[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]