organizations, many of
    which are involved in collaborative restoration, highlights
    opposition to the discussion draft and specifically the
    controversial nature of some of the forest management and NEPA
    provisions. Such shortcuts can undermine ongoing collaborative
    restoration activities.
        I'm concerned that if we raise the level of controversy
    over forest restoration, we make the entire public lands
    management system more caustic, less resilient and diminish
    values for people, communities and forests.
        We need to build an approach to forest restoration that is
    adaptable to today's complex challenges. As someone who has
    been involved with forest collaboratives, I don't see a NEPA
    problem. I see a capacity and restoration planning problem. We
    need the resources and incentives to plan and implement forest
    restoration at a scale that can significantly improve
    conditions and achieve project level efficiencies. The success
    of the 4FRI project in Arizona demonstrates that large,
    landscape-level restoration programs can be accomplished under
    existing authorities. Other stand-out examples of this approach
    include the Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project in Oregon
    and the Blackfoot Swan Landscape Restoration Project in
    Montana's Southwest Crown.
        The proposed Ponderosa Pine Pilot Program reflects this new
    resiliency thinking. It makes sense to prioritize restoration
    in a forest type where we have a good understanding of
    restoration needs, science and practices. It also makes sense
    to prioritize risk reduction in the right places, like the
    Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Unfortunately, the pilot
    program goes down the wrong road in its use of an emergency
    circumstances framework for planning and implementing projects.
    The proposal authorizes the designation of preemptive emergency
    treatment zones where the normal rules for NEPA and judicial
    review don't apply. This may be unworkable.
        First, we don't think this scheme can be effectively
    applied because we simply don't have the scientific ability to
    predict where or when the next big wildfire will occur for the
    purposes of declaring an emergency situation. In addition,
    while we agree that grave risks to public safety warrant
    emergency response, non-imminent threats to other values do not
    justify jettisoning normal decisionmaking and judicial review
    standards.
        We also oppose the inclusion of the unrelated Tongass
    transition provision in a wildfire policy bill. The provision
    blocks a needed transition out of controversial old growth
    logging and toward a more diverse and resilient regional
    economy. It is inappropriate for Congress to upset a robust
    planning process when 165,000 individuals and organizations
    have participated in that effort. The Forest Service has the
    information to proceed with the plan amendment and now is the
    time for transition.
        Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
        Mr. Nichols, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF ERIC NICHOLS, PARTNER, ALCAN FOREST PRODUCTS AND
                            EVERGREEN TIMBER

        Mr. Nichols. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
        I've spent 40 years, the last 40 years, in the private side
    of the timber industry here. Twenty-five of those years have
    been in Alaska, the last 14 years as owner of timber companies
    in Alaska, buying and harvesting timber sales from land owners,
    including the U.S. Forest Service.
        The industry today is on the verge of going away due to
    lack of consistent timber supply. All federal and state timber
    sales are being delayed with litigation or appeals by
    environmental groups opposed to all timber harvest.
        The U.S. Forest Service, the timber industries, the
    communities of Southeast Alaska and even some conservation
    groups, all say they want a timber industry. The problem is you
    cannot have a viable timber industry without a land base for
    growing and harvesting timber.
        Prior to 1976, five million acres of the Tongass was
    managed for timber. By 1980, this was reduced to three million
    acres. The 2008 plan further reduced it to 663,000 acres, and
    now the new plan amendment will take it down to 251,000 acres
    of young growth forest. I was told by a conservation person, we
    do not have the timber available today because we cut it all.
        There are 16.8 million acres on the Tongass. Commercial
    grade forests make up 3.6 million acres. Four hundred twenty
    thousand acres have been previously harvested, and I think my
    math is pretty correct that we have 3.2 million acres of old
    growth timber remaining in the Tongass.
        The plan of the amendment will restrict the industry to
    251,000 acres of young growth and a small volume of old growth
    for niche markets. This is seven percent of the commercial
    timber acres and a little over one percent of the Tongass
    National Forest.
        The Forest Service and I think the State of Alaska have
    done a very good job in protecting our tourism. We have over
    one million people a year coming to Ketchikan on cruise ships,
    our salmon runs are strong with the fishing industry doing very
    well. We have no endangered species in the forest. But we have
    a timber industry with one small sawmill, four timber
    harvesting companies left and a handful of micro sawmills.
        Our rural communities are not doing well. From 2000 to
    2014, 22 of the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska have lost
    population. The plan amendment will forever change the timber
    industry in Southeast. Once it is in place it never gets better
    for the industry, only more restrictions as time goes forward
    so it cannot be undone. The plan has to work or there will be
    no timber industry.
        So to have a viable timber industry we have to have a
    consistent supply of economically viable timber sales. It's
    pretty simple, but not when you have declining land base for
    growing and harvesting timber and a rugged remote area with
    high cost and now only market commodity product to sell.
        My issues with the U.S. Forest Service. It does not know
    how many of the 250,000 acres of young growth we can harvest
    economically or legally. When we look at the Tongass, we look
    at the fall down acres. With the 250,000 acres we have changing
    regulations from when this was cut originally.
        We lose lands to visual constraints, additional fish
    streams will be found, carstone limestone islands will have to
    be protected, overly steep slopes cannot be cut a second time,
    additional protection for wildlife. We're also going to get
    fall down to do the economic viability, small isolated patches
    of timber suppress small timber stands, high elevation, high
    real costs and oil decreased.
        My fear is with the significant number of acres lost to
    fall down and especially in the old age class stands that we'll
    harvest with very few restrictions. My fear is the timber
    industry cannot be feasible with this amendment so it's best to
    finish the cruise, rerun the miles and see how much actual
    sustainable economic timber will be available.
        I would like to finish my testimony with the words from
    President Theodore Roosevelt who signed the legislation
    creating the Tongass National Forest. This is what he had to
    say about forest policy. ``You can never afford to forget for a
    moment what is the object of a forest policy. That is not to
    preserve the forest because they are beautiful, though that is
    good in itself, nor because they are refuge for the wild
    creatures of the wilderness, though that is good in itself. But
    the primary objective of our forest policy, as a land policy of
    the United States, is the making of prosperous homes.''
        Government legislation, rulemaking and administration of
    our national forest no longer resembles what these national
    forests were created for and set aside for management by the
    government. Our land management is broken and not serving the
    people well. It has to be fixed by sound forest management and
    not politics.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nichols, we appreciate it and
    appreciate your traveling a long way.
        Mr. Pimlott, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF KEN PIMLOTT, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
                      FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION

        Mr. Pimlott. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and
    Senator Daines. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
    on not only on behalf of California but my peers around the
    country through the National Association of State Foresters.
        As California's Chief of CAL Fire and State Forester, we're
    responsible for the protection of over 31 million acres of
    wildlands within the state. That's about one-third of the land
    base in California, and as we know is going currently on right
    now in the state, significant fire challenges.
        While it's no different across the West and the rest of the
    country, although land bases may differ, net 2014 statistics
    indicate that 80 percent of the fires fell within the
    jurisdictions of state and private lands and that of the state
    forestry agencies. So the states around the country, no
    different than in California, play a significant and key role
    in dealing with fire and forestry issues.
        I think the Committee obviously has a very clear handle on
    the fire and resource management and forest health challenges
    in the country. That's been clearly indicated this morning.
        Again, I will just emphasize that in California, the fire
    problem and forest management problem is real. As I speak we
    have five major fires now burning in the state and 4,600
    firefighters on the fire line. Just in the last week we've
    responded to over 250 fires and that's 2,000 fires just since
    January 1st.
        We're still within a significant drought which has gone on
    for the last five years, and like we talked about earlier in
    this hearing, record kinds of fires. We talked about that in
    Washington State. We've seen that in Colorado. California, just
    last year, had two of the top ten most damaging fires in the
    state's history.
        The fire challenge, the fire problem, is only getting
    worse, not just drought, changing climate, unmanaged or under-
    managed forests throughout the state both on federal and
    private lands are significantly, excuse me, contributing to the
    challenges that we're facing.
        When fires burn, 20,000 acres burn in just five hours.
    Those are the conditions that we are facing and will continue
    to face as we go into, again, another potentially disastrous
    fire season.
        In California this is exemplified now by significant tree
    mortality. Secretary Vilsack announced yesterday that over 66
    million trees in the central and southern Sierra have now
    succumbed to epidemic levels of insect mortality. We've seen
    this throughout the West in a number of Western states and now
    California has taken that challenge exponentially with multiple
    counties declaring localized or county level disasters. And
    then in October of last year, Governor Brown declared a
    statewide emergency proclamation to deal with this disaster.
        We're looking at this and collaborating through multiple
    means trying to address immediate life safety threats, but it's
    involving landscape level projects and activities with partners
    at all levels of government. Using tools such as the Good
    Neighbor Authority under the Farm bill allow us to reach across
    boundaries, to collaborate and get the biggest bang for the
    buck and leverage everything that we have to get the most work
    done and to make the biggest difference that we can.
        Fixing wildfire funding is key to all of this. As Under
    Secretary Bonnie indicated this morning and others, we continue
    to borrow money from other program areas that are critical to
    getting ahead of the problem. While we must maintain a robust
    response capability across this country, we can't under fund
    our federal agencies on the front end, we must ensure a strong
    response. The back end of this is when they continue to take
    money to keep that going from other programs, we're only going
    to continue to perpetuate lack of good forest management, lack
    of reducing fuels and continued fires like we're seeing right
    now.
        Discussions through this legislation, others regarding
    NEPA. Right now, California has over 125,000 acres of actually
    NEPA-ready projects in just three impacted national forests. We
    need the ability to leverage additional funding to get more
    work done in those areas and certainly would like to go forward
    and look at opportunities, working through the NEPA process, to
    see if we can't do more work and work through NEPA to get more
    work done and have the capacity to do just that.
        Looking at the Pine Pilot. It is critical. Much of the area
    being impacted in California are mixed-conifer forests. A
    significant component of those forests are ponderosa pine. We
    welcome the opportunities to look at a pilot project that
    addresses that.
        Fire risk mapping is also critical. We've worked as a
    state, along with many other states, in addressing and using
    that information to develop hazard maps and to identify land
    use planning potential. So certainly look at the opportunity to
    work together on that.
        And last, I will close with the, just recognizing that
    fires know no boundaries. So we, as organizations and first
    responders, state, federal or local should know and need to
    know, no boundaries.
        California learned that a long time ago when we had
    separate communications frequencies, separate terminology and
    we're working together. So it's very true, looking forward,
    working on joint process to look at processes and criteria that
    are agreed to by all agencies when we're sharing resources
    across boundaries.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pimlott follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Director Pimlott.
        Again, thank you to each of you for your contribution
    before the Committee today.
        I will yield first to Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, for having this hearing today.
        Julia and Peter, welcome as two fellow Montanans. It is
    good to have you both here.
        Julia, I wanted to echo your testimony about how
    devastating excessive regulations and unending litigation has
    been to Montana's wood products workforce and the health of our
    forests. My earlier comments regarding this devastating news
    coming from Weyerhaeuser last night, I think, really
    illustrates what is going on in Montana.
        Your observation that we are harvesting only 5 percent of
    dead trees and 4.5 percent of the annual growth is startling,
    especially considering that nearly seven million federally-
    controlled acres in Montana are at high risk for wildfires.
        My question is could you elaborate on how increasing active
    management is critical to both protecting wood product jobs
    and, importantly, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires
    in Montana and across many parts of the West?
        Ms. Altemus. Thank you for that question, Senator Daines, I
    would be happy to address it.
        Increasing management in Region One, specifically Montana,
    so the economic analysis for a million board feet is usually 11
    jobs are created for every one million board foot that's
    harvested. Now you can't just multiple that by, you know, the
    board feet that are or the inventory that's sitting on the
    landscape because a lot of those loggers are going to--they're
    going to their work and they're going to move to the next
    project and do the work. But it would impact hundreds of jobs.
    We're usually short, you know, 60 to 80 million board feet of
    timber a year. Just increasing it 60 to 80 million board feet,
    we would raise the capacity of the remaining mills to 100
    percent when right now, as I said, they're running at 50
    percent, one shift 60 percent. So, it's not a lot that we need.
    But it's critical that that raise is critical. So that
    addresses just the economics.
        But as far as getting at that seven million acres of dead
    and dying, it will continue to grow. It will continue to burn,
    and we will continue to eat up a majority of the fire budget if
    we don't address those issues.
        Senator Daines. So you have looked at the discussion draft.
    What provisions do you believe would be most helpful?
        It is already management and thereby creating the jobs,
    improving habitat, protecting the watersheds. I mean, we work
    with a lot of conservation groups, wildlife groups, the Rocky
    Mountain Elk Foundation, others, that want and are pushing for
    these kind of revisions. What do you think is most helpful?
        Ms. Altemus. Thank you, Senator.
        Well, again, you know, impediments to a success are
    certainly the capacity of the Forest Service. So they're under
    Title I, as far as the fire borrowing goes. If there were
    additional monies of unspent fire money that we could put back
    into hazardous fuel reduction projects, that would be very,
    very helpful. That's number one.
        Under Title III, some of the provisions, like the no
    action/action provision is, I believe, important. It works
    under HFRA. It works within the collaborative context as well
    so that one is important. I would suggest and in part of our
    written testimony is to add provisions under 106 of HFRA as far
    as balance of harms. That has been proven in court. That's not
    part of the discussion draft, but I would encourage you to look
    at that and add it.
        I'm not sure about the pilot. I mean, in Montana we do have
    dry pine, you know, we have mixed conifer and dry, mountain
    ponderosa pine forests, but honestly we have a lot of lodgepole
    pine. That's where the majority of our issues are. So, as I
    said in my testimony, dry forests are at risk, but wet forests
    in low frequency, but high intensity fires are also at risk.
    And so we would encourage you to think about that, changing
    those fuel loads as well.
        Senator Daines. Thanks for the input on that.
        I want to talk a little bit about litigation relief and the
    need for it.
        In your testimony you indicate that the hundreds of
    millions of board feet are encumbered by litigation. If Montana
    loggers and mills had faster, uninhibited access to that type
    of volume, roughly, how many Montana jobs could be sustained or
    possibly created?
        Ms. Altemus. Well, as I said in my testimony, just under
    litigation alone we've got about 44,000 truckloads that could
    be impacted. Not all of that is under preliminary injunction.
    Some can move forward. A lot of it is not being advertised.
        But if we could at least acknowledge that we have a
    problem, because it's been difficult for some folks in Congress
    to acknowledge or in the Forest Service to acknowledge that we
    have a problem, and then work together to find a path forward
    to resolving that that doesn't require opening up equal access
    to justice or other things.
        There's other things that we can do that I have in my
    written testimony that, I think, are good for discussion.
        But as far as the jobs, again, you can't just do that
    multiplier, but it would be probably in the neighborhood of 300
    or 400 jobs.
        Senator Daines. Right.
        Ms. Altemus. And we lost 500 last year.
        Senator Daines. Yes.
        Ms. Altemus. And we're going to lose 200 this year.
        Senator Daines. Thank you for quantifying it out.
        Peter, thanks for coming from Montana. I do appreciate your
    participation in working with the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
    Collaborative Working Group. I have been a proponent of
    collaborative efforts. Thank you for that.
        As I previously noted, there are 21 active lawsuits going
    on in Montana with 13 on projects that were developed through
    the collaborative process and nearly all of them involve groups
    that are not part of the collaborative process. They are fringe
    groups that come in here after the fact.
        Notwithstanding your concerns, I respect them, with some of
    the management proposals put forth in this draft, do you
    acknowledge that litigation is a problem in Montana and has
    undermined the work of collaboratives and has slowed important
    restoration work to our national forests?
        Mr. Nelson. Thanks, Senator.
        It's good to be around so many Montanans.
        We have challenges. We have challenges in Montana, and we
    have challenges nationally. Many of them are capacity related.
        On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, I think, we're limited in our
    ID team's ability to go out and analyze, get projects ready.
    We've seen all sorts of capacity and resource challenges there.
    People are frustrated. I've worked with members of your staff,
    members of the Montana Wood Products Association and the Forest
    Service are frustrated. People are frustrated.
        Senator Daines. Just so you know, you work in a
    collaborative process.
        Mr. Nelson. I do.
        Senator Daines. I appreciate that. Again, we have got 13 of
    the 21 lawsuits are again--
        Mr. Nelson. Collaborative process.
        Senator Daines. Do you think litigation encumbers us?
        Mr. Nelson. The collaborative processes can lead to better
    decisions, more durable decisions.
        Senator Daines. Does the litigation encumber that?
        Mr. Nelson. Winning decisions.
        Senator Daines. Is the litigation, do you think it slows us
    down or encumbers us, the collaborative process?
        Mr. Nelson. Litigation plays a role in the system and--
        Senator Daines. So you say it does not slow us down? It is
    not slowing us down getting the collaborative projects approved
    and--
        Mr. Nelson. Compared to what may normally happen, I suppose
    it does. You could say that it slows us down. But you know
    Montanans care about their public lands. We need to keep these
    processes open. This is a challenge. We have--people are
    frustrated. I hear that from you, and I hear that. We want to
    get the work done. We're working with the Farm bill
    authorities. We have a CE moving up outside of Butte. We're
    trying to get work done. People are rolling up their sleeves.
    This is not easy. We're committed to doing this work.
        My fear is that if we come in too strong on this we're
    going to see more conflict, in fact. And so, I just have to
    urge caution.
        Senator Daines. Okay.
        Mr. Nelson. About where you're going with that line of
    questioning because caution is--
        Senator Daines. Well the disruption right now is we have
    collaborative processes. They are moving through. The
    disruption is after we have moved through long, collaborative,
    unifying processes, fringe groups come in at the end and file
    suits and basically stop all the progress we have made of
    collaboratives. That is the frustration.
        Mr. Nelson. Collaboratives have to develop winning
    solutions that are durable, based on best science and can move
    forward and be implemented. That's the strength of the
    collaborative process.
        Senator Daines. I am way over my time.
        Mr. Nelson. It allows us to do that.
        Senator Daines. I yield back to the Chairman.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines, I allowed for additional time
    here.
        Mr. Nelson. I appreciate the exchange.
        The Chairman. I think the bottom line is that litigation
    delays, and sometimes litigation is intended to do nothing more
    than delay. I think my friend and colleague from Montana sees
    that. We certainly see that in Alaska. You express frustration.
    Boy, be on the receiving end of it.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to thank Mr. Nelson for his comments about NEPA and
    the challenges that we would face if we made the changes that
    are in the draft, that it could lead to more complexity than we
    realize.
        I certainly understand the Senator from Montana's
    frustration because we have a lot of collaboratives that have
    worked in our state too. I want to give Senator Daines
    something before you leave, but you can--I will leave it right
    here so that we don't--okay, you can grab it right now. Thank
    you.
        I think the issue for me is this research that has been
    done on the Pine Pilot. I don't know if Mr. Pimlott or Mr.
    Nelson or Mr. Goldmark, you want to comment on--not that I am
    excluding anybody else from commenting on it, but Cal Poly
    University released some findings on how much of the fire risk
    you would reduce by reducing some of that fuel. Their number
    was so large that I don't even know how to get my head around
    it. It is pretty hard when you think about what happened in the
    Carlton Complex to think that just some fuel reduction might
    have prevented 100 million acres in one afternoon from being
    destroyed. Nonetheless, we now have some research that does
    show that this kind of fuel reduction is making an impact.
        So I wanted to hear about any of those real-life examples
    that you know about. Dr. Goldmark can talk about the Carpenter
    Road fire in Wenatchee where we made some forest improvements
    ahead of time. Mr. Pimlott, are there any of these areas where
    you have actually seen the fuel reduction work? What the
    researchers are trying to highlight in this science that was
    released by the University is that if treatments are done
    strategically, you are reducing the size of the fire. And
    knowing that the conditions are so explosive, I think this is
    what we have to aim for. And so, I didn't know if you wanted to
    give some, maybe, real-life examples of that.
        Dr. Goldmark. So thank you for that question, Senator
    Cantwell.
        We've had many large fires, as you know, in the State of
    Washington, and both the fire seasons of 2014 and 2015 have set
    new records. As a matter of fact, I have recently toured the
    Tripod fire which occurred in 2006, a 180,000-acre fire that
    cost $180 million to suppress. In that fire, which was a very
    large fire, as well as the Carlton fire and others where there
    has been active management before the fire, it has a
    demonstrable impact on the severity of the fire. In many cases,
    the fire doesn't even penetrate those areas that have been
    managed. It is not a guarantee, but the single best thing that
    we can do in advance of fire is to do the fuel reduction work
    and the prescribed fire work to take away the fuel that the
    fire would need to pass through that forest.
        So, I'm wholly supportive of the Pine Pilot Project. I
    think restoration is one of the critical steps that we must
    take to help make our forests more resilient.
        Senator Cantwell. Do you have an idea of what some of those
    restoration projects might have done? It is hard to categorize,
    but they are coming up with a pretty big number. They are
    saying you could have as big as a 50 percent reduction in the
    fire by doing the right kinds of treatment. Is that something,
    Mr. Pimlott, that you think?
        Mr. Pimlott. I think it is certainly a possibility, and I
    think the language in the discussion draft really is an
    opportunity for us to test that model.
        I think absolutely, having been a Forester for 30 years
    now, preaching active engagement in forest management. We've
    got several examples in the Sierra where thinning from below,
    thinning that reduces the number of smaller trees in the forest
    stand, has actually kept the fire to a lower intensity, which
    not only protected the forest, but communities.
        And earlier I failed to show a slide, but and you may have
    trouble seeing it from up there, but a picture tells a thousand
    words.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This is the Central Sierra a year ago and just this spring,
    and what you're seeing is tree mortality. Almost an entire
    mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine stand completely decimated, not
    by fire yet, by insect mortality.
        And so, forest management, particularly thinning and this
    pilot project, can have us start looking. It's not just
    reducing the fire intensity, but it's active forest management
    for forest health which reduces the impact and potential for
    epidemic insect outbreaks,
    et cetera. So absolutely engaging in forest management,
    including the pilot project. We'd certainly love to see some
    pilot projects in California.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        We have gone over the time that I had promised we would be
    adjourning the panel, but I do have a question for Mr. Nichols
    and this relates to the TAC recommendations relating to the
    inventory.
        You served on the Tongass Advisory Committee, so I am going
    to rely on you for a little background on how the transition
    and the inventory, really, came together within those
    discussions.
        In my questioning to Mr. Bonnie I made clear, or read the
    statement from the TAC, about the inventory being the number
    one priority. He seems to suggest, and actually he did state,
    that the Forest Service will have all the data that it needs to
    guarantee the success, apparently, of a young growth transition
    by the end of this summer's survey on Prince of Wales and
    indicated that there can be this parallel track, if you will,
    that the inventory has begun. We appreciate that, but that it
    can go alongside the forest plan amendment process.
        Can you please speak to why it was important that the TAC
    recommend a comprehensive stand level inventory? Also, further
    to the point, has anything changed since January 21 when that
    statement was pretty conclusively made that it remains the
    number one priority? Then is it possible that the Forest
    Service will have all that it needs in terms of an inventory
    when it completes the review this summer?
        Mr. Nichols. You know, I spent 18 months on the TAC, so it
    seems like a lifetime to me, but basically there were two
    pieces to that.
        The first piece was we knew there was going to be fall down
    acres. When you look at the old growth stands they lose about
    60 percent of the stand's acres when they try and put a timber
    sale together. So we knew we would have some acres lost in the
    young growth. We'd spent some time in the field with a fish
    biologist. She showed the streams that were logged through in
    the beginning that will have to be protected. So we know we're
    going to get some fall down. So we knew in our models we could
    not get an answer from the Forest Service on what kind of fall
    down to use. So in our modeling that we did, we did no fall
    down acres. So we used the 250,000 acres the Forest Service
    has. That was the first point.
        The second point was the conservation community was pushing
    hard for absolute dates on ending old growth, and we couldn't
    give it to them. We did not have the information because one of
    the things that we agreed to in this TAC was that for every
    acre of young growth we would stop harvesting acre old growth.
    But that went vice versa too. The vice versa was that for every
    acre of young growth you did not get you had to do more old
    growth. So for the first time there was, kind of, a leverage
    there on both sides of that there.
        So the TAC, when Bonnie came to Ketchikan, the TAC knew we
    had to have a better inventory. There just was not enough
    information there.
        I attended a meeting here last week. The Forest Service has
    50,000 acres of information on 250,000 acres. They're blowing
    that up over the other 250,000 acres. The land is highly
    variable. They will tell you it's highly variable. They do not
    have enough information.
        The TAC position was that we needed that information from
    an inventory because we had to make final decisions on when to
    stop the old growth harvest. And we just couldn't do that. We
    just did not have enough information to make that decision.
        The other thing is the acres left in this plan amendment
    are so low that if we lose part of those acres to this fall
    down or to the uneconomic ability, there will not be a timber
    industry. There will not be enough acres left of harvestable
    timber to be able to maintain any kind of industry in Southeast
    Alaska.
        The Chairman. So that is the reason why we have to get this
    inventory correct?
        Mr. Nichols. You only have one time. We can't undo it.
        As you guys have seen in all this federal legislation, it
    never gets undone. So if we make a mistake now, there will be
    no timber industry. The communities in Southeast Alaska will
    suffer greatly because of it.
        The Chairman. So the TAC continues to recommend a
    comprehensive stand level inventory. That has not changed?
        Mr. Nichols. That has not changed a bit.
        The Chairman. And as far as this parallel track that has
    been suggested that we can move forward with the forest plan
    amendment process while at the same time conducting an
    inventory. Does that work or not work?
        Mr. Nichols. Well, from the industry side what I see out
    there today is that the TAC made some very strong
    recommendations. The Forest Service only took part of those
    recommendations. They did not take them all. The timber sales
    they're working on today do not follow the TAC recommendations,
    so there was going to be a downfall in the amount of young
    growth available as they don't intensively manage or
    intentionally harvest these stands. So what we see since the
    TAC recommendation today is that the Forest Service has still
    not implemented the on the ground, the recommendations that
    we've made, and those are difficult recommendations. And that's
    what's going to determine whether this thing will work or not.
    But right now we do not see where there is a will to get the
    recommendations in place.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Well, we are going to continue to push to make sure that we
    have a firm understanding.
        It has been suggested that somehow or other my motivation
    is to delay the forest plan amendment, delay it indefinitely.
    My intention is not to delay the plan. My intention is to make
    sure that that plan is based on the true facts on the ground, a
    true, honest understanding as to what our inventory is that
    will allow us to base the decisions on good, grounded science
    that will allow us to get it right because, as you have
    suggested, we have got one opportunity to get it right.
        I appreciate the work that you and others have done on the
    TAC. I know it is not easy. I know it has been difficult, but I
    appreciate the good work. I also appreciate you recognizing
    that, in fact, all the recommendations from the TAC were not
    put into play. Again, thank you for what you have done in
    helping to advance these very important issues.
        With that, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the extra
    time that you have given us and the Committee as well.
        As we continue to work to refine this draft proposal we
    would certainly welcome and encourage your continued input if
    members have questions for the record. We will make sure that
    we get them out to you quickly.
        Again, thank you for being here. The Committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]