    [Senate Hearing 114-400]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                              S Hrg 114-400

             PENDING PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS AND MINING

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                     S. 132

                                     S. 326

                                     S. 1691

                                   __________

                                 JULY 16, 2015

    [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://fdsysgov
                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    98-906                         WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                            JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO                 RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       DEBBIE STABENOW
    MIKE LEE                             AL FRANKEN
    STEVE DAINES                         JOE MANCHIN III
    BILL CASSIDY                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN HOEVEN                          ELIZABETH WARREN
    JEFF FLAKE
    LAMAR ALEXANDER
                        Karen K. Billups, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director
                Angela Becker-Dippman, 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
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator
      from Wyoming...................................................     1
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator
      from Oregon....................................................     5

                                    WITNESS

    Tidwell, Chief Thomas, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
      Agriculture....................................................     8
    Ellis, Steven, Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................    24
    Matz, Mike, Director, U.S. Public Lands, The Pew Charitable
      Trusts.........................................................    37
    Neiman, Jim, Vice President and CEO, Neiman Enterprises, Inc.....    45
    Swanson, Steve, President & CEO, Swanson Group, Inc..............    54

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Association of O & C Counties:
        Letter for the Record........................................   283
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Bear, Dinah:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   287
    Board of Commissioners for Tillamook County, Oregon:
        Letter for the Record........................................   285
    Ellis, Steven:
        Opening Statement............................................    24
        Written Testimony............................................    26
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   271
    Flake, Hon. Jeff:
        Statement for the Record.....................................     4
    Matz, Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................    37
        Written Testimony............................................    39
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   276
    Mealey, Stephen:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   293
    National Association of State Foresters:
        Letter for the Record........................................   297
    (The) National Wild Turkey Federation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   299
    Neiman, Jim:
        Opening Statement............................................    45
        Written Testimony............................................    47
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   278
    (The) Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef
      Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   307
    S. 132, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2015.........    73
    S. 326, the Stewardship End Result Contracting Improvement Act...   230
    S. 1691, the National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015...   235
    Swanson, Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................    54
        Written Testimony............................................    56
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   280
    Tidwell, Chief Thomas:
        Opening Statement............................................     8
        Written Testimony............................................    10
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   259
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service:
        Letter for the Record........................................   308
    U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management:
        Letter for the Record........................................   309
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   310
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     5

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=B054D01C-6EDB-4662-
    B224-808F4F932A66

             PENDING PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, July 16, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
              Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 pm in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John
    Barrasso, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
    three bills all on the important topic of forest management.
        For decades our national forests and our rural and forested
    communities had a mutually beneficial relationship, largely
    focused on timber production. It created good paying jobs to
    support families. It reduced wildfire fuel loads and created
    wildlife habitat. It generated income that could be shared with
    communities to provide such essential services as roads,
    schools and law enforcement.
        This all began to change in the late 1980s and 1990s.
    Across the United States timber harvests from Federal forested
    lands fell by more than eight billion board feet, a decline of
    more than 80 percent. This abrupt drop in production levels was
    the result of numerous constraints on harvesting timber,
    including timber sales litigation and the listing of threatened
    and endangered species.
        Mills shuttered their operations and timber processing
    capacity in Wyoming and in other Western states was lost. Our
    once vibrant rural and forested communities were no more.
    Populations declined, schools closed and double digit
    unemployment became the new normal. The few mills that were
    able to survive continue to struggle to keep going given the
    uncertainty of supply.
        I would like to welcome Jim Neiman, one of these mill
    owners, headquartered in Hulett, Wyoming, to the Committee.
        We now have rural and forested communities across the West
    dependent upon Federal subsidies like Secure Rural Schools to
    provide basic services. Secure Rural Schools subsidies are not
    sustainable nor are they the long-term solution that rural
    counties need.
        Reducing timber production also negatively impacted the
    health of our forests. The lack of active forest management
    coupled with a policy of fire exclusion created the perfect
    storm for catastrophic, unnatural wildfire. According to the
    Forest Service between 62 and 82 million acres are in need of
    treatment and at risk of catastrophic wildfire. That is over 40
    percent of the entire national forest system and the number is
    growing.
        I am not suggesting we turn back the clock to the so-called
    timber heydays. That is not realistic, but we cannot allow the
    status quo to continue. Congress must act for the health of our
    forests and for the survival of our communities. A number of
    actions are necessary.
        We hear most often about the escalating costs of wildfire
    suppression and how year after year the agencies are forced to
    tap existing non-fire accounts. Congress must end the practice
    of fire borrowing. We cannot continue borrowing money to fight
    fires from the very accounts that help reduce the risk and the
    cost of wildfire. Instead, Congress must responsibly budget for
    wildfire management without resorting to budget gimmicks. The
    Senate Interior Appropriations bill provides a fiscally
    responsible approach that ends fire borrowing. I commend
    Senator Murkowski for advancing a reasonable solution on this
    difficult issue.
        To be clear, our forest management problem is not simply a
    fire budgeting or money problem. It is a prioritization
    problem. Right now I see no higher priority for the Forest
    Service than treating our forests to make them healthy again.
    Treating our forests is the best medicine we have to reduce
    fire risk, to bring down the cost of fighting fire over time
    and to continue to provide recreation, clean water and quality
    habitat for wildlife. It is the only sustainable way to provide
    the jobs and economic activity our rural and forested
    communities desperately need.
        My bill, S. 1691, makes treating our forests the priority
    it needs to be. Congress must help the Forest Service get
    treatments implemented at the same pace and scale fire and
    other disturbances are occurring.
        A 2007 Forest Service NEPA Feasibility Analysis determined
    that the best estimated average for environmental review cost
    was $365 million a year. In addition to the excess costs, these
    environmental reviews take far too long to complete, if they
    are completed at all. The Forest Service estimates that, on
    average, it takes over three years to prepare an environmental
    impact statement and nearly two years to prepare an
    environmental assessment.
        Given the crisis situation in our forests this is wasted
    time, wasted taxpayer money and wasted staff hours that we
    cannot afford to spare. Excessive environmental analyses are
    only a lightning strike away from hurting, not helping, our
    national forests.
        My bill would restore rationality to the NEPA process
    without eliminating environmental reviews or public
    involvement. It also provides categorical exclusions for
    certain types of needed forest projects to get them implemented
    more quickly.
        To further address the ever present threat of litigation,
    the bill offers arbitration as an alternative dispute
    resolution tool. The use of arbitration by the Secretary would
    be totally discretionary and limited in scope.
        S. 1691 would also deter extraneous lawsuits by requiring a
    bond to be posted covering the cost of the Forest Service to
    defend the lawsuit. This may seem harsh to some, but it has
    existed on tribal lands without incident.
        I am hopeful we can work together, this Committee and this
    Administration, to enhance the legislation and end the status
    quo. The very health of our forests, our watersheds, our
    wildlife and our communities depend on it.
        I also want to briefly touch on the other bills we have on
    the agenda.
        S. 132 is Senator Wyden's Oregon and California Lands bill.
    I know that resolving the challenges associated with the
    management of the O and C lands is something that Senator Wyden
    is very committed to.
        I do have some concerns with the bill as drafted. My
    concern is that it locks up nearly a million acres in various
    land conservation designations including wilderness, and I also
    understand it lacks the support from the local communities. I
    do want to work with Senator Wyden on O and C, and I am hopeful
    we can get there.
        We also have S. 326, Senator Flake's Stewardship End Result
    Contracting Act. This Committee, in the 113th Congress,
    reported out S. 1300 which reauthorized and made improvements
    to the Stewardship Contracting Authority. The 2014 Farm bill
    included many of the provisions of S. 1300 but did not
    incorporate the cancellation ceiling modifications. Senator
    Flake's bill would address that issue. It is a bipartisan bill,
    and I am glad that we could include it in the hearing today.
    Senator Flake is chairing a hearing in the Foreign Relations
    Committee at this time and is unable to attend the hearing, so
    I ask unanimous consent that his statement be entered into the
    record.
        With no objection, it is so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. With that, I want to thank our witnesses
    for being here, and turn to Senator Wyden for his opening
    remarks.

         STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very
    much appreciate your holding the hearing, your typical courtesy
    with respect to Oregonians.
        We have two witnesses here. I guess they are the Steves,
    Steve Ellis and Steve Swanson. Mr. Swanson, his mill burned
    down. He is rebuilding. It seems to me it is almost a microcosm
    of the challenge: rebuilding a mill, providing good paying jobs
    in rural areas in a tough, global economy. So we are really
    glad to have both the Steves. Steve Swanson, I think,
    personifies part of the picture that we are going to hear more
    about in the days ahead about how tough it is to compete in
    this tough, global economy.
        Two quick comments with respect to issues that Chairman
    Barrasso touched on.
        First, we authored the Safety Net Program in this room.
    This room saw that enacted in 2000. My own view is, and we have
    asked in the past for agencies to give us numbers to this
    effect, that the challenge in the days ahead is going to
    require both of these programs. There is no conceivable
    strategy and the Chief is here and he is nodding. Let the
    record show that the Chief started to nod. [Laughter.]
        Senator Wyden.There is no conceivable strategy where you
    get the harvest up so high that there is no need for a safety
    net, so my hope is that we can increase the harvest in a
    sustainable manner and also continue a program that began in
    this room in a bipartisan way. That is the Safety Net program.
    I just look at the numbers, and I do not see how we are going
    to be able to meet the needs of rural communities without both.
    That is point number one.
        Point number two, picking up on something you and I have
    talked about, Mr. Chairman, increasing the harvest in a
    sustainable way is a hugely important forest health issue. Gosh
    do we need this right now, because we are looking at the
    prospect all over this country of a devastating fire season. It
    is incredibly dry. It gets hot. You have a lightning strike in
    our part of the world, and all of a sudden you have an inferno
    on your hands. It has produced a lot of other things like fire
    borrowing which Senator Crapo and I with 250 organizations are
    trying to stop. I am very much looking forward to this kind of
    discussion both as it relates to increasing harvest while we
    also have the safety net and the forest health issue.
        A few comments with respect to the O and C land which, of
    course, is overseen by the Bureau of Land Management.
        My constituents want a balanced solution, and they think it
    is urgent. As of today there is only one bill out there, one
    bill, on this subject, and that is the bill that we are going
    to be discussing today.
        The bill applies updated forest management practices to
    about 2.8 million acres of truly unique O and C lands in my
    state. They have a story rich in history going back to the turn
    of the last century with a highlight being the 1937 O and C Act
    which puts together, what we consider to be, sort of, a
    checkerboard of public lands mixed in with private lands across
    18 Oregon counties. The lands are now managed under the 1994
    Northwest Forest Plan. Obviously the landscape has changed
    plenty in the last 20 years, but over the last 20 years we
    still have some of the same concerns. We are still concerned
    about the harvest; we are still concerned about watershed
    health, wildlife habitat, wildfire prevention; and, our mills
    and the counties that host O and C lands are waiting for
    Federal, land-based logs and the revenue they generate.
        This legislation we are going to discuss today, in my view,
    is going to jump start local economies, create certainty for
    mill owners in rural communities and lock in protections for
    some of Oregon's most treasured protections that almost every
    resident I see would like to protect. The legislation was
    originally introduced in 2013 after working with people from
    the timber industry, environmental leaders, scientists, and
    others. So it is, at least in my view, a place to begin to try
    to find common ground, identify the problems and find balanced
    solutions.
        The bill protects 1.6 million acres as conservation
    emphasis areas as well as safeguards old growth trees and
    riparian protections. At the same time it designates about 1.2
    million acres as forestry emphasis areas which will lead to a
    sustainable harvest of approximately 400 million board feet of
    timber a year for 50 years. We have worked with the Forest
    Service and the BLM on it, so we would like them to testify on
    that point today.
        Over the past two years we have gotten a lot of feedback
    dealing with an issue like this. There are folks on the
    environmental side who say it cuts too much, and the people in
    the logging industry who say it doesn't cut enough.
        My own view of tough natural resources issues, and the
    Chairman knows we've dealt with a lot of them in this room, is
    that in a tough contentious debate about natural resources
    nobody gets what they want. Nobody gets what they believe they
    ought to have. The question is can they get enough to
    essentially meet their needs? That is what we have sought to do
    in this legislation that we are considering today.
        Unlike other forestry proposals, my approach would not only
    double the harvest compared to the average harvest over the
    last decade: it protects lands for conservation and bedrock
    environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act. The best
    forestry scientists in the Northwest, Jerry Franklin and Norman
    Johnson, who know the woods about as well as anybody on the
    planet, have given us invaluable counsel on it.
        We understand that it is not going to be unanimous when you
    take a vote on something like this, so we are continuing to
    have discussions with all concerned: forest products officials,
    conservation groups, local governmental leaders and
    recreational interests. Ideological extremes are not going to
    get the rural West and rural Oregon to a solution.
        Without compromise our forests are going to continue to
    remain locked up due to lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit.
    Management will be stalled, and the health of forests will
    continue to diminish. So my take on the bill we are going to
    discuss today is that it is a true compromise. A compromise
    that can save jobs and create more. A compromise that gets you
    a reliable harvest. A compromise that gets you 87,000 acres of
    wilderness and provides the first ever legislative protections
    for old growth, O and C old growth, and O and C streams.
        It also provides an opportunity to manage the forests
    sustainably and responsibly so we can enjoy them for
    generations. As the Chairman correctly said, my state and the
    rural West is not going to go back to the days of billion board
    foot clear cuts. The country does not want that. Rural
    communities do not want it.
        It is time to take the management of forests out of the
    courtroom and put it back into the hands of forestry and
    conservation professionals. We are going to rely on the best
    available science. We want a bipartisan approach. We want a
    collaborative approach. The legislation we will discuss today
    starts us down the path.
        Mr. Chairman, if I can just begin the apology-arama, the
    key plane to get to Oregon where I have to be in the rural part
    of the state to discuss what we are going to do about fire
    borrowing and the issues we are going to be talking about today
    leaves not too long from the time our friends have finished
    testifying, so I want to apologize in advance about the bad
    manners.
        Westerners always know more about plane schedules. I am
    looking at Senator Heinrich and my colleague from Montana, why
    we know more about plane schedules than anybody around is
    simply because of the challenge of getting home, for example,
    at rural town meetings in Lake View and places like that,
    Steve. So I want to apologize to our guests for bad manners.
        We are going to work very closely with you. The Chairman
    wants to work on this issue intensively, and I think that is
    very constructive. I look forward to doing it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you.
        Just following up on your comments, Senator Wyden, and
    those of us from the West try to get home just about every
    weekend and I know we are going to try to do it again this
    weekend. It is close. It is Frontier Days in Cheyenne, so I am
    looking forward to the Daddy of them all.
        With that we have people here to testify, witnesses. Mr.
    Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; Mr. Steve
    Ellis, Deputy Director of Operations for the Bureau of Land
    Management; Mr. Mike Matz, the Director of Public Lands for the
    Pew Charitable Trust; Mr. Jim Neiman, Vice President and CEO of
    Neiman Enterprises; and Mr. Steve Swanson, President and CEO
    for the Swanson Group.
        At the end of the witness testimony we will begin
    questions. Your full written testimony will be made part of the
    official record, so please try to keep your statements to five
    minutes so that we may have time for questions.
        We look forward to hearing your testimony beginning with
    Chief Tidwell.

     STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Tidwell. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden,
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on these three bills today.
        I'll start with Senate bill 1691. We welcome legislation
    that provides incentives for collaboration and expands our tool
    set to be able to restore and maintain ecological resiliency of
    our fires, but without eroding the public trust that we have
    been able to build over the years, those along with the
    assurance that's provided by environmental laws.
        With this legislation as written, we oppose this bill
    primarily because of concerns with the bonding requirement, the
    mandated acreage targets and the design and scale of the
    categorical exclusions.
        The bonding requirement is problematic, you know, and I'm
    not sure that it will actually meet your objectives. However,
    giving the Secretary the discretion to be able to use
    arbitration is something that we would like to work with you on
    to be able to use that, and I believe that that may have the
    opportunity to be able to address some of the concerns that
    drives this need for the bonding requirement.
        There's no question we need to do more work. We're on
    record. You quote our numbers about the work that needs to be
    done to be able to restore our forests, but the last thing we
    need to do is create more controversy.
        We have a great track record going. Year after year we
    continue to treat more acres, produce more outputs, and I want
    us to be able to build on that track record.
        With mandating acres, and I definitely can understand the
    interest and the need for doing that, but just a mandate that
    doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get more work. And I'm
    worried that it will create more controversy and opposition
    with those that believe that we're doing it just because we're
    directed through legislation verses being able to do it because
    it's what the land needs.
        With your CE categories, we use a lot of CEs. In fact, the
    majority of our work now is done through categorical exclusions
    (CE). And if we have the right scale with the right level of
    assurances around CEs similar to what you did with the Farm
    bill, the CE in the Farm bill, then we have a good track record
    of being able to work with our collaboratives to be able to get
    work done through those CEs. But it's absolutely essential that
    we find a way to be able to maintain the public trust otherwise
    what I'm concerned about is that we will just create more
    opposition, more conflict and that the use of CEs will either
    slow down the work or we will not be able to implement those
    projects.
        I appreciate the interest here to be able to expand our
    tool set. I think there's some opportunities here where we can
    accomplish that, and we look forward to working with you to be
    able to address our concerns.
        With Senate bill 132, Senator Wyden, the Department
    supports the bill's proposals for the wilderness designation
    and wild and scenic river designations with a few technical
    changes that we propose in our legislation. But I do have
    concerns about the conveyance of the 308,000 acres of land. I
    understand the purpose for that, but I'm concerned that by--as
    I understand the criteria, the lands that would need to be
    identified could be spread all over multiple forests and
    actually create more of this checkerboard situation that we
    have. The other concern that I have is that we made the
    commitment with our communities to manage these lands and their
    multiple use through following through our forest plans, and
    this would shift that. And it's a concern that I have.
        You know that we want to do more work. We want to be able
    to restore this. We want to be able to increase the acres
    treated. We want to be able to increase the amount of timber
    that's being produced to support jobs in these communities, so
    we want to work with you on how to be able to do that in a way
    that also addresses our concerns about this conveyance.
        And then last on Senator Flake's bill on S. 326, we
    appreciate the efforts to be able to give us more flexibility
    with our end result stewardship contracting process. Where we--
    our current requirement around cancellation ceilings definitely
    is, it's creating a reluctance in our work force to be able to
    use this because the amount of money that has to be set aside
    for these type of projects. And I really appreciate the work
    around this; however, there are concerns with the impacts it
    would have on some key budget laws, the budgeting processes. So
    I would ask, if it's possible, if we could get our budget
    experts from the Administration to be able to sit down with the
    staff to be able to find a way to be able to address those
    concerns so that we can move forward and have the additional
    flexibility but at the same time, you know, honor the concerns
    they have with our budget processes.
        In closing, just quickly, once again I appreciate the
    efforts here. But I have to stress the largest impediment that
    we have right now from being able to get more work done is
    around the cost of wild land fire suppression. I appreciate the
    support to stop the borrowing, the transfer of funds, but I
    also need to ask you to address the ten-year average situation.
    Senators Wyden and Crapo's bill does that. It slows down the
    growth of the ten-year average. It also provides a significant
    amount of free board in our budget constraint to allow us to be
    more proactive to this.
        But I just need to share with you, just between FY'15 and
    FY'16 our ten-year average has gone up $115 million. Over the
    next few years we have two more low years in that ten-year
    averages that are going to come off. And so over the next few
    years we're going to have to be looking for another couple $100
    million to come out of the rest of our budget. So thank you for
    taking this issue on. That is going to remain our number one
    priority is to be able to address both the ten-year average and
    borrowing.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Chief Tidwell.
        Mr. Ellis?

      STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
       BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Wyden and members of the Subcommittee.
        I'm here to present the Interior Department's testimony on
    Senate bill 132, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act of
    2015, and Senate, S. 326, the Stewardship End Result
    Contracting Improvement Act. And my oral statements here will
    briefly summarize written testimony.
        Senate 132 is a complex bill. It concerns BLM lands in
    Western Oregon, known as the O and C lands. It would establish
    new designations and principles for managing these O and C
    lands.
        The transfer of lands into trust status for the benefit to
    tribes is another part of the legislation, amend the Coquille
    Restoration Act and establish new conservation designations in
    Western Oregon.
        The Department of Interior appreciates the Ranking Member's
    work in developing this legislation. We support many goals of
    the bill, support Title III and would like to work with the
    sponsor and the Committee on some amendments to Title I and II.
        We do have some concerns with the bill as it's currently
    drafted. We are committed to continuing to work with you, the
    sponsors, to address them as we further develop this proposal.
        The 1937 O and C Act that placed 2.2 million checkerboard
    acres of Oregon/California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road
    grants lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of
    Interior. In addition to the O and C lands the BLM manages over
    200,000 acres of public domain forest. We call them our PD
    lands in Western Oregon.
        The BLM's management involves complex and legislative
    frameworks and resource management goals including predictable
    and sustainable yield of timber, endangered species habitat,
    clean water and providing recreational opportunities.
        We are currently revising the 1995 Resource Management
    Plans that govern management of the O and C lands. We have
    actively sought the engagement of stakeholders and the public,
    and we're going to continue to strive for a cooperative
    approach to the complex issues in managing these O and C lands.
        Title I of Senate 132 provides guidance for managing
    forestry and conservation emphasis areas. We do share the goals
    of providing the sustained yield of timber while protecting
    older complex forests in support of conservation for threatened
    and endangered species.
        While we support the many goals in Title I, we have
    concerns with the language and would like to work with you to
    address these.
        Title I also provides for numerous conservation
    designations including the expansion of the Cascade Siskiyou
    National Monument, several wild and scenic rivers and a number
    of new designations. We would like to work with you to clarify
    the management goals and the boundaries of these areas.
        Title II would provide roughly 32,000 acres of BLM-managed
    lands to be held in trust for the benefit of two tribes. The
    BLM welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress on the
    transfer of lands into trust status and supports the goal of
    this Title. We would like to work with you to address these
    various issues including access rights and timber harvest. This
    Title would also amend the Coquille Restoration Act to provide
    for changes in management for the Coquille Forest, and we
    support this modification.
        Title III would establish new wilderness and wild and
    scenic river designations in Oregon. The bill would enlarge the
    Wild Rogue Wilderness and extend the wild and scenic river, the
    Rogue Wild and Scenic River. It would establish the Devil's
    Staircase wilderness, and it would designate the Molalla River
    and Table Rock Fork as part of the wild and scenic river
    system. The Department supports this Title which would conserve
    and protect these special areas.
        S. 326 amends the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 to
    establish cancellation ceilings to limit up front government
    obligations for stewardship contracting priorities. The
    Department values the flexibility provided by the Stewardship
    Contracting Authority and appreciates Congress' support in
    permanently reauthorizing it; however, we have concerns about
    certain provisions in this bill and would like to work with the
    sponsor and Committee to resolve them while adhering to core
    budget and acquisition principles.
        And thank you. Happy to answer any questions you might
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis.
        Mr. Matz?

     STATEMENT OF MIKE MATZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. PUBLIC LANDS, THE PEW
                           CHARITABLE TRUSTS

        Mr. Matz. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it's a
    real privilege to come before you today and offer our
    perspective on two pieces of legislation, S. 132 and S. 1961.
        My name is Mike Matz, and I am Director of U.S. Public
    Lands at the Pew Charitable Trust. For many years now we have
    participated in various roundtable discussions with a variety
    of stakeholders to seek solutions to nettlesome land management
    issues on our national forests. Reaching agreement has proved
    challenging, yet in some cases achievable. Pragmatic solutions
    can be found when people understand they won't get everything
    they would like, but are able to get some of what's important
    to them, as you mentioned, Senator Wyden.
        The path that has culminated in the introduction of S. 132
    has taken a bit of time, almost three years now. We truly
    believe this is a step in the right direction. It protects
    lands and rivers while more than doubling current timber
    production according to some academic experts, and that
    benefits local economies directly by increasing the revenue
    stream to funding strapped counties and indirectly through job
    creation and amenities. The proposal is based on sound science
    thanks to your consultation with Dr. Norm Johnson and Dr. Jerry
    Franklin.
        We greatly appreciate the inclusion of two wild places,
    Wild Rogue and Devil's Staircase which would be designated as
    part of the National Wilderness Preservation system and the
    establishment of four special management units to safeguard
    water resources is likewise vital since watersheds in these O
    and C lands supply drinking water to 1.8 million residents in
    that corner of Oregon. Wild and scenic river designations for
    252 miles of waterways, safeguard clean water also and help
    protect and restore wild salmon habitat. Also worth
    highlighting here is the welcome protection of the ancient
    forests defined as stands with average age trees of at least 90
    years, an increasingly rare forest type.
        I need to mention some of the places not included in S. 132
    which we hope to see added at some point in the process. Mt.
    Hebo, the headwaters of the McKenzie River, the Kalmiopsis and
    North Umpqua River all richly deserve wilderness protection.
        Finally, we should note that we feel we've gone as far as
    we can go on the logging side of the equation to go beyond a
    doubling of timber harvest gets into unchartered science and
    will conceivably damage the health of these natural systems and
    cause harm to sensitive wildlife and plant species. We believe
    logging levels set forth in S. 132 will provide a steady and
    sustainable source of revenue to assist counties struggling to
    provide basic services and will create resource extraction
    jobs. Creating economic opportunities and improving the quality
    of life are important to us just as protecting water quality
    and conserving forests are.
        We've also been asked to provide our perspective on S.
    1691, Mr. Chairman, and it's a real honor to be able to talk
    about your legislation, the National Forest Ecosystem
    Improvement Act of 2015.
        Changes have been made to S. 1691 from the previous
    version, and we would like to express our appreciation to you
    and your staff for listening to some of the concerns enumerated
    by us and others in the conservation community. Gone are the
    forest management emphasis areas, replaced by national
    restoration treatment acreage, for instance, but proscribed
    logging targets are higher and bedrock environmental laws are
    undermined. We oppose S. 1691, and in our written testimony we
    delve into greater detail on the specific provisions which we
    see as problematic still in this version of the legislation.
        Let me take a little time to lay out some of the
    overarching issues with forest management and put forward ideas
    that we have to address them.
        The major one is budgetary. A lack of funding has hamstrung
    the agency, curbed staffing levels and hindered its ability to
    design and implement appropriate timber sales. The Forest
    Service hasn't the funding even to implement more recent legal
    changes such as those in last year's Farm bill.
        Compounding the matter is the fact that the U.S. Forest
    Service in any given Fiscal Year has to divert substantial
    percentages of its budget to the steep costs associated with
    fighting fires which climatic conditions seemingly have
    exacerbated in recent years. Increasing the level of
    appropriations for the agency with transparency and reporting
    while taking the firefighting costs off budget and covering
    those disasters as we do floods or hurricanes, with emergency
    supplemental funding would go a long way toward ameliorating
    current difficulties with forest management.
        The former ideas and simply throwing money at the problem
    because the limitations on the agency are real and being felt
    and the latter is essentially handling catastrophic fires like
    other natural disasters in this country. As a matter of America
    stepping up to assist those fellow citizens among us who need
    help, in this case, to protect lives and property in the wild
    land urban interface.
        I'd like to make two more quick points. The first is that
    we believe in the efficacy and potential of collaboratives
    where there is no preordained outcome, where there exists
    incentives for people from all sides to sit at the table and
    discuss creative solutions to managing and protecting forests.
    And the second is that we do not think that opportunities for
    public participation and recourse should be unduly circumvented
    or short circuited. People can find common ground. And the
    logger in Darrington, Washington should have as much say as a
    conservationist in Boise, Idaho when it comes to decisions
    affecting our public lands.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Matz follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Matz.
        Mr. Neiman?

        STATEMENT OF JIM NEIMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEIMAN
                            ENTERPRISES, INC

        Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member
    Wyden, also recognize Senator Gardner which I have a mill out
    in Colorado.
        Senator, I am Vice President and CEO of Neiman Enterprise.
    We own four sawmills, two in South Dakota, one in Colorado and
    our home state, our home office in Hulett, Wyoming. These mills
    create 475 direct jobs and support another 275 independent
    contract jobs.
        I'm here today on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource
    Coalition, representing purchasers of forest service timber
    from 32 states. I'm here to thank you, Senator Barrasso, for
    introducing Senate bill 1691, the National Forest Ecosystem
    Improvement Act.
        S. 1691 builds on recent congressional actions. These
    include the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, repeal of the
    Peel's Reform Act and the 2014 Farm bill. I hope the Senate
    will move quickly so Federal forestry reform legislation can be
    enacted this year.
        In the intermountain west Forest Service is the primary
    forest land owner and principle supplier of timber. While our
    company purchases most of our timber sales from the Black Hills
    National Forest, we also purchase timber from the seven other
    national forests. Since the late 1990s we've seen catastrophic
    forest fires and insect epidemics devastate the national forest
    where we work and live. A solid body of science, scientific
    research, demonstrates that proactive forest management can
    have a significant influence on fire behavior, the detrimental
    effects of wildfire and bark beetle epidemics.
        The underlying concept is simple, overstocked forests with
    little structural diversity are highly susceptible to fire and
    bugs. Reducing stock in and managing for diversity will reduce
    susceptibility. The Forest Service's 2012 restoration strategy
    acknowledges the need to increase the pace and scale for forest
    restoration, reduce hazards and increase resiliency of the
    national forest. While there has been progress, it has been
    agonizingly slow.
        Unfortunately the Forest Service's environmental analysis
    and decisionmaking process is a procedural maze, made worse
    because of the activist litigation. In 2014 the GAO found that
    the Forest Service prepares more environmental impact
    statements than any other Federal agency and takes longer and
    spends more money in doing so. Once these NEPA documents are
    complete, litigation frequently follows. In the interim the
    beetles continue to spread and wildfires don't wait for
    environmental reviews. Frequently even when the Forest Service
    ultimately prevails the needed management project is rendered
    mute, the watershed is damaged and the opportunity for economic
    use of the timber land is lost.
        S. 1691 addresses many of these issues by providing new
    authorities to complete NEPA and ESA consultation quickly,
    discouraging dilatory litigation and providing new categorical
    exclusions to shorten the planning horizon for needed
    management. We're particularly pleased with the bill, that the
    bill provides for arbitration option to the Chief as an
    alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
        S. 1691 preserves opportunities for public involvement and
    requires documentation of the need for management objectives
    and the proposed categorical exclusions must comply with forest
    plan direction. The Obama Administration and the Forest
    Service, with the Chief to clear down to the crews on the
    ground, deserve praise for their efforts to expand management
    on our national forest. They have worked hard to move needed
    projects forward, but the current processes are an impediment
    to increasing the pace and scale.
        The Federal Government must embrace a vision of efficient,
    proactive management and healthy forests and commit to the
    resources needed to implement the aggressive strategy on the
    ground. By providing new tools and addressing bottlenecks, S.
    1691 sets the ground work for such a strategy.
        Again, I am honored to testify today and look forward to
    working with you to move forestry reform legislation to the
    President's desk.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Neiman.
        Mr. Swanson.

      STATEMENT OF STEVE SWANSON, PRESIDENT & CEO, SWANSON GROUP,
                                  INC.

        Mr. Swanson. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
    Member Wyden and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today. I am Steve Swanson,
    President and CEO of Swanson Group, a family-owned, forest
    products company in existence since 1951.
        My testimony is primarily focused on the need and our
    continued support for a balanced, effective solution to break
    the paralysis surrounding the management of the statutorily
    unique BLM O and C lands. I know Senator Wyden has dedicated
    significant effort to finding that needed solution.
        I'd also like to underscore the importance of adopting
    legislation to improve the health of our national forests and
    thank Senator Barrasso for his leadership in this effort.
        The Swanson Group currently operates two sawmills, one
    plywood mill and we're rebuilding another plywood mill in the
    Eugene area that was completely lost to fire last summer,
    actually one year ago tomorrow. Our company currently employs
    600 people in some of the economically distressed communities
    in rural Oregon, and with the rebuilt plant we'll increase that
    number to 850.
        My testimony today will focus on the building blocks
    necessary to create an O and C solution that is supportable.
    The items I will focus on include certainty, creating a large
    enough, geographically distributed land base that the agreed
    upon volumes and timber revenues can be produced and protecting
    private lands which today are our industry's sole source of
    dependable wood fiber.
        The cornerstone of any O and C solution is the level of
    certainty provided to meeting the timber harvest, conservation,
    county revenue and other management objectives. Put plainly, if
    a major part of the statutorily unique O and C lands are going
    to be preserved forever by an act of Congress, I don't think
    it's unreasonable to ask that some of the lands be designated
    and unencumbered for the purpose of responsible management to
    create jobs, revenues for rural counties and healthy, diverse
    forest types.
        Current harvest levels are inadequate to meet the timber
    volume needs of the remaining industry infrastructure or forest
    health. The situation is particularly challenging in the drier
    forests of Southwest Oregon where the forests are at higher
    risk to catastrophic wildfires.
        Senator Wyden, as you know from your recent trip to the
    seven wonders of Oregon, Oregon is a large state. Increased
    harvest levels in Salem and Eugene do nothing for the mills in
    Roseburg, Glendale and Medford. An effective O and C solution
    must produce sustainable timber harvest at levels that support
    local infrastructure and forest health up and down the I-5.
        The size of the manageable land base is critical to
    achieving forest health goals and timber outputs. S. 132
    designates only 31 percent of the BLM lands for timber output
    goals and 69 percent to permanent conservation allocations.
    Within the 31 percent dedicated to timber harvest there are
    extensive silvicultural prescriptions and individual tree and
    stand prohibitions that restrict harvest. It is possible to
    take a lighter touch approach to managing but the available
    land base would need to be enlarged.
        Conversely, we can manage a smaller portion of the O and C
    lands more intensively. It is not possible to increase harvest
    levels if we shrink the management land base and mandate
    lighter touch treatments.
        Finally, in our state which is dominated by Federal land,
    well managed private forests are the thread that our mills have
    hung on. I appreciate your efforts to protect private land
    access but there also must be more done on the BLM lands to
    address the risk insects, disease and catastrophic wildfire
    pose to private land. Unfortunately these risks don't respect
    property lines or ownerships.
        Our industry has come to the table and will continue to
    come to the table to find a durable, workable compromise for
    the O and C lands. In fact, the timber industry supported the
    House O and C proposal which dedicated more than half of the O
    and C lands to conservation purposes while dedicating less than
    half to sustained yield timber production with sufficient legal
    certainty.
        Senator Wyden, despite our position on your bill I want to
    assure you that our industry remains totally and completely
    committed to working with you and the rest of the Oregon
    delegation to find an effective compromise O and C solution
    before we see further economic declines in our rural
    communities.
        With regard to S. 1691, this legislation includes important
    provisions to address the primary factors limiting the
    management of our national forests today, namely the litigation
    and cost in time required for the Forest Service to satisfy the
    analysis paralysis that constrains forest managed projects. It
    sets reasonable goals for annual mechanical treatment levels
    and builds upon many existing authorities to streamline project
    planning and implementation for a limited subset of forestry
    projects including those developed by collaboratives. It also
    seeks to rein in the serial litigation that is holding back
    forest restoration efforts.
        I hope this Congress can reach consensus on a reasonable
    package of national forestry forums to restore the health of
    forests and communities.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Swanson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Wyden.Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, Senator Wyden?
        Senator Wyden.Thank you very much. Again with apologies to
    our guests because after this quick comment I am going to make
    the sprint to the plane.
        Mr. Swanson, I very much appreciate the kind of
    constructive tone that you have offered today in your desire to
    get a compromise. Part of the approach on the harvest I want to
    make clear because, as you know, there have been strong
    differences of opinion with respect to the industry and the
    environmental community with respect to how much was devoted to
    harvest, how much was devoted for environmental protection and
    these kinds of issues.
        That is why the number I have used is the number that was
    furnished by the government agencies, the people that we pay to
    give us an objective calculation. What the agencies said is
    that this would double the harvest on a sustainable basis on
    average for the next 50 years. Now I know there continues to be
    disagreement on that between industry people and environmental
    people and the like, so I want the record to show that I
    understand that difference of opinion. I am very anxious to
    continue to work with industry people and environmental people.
        The reason I look to the agencies is I thought at least
    that was a starting off point because those are people that we
    pay, the people in this room and taxpayers all across the
    country, to give us an objective analysis. So a big thanks.
        As you can tell I have enormous admiration for the fact
    that after a fire you said, ``I'm still going to be part of
    rural Oregon. I'm going to come right back and build a larger
    mill.'' We want to see that prosper, and we want to see those
    communities prospering. That is where I am off to, to be in
    Lakeview in not too long now. I look forward to working with
    you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your letting me do
    this. I know you have a tight schedule as well.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and thank you
    for your continued leadership in offering a forum designed to
    improve the management of our national forests.
        Chief Tidwell, I want to start by highlighting some recent
    visits to Montana National Forest that I have made in the last
    couple weeks with the local Forest Service as well as county
    leaders. I received a firsthand perspective of how responsible
    harvesting can be used to be a vital tool to improve our
    watersheds. We looked up there at the Chessman Reservoir there
    behind Helena, Montana to reduce the risk of wildfire and to
    respond to beetle kill.
        I want to publicly thank and give thanks to Lolo and
    Helena, Lewis and Clark Forest Supervisors, Tim Garcia and Bill
    Avey. They are doing a wonderful job back in Montana. Their
    staffs, they spent time leading us and in viewing these most
    important projects. Thank you.
        These site visits, I will tell you that it is something
    that reinforced for me that restoring the health of forests
    through active management is absolutely vital to conserving our
    forests and their many benefits for future generations.
        As we all know the situation right now out West is dire. We
    have got a potentially devastating wildfire season on our hands
    at the moment. It is already underway. Millions of acres of
    Montana's national forests are in an unacceptably dangerous
    condition. For these reasons I am determined. I am very
    motivated to pass legislation that gives your agency additional
    tools and authorities to compete and complete more forest
    health restoration projects and do them faster.
        I have a few questions I would like to go through. First of
    all, regarding categorical exclusions which you talked about in
    your testimony, particularly for collaborative developed
    projects and I am one who believes in and stands behind these
    collaborative efforts back in the West and particularly in
    Montana. I know from your testimony that there are
    considerations that should be discussed regarding size and
    scope of CEs. You made that clear. But broadly speaking when
    the Forest Service uses categorical exclusions, including that
    3,000 acre CE that is provided for in the 2014 Farm bill, could
    you describe how your agency takes into account both public
    input and analyzes environmental impacts to ensure that CEs are
    used to enhance rather than hurt the environment?
        Mr. Tidwell. When we have the opportunity to use that, a
    CE, when we have those categories we start by working with our
    local collaboratives. So that there's a sense of what needs to
    be done. There's support for that and we move forward. And a CE
    does not eliminate our requirements to be able to analyze the
    project and to ensure that we're not having unnecessary impact.
    It does reduce the amount of documentation, of written
    documentation. But because CEs are at a scale that's much
    smaller than what we usually do in EA or an EIS so that it does
    take less time to be able to do it.
        But the key, the key part of it, is to have that public
    support so that you can go ahead and use this process where we
    still have public comment. We still address all the
    environmental concerns, but there's less documentation.
        So if it's the right scale and it has the assurances that
    some of the public needs, similar to what we did with the Farm
    bill about roads, etcetera, it's been a very useful tool.
        Senator Daines. I think just to clarify for everybody here
    around CEs, make sure I have this straight, so I am just going
    to go through three quick points to make sure I am doing this
    correctly and you can answer.
        A categorical exclusion cannot be used if there is a
    potential adverse impact on an endangered species or watershed.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Tidwell. That's correct with our regulations.
        Senator Daines. Right. Likewise a categorical exclusion
    must be consistent with the local forest plan, correct?
        Mr. Tidwell. Correct.
        Senator Daines. And mass clear cuts would not be allowed
    under CEs, correct?
        Mr. Tidwell. Correct. The size of clear cuts regeneration
    harvest, it's governed by the National Forest Management Act
    that limits it to 40 acres in most of the country. And we have
    a few situations on the West Coast where we can use up to an 80
    acre clear cut.
        Senator Daines. Lastly, as I am running out of time, Chief
    Tidwell. If Congress did three things, if they expanded the
    responsible use of categorical exclusions; if they ended fire
    borrowing; and if it reduced the effectiveness of
    obstructionist's litigation which the House has done with their
    recently passed legislation and we are working to do the same
    thing here in the Senate, could you describe how these reforms
    would help increase the pace and the scale of the Forest
    Service projects that improve the health of the forests?
        Mr. Tidwell. I would have to go a little bit further to see
    a change in the amount of work we could get accomplished.
        If by adding additional CEs that maintain the public trust
    that we can continue to be able to use that to get more work
    done. If we eliminate fire borrowing and at the same time
    address the ten-year average situation to provide a consistent
    full level of funds for the agency and if we can find a way to
    address the concerns that drive litigation, we can be able to
    increase the pace and scale of the work that needs to be done.
    We have that track record. We've been doing it, and it's driven
    by the collaborative efforts that you've commented on.
        Senator Daines. Alright, thank you, Chief Tidwell, I
    appreciate it.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Heinrich?
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to say how much I respect and appreciate the effort
    that you have made to improve this bill from the previous
    Congress' version. I appreciate that watershed health and
    wildlife are now part of the purposes of your legislation, but
    the fact remains that quadrupling commercial timber projects on
    national forests would take resources. It would take money. It
    takes staff. It would take time. As it stands now, the Forest
    Service is short on all three.
        We all have things that we would like to see the Forest
    Service do better, do faster, do more of. In fact Senator Flake
    and I introduced a bill just yesterday to improve watershed
    restoration projects on our national forests. We should hold
    all our public lands' agencies accountable when they do not
    fulfill their missions.
        But the fact is that fire suppression has grown from 16
    percent of the Forest Service budget in 1995 to over 40 percent
    in 2014. We have all heard the testimony of Chief Tidwell on
    what the ten-year rolling averages impacts are going to be in
    the next couple of years. That's simply not sustainable.
        So I'm glad we're having this conversation about forest
    policy, and I absolutely look forward to working with all of
    you as we look for ways to improve the health and the
    resiliency of these Western forests, in particular. But I think
    any solution is going to have to include fixing the fire budget
    so that forest staff can spend time and resources making our
    forests healthier and more accessible to the public instead of
    racing from one catastrophic wildfire to the next.
        I point out, Mr. Chairman, that several of our members and
    witnesses have paraphrased the Mick Jagger principle today. As
    you know that is a very long-recognized public land management
    principle that, accurately articulated, says, ``you can't
    always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you can get
    what you need.'' I think that is the needle we have to thread
    here in front of us over the rest of this Congress.
        Senator Barrasso. As opposed to, ``I can't get no
    satisfaction?''
        Senator Heinrich. Exactly. Yes. [Laughter.]
        So yes, you just threw my logic out the window there.
    [Laughter.]
        Mick Jagger was all over the place on public land
    management it turns out. [Laughter.]
        That said, Chief Tidwell, S. 1691. As you know it mandates
    substantially higher levels of timber production than we see
    today, about 460,000 acres per year compared to the 100,000
    acres we saw last year. I don't disagree with the goal of
    reasonable timber sale increases, but I want to ask you under
    the current budget pressures, does the service have the human
    and financial resources to process permits for that level of
    production? If you did, what would the impact be on the Forest
    Service's other missions, particularly hazardous fuel reduction
    and wildfire suppression?
        Mr. Tidwell. We currently do not have that level of
    capacity in the agency to do the work. And once again, what we
    accomplish each year is driven by the appropriations that we
    receive each year for the variety of budget line items for
    them. We follow the direction of Congress to do that.
        There's no question we need to continue to increase our
    pace and scale. The tools we have with the Farm bill, the work
    we're doing now to get additional capacity from the states to
    be able to use the Good Neighbor Authority. These are things
    that will continue to be able to build with that. We have a lot
    of places where NEPA is no longer a barrier.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Mr. Tidwell. We have places where we have a lot of NEPA-
    ready projects but we lack the personnel to be able to move
    forward getting more projects implemented, be able to set those
    up. We're looking at all of our processes to be able to
    eliminate some of the time consuming work around timber marking
    and using some innovative processes to be able to do that, to
    be able to continue.
        But just the consequence of the fire suppression, the cost
    of wildfire suppression, you know, I too, have lived through
    this, as it's just gradually increased year after year. And to
    the point today when we look at 39 percent fewer employees that
    work in our national forest system, only 49 percent of the
    foresters that we had about 12 years ago. We just lack that
    capacity.
        So it's going to take a combination of new tools, being
    able to implement the new authorities we have. But we need to
    address, you know, the cost of wildfire suppression and do it
    in a way so that we have a consistent level of resources that
    we can be able to rely on. And I worry about where the rest of
    the ten-year average, as it keeps increasing year after year,
    where is that funding going to come from?
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Heinrich.
        Chief Tidwell, you have been before this Committee on
    numerous occasions to discuss critical issues facing our
    forests and talk about the great need to get more work done in
    a timely manner, the road blocks to making our forests healthy.
    In response to previous questions you and the agency have
    confirmed several things.
        One, you've confirmed the Forest Service is spending
    northward of $350 million a year on NEPA and other regulatory
    compliance. In 2014 the average environmental impact statement
    took about 37 months, over three years, to complete and the
    average environmental assessment, 19 months. After nearly six
    years of agency efforts to find time and cost savings in NEPA
    it really appears the agency continues to struggle under the
    heavy burden. In a previous hearing you expressed an interest
    in seeing Congress find some solutions to help try to ease that
    burden. I assume that is still your position?
        I am going to ask you about litigation. You have lamented
    in the past that lawsuits that threaten needed forest
    restoration work, particularly those efforts developed by the
    collaboratives. I think at our hearing to examine the Forest
    Service Fiscal 2016 budget you said the litigation definitely
    does impact. You said it is not just the litigation when we get
    a Temporary Restraining Order where we have to stop and wait,
    but every time we get a lawsuit that same staff that would be
    preparing for the next project they have, then they have to
    prepare to go to court. We win a majority of the cases that go
    to court, you said, but even when we win it still has the
    impact because it slows down the development of the next
    project.
        You also highlighted a collaboratively-developed project in
    Cold Summit that was sued and the ensuing delays. I think you
    said we went through the process, yes, and we finally
    implemented the project, but it took another year or so to get
    it done.
        If we continue to see these rogue activist groups block
    these consensus projects, do you believe that collaboratives
    will begin to just fall apart as people become discouraged or
    we lose the last mills in some key areas of the country? I
    mean, it is a concern.
        Mr. Tidwell. From what I'm seeing from our collaboratives
    is that there's a desire to actually do more of it.
        There's no question that there's that level of frustration
    after they've done the heavy work. They've all come together on
    agreement, the agency moves forward, does the adequate
    analysis, makes a decision and then we're sued. It's very, it's
    frustrating at best.
        So we want to continue to work on what is those issues that
    drive the litigation, and your idea of giving the Secretary the
    discretion for arbitration is something we'd like to give that
    a try.
        I've testified before. I have some questions about how it
    would work and would it actually provide better decisions, but
    I think it gives us something to build, to move forward with
    that and try it on a system at the Secretary's discretion that
    I do think that it may get at the issue.
        The concern, with the bonding requirement, I'm not sure
    that that will--it won't stop the litigation. Definitely those
    that have the financial means will be able to do it, and I'm
    concerned that it may actually create more.
        I don't have any data to support this, but it's just--
    it'll--I'm worried that it will create more controversy and
    more opposition. Those folks that think we're out there to not
    care for the land and not be able to follow the collaborative
    projects. I'm just worried that they will be able to use it as
    a way to generate more litigation that will be even more
    difficult for us to deal with.
        I'm also concerned that it does cut out the person that
    doesn't have those financial capabilities. Litigation is part
    of our system in this country. I'm as frustrated as anybody
    when we've done the work, we've done the job, we get litigated
    a year later and the judge says, ``Yes, you're okay, go
    ahead.''
        But I do think we need to find a way to work through this.
    I do think your arbitration proposal, and I really appreciate
    the changes you made with the bill this year versus last year,
    but I think that has, you know, some merit that we'd like to
    move forward and work with you to give that a try.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Chief.
        Mr. Neiman, in previous hearings before the Committee Chief
    Tidwell has recognized the forest products industry is an
    essential partner in restoring the health of our nation's
    forests. I know you see your business in that very light.
        How can the Forest Service incentivize and encourage
    investments in mills and can you share with the Committee the
    scope of some of those investments?
        Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator.
        You speak to essential partnerships. I had a chance a few
    years ago to set down in Colorado at a conference with Chief
    Tidwell and a number of other Forest Service and industry. When
    you really focus on partnerships instead of this buy/sell
    relationships and you focus on forest health and how do you get
    an efficient, viable forest, we're on the same page. So there's
    a real tone of working on the partnership.
        In answer to your question, industry needs an adequate,
    consistent and predictable supply. Our industry is faced with
    huge investments now. It takes millions and millions of dollars
    of investments. It's sometimes $20, $30, $40, $50 million. In
    the case of a plywood plant you might be $100 million plus.
    It's very expensive.
        Our company last year, just in trying to stay up with times
    and upgrade the Colorado mill, invested $15 million; $3 million
    for an auto grater and $6 million to put in new equipment
    trying to get efficient and eliminate with the bug, with fire
    suppression issues. So there's a big burden. It's very capital
    intensive, but it all comes back. We can do that. It all comes
    back to an adequate supply, and we need a resilient forest.
        If it's dead you're not going to get people to invest. You
    need a resilient forest and you have to have a constant supply,
    Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. So an adequate, consistent and
    predictable supply? Are those the three criteria?
        Mr. Neiman. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        I have additional questions. Senator Heinrich would like a
    second round, so we can go with you now and then I will follow
    up some more.
        Senator Heinrich. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to take just a moment and mention Senator Flake's
    bill that is on today's agenda as well. I think it is probably
    a good indication that we have not really heard any testimony
    against it.
        The Stewardship End Result Contracting Improvement Act is
    something I am an original co-sponsor on. I think it is an
    important reform. It makes a number of important changes to the
    stewardship contracting process which has been incredibly
    important in New Mexico's forests over the last decade.
        Mr. Neiman, I wanted to ask whether or not you use
    stewardship contracts in your work on national forests?
        Mr. Neiman. Yes, we do.
        Senator Heinrich. Great. Could you talk a little bit about
    why they are an important tool, slightly different, obviously,
    than traditional timber sales, but an important tool in the
    tool box and why we need to make them as easy to administer as
    we can?
        Mr. Neiman. Well, historically and we still do support
    traditional timber sales. I think they're more efficient for
    industry. They're more efficient for the Forest Service. There
    are circumstances where stewardship is important, and we
    support that. But when you get down into the different types of
    stewardship we've seen some that are just a drain on the budget
    for the Forest Service. So it can be inefficient process of
    treating acres, but they both have their place, Senator.
        Senator Heinrich. Well I am going to have to, we may have
    to, agree to disagree on a couple things simply because, at
    least in my home state, we have seen very small, effective
    utilization of commercial timber sales. Part of that is because
    we just do not have a large DBH, straight up and down trees
    anymore, but we have seen really quite effective utilization of
    stewardship contracts.
        I would point to places like the Zuni Mountains where we
    have seen not only the contractors be able to get in and do a
    really incredible job, but it also brought a number of other
    actors to the table who are willing to have some skin in the
    game from the single species advocacy groups like whether it's
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or the Wild Turkey Foundation or
    others who really have seen both the benefits to habitat as
    well. It has made it easier to work through those processes
    which, as we all know, can be challenging.
        Mr. Max or Mr. Matz, I want to switch to you real quick
    because one of my concerns moving back to S. 1691 is the
    provisions that eliminate public notice and participation in
    some of the Forest Service decision-making processes.
        If there is one thing that is a certainty in New Mexico it
    is that my local forest communities want to play a very active
    role in the management of their local national forest. They
    attend meetings. They submit comments. They actually provide an
    enormous amount of critical, local expertise to inform an
    agency in their decisions.
        The CE provisions in this bill are a lot larger than what
    we have seen in terms of their trip wires than current law or
    in the Farm bill, and one of the things I am hearing is that
    there is a concern over the public being able to participate in
    those decisions. Most of our national forest projects right now
    are well under the acreage caps in those CEs. You work with a
    lot of forest communities around the country. What kind of
    reaction do you expect to this effort that would at least move
    some of those decisions behind closed doors?
        Mr. Matz. First, thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think that there would be considerable concern. I think
    that decisions that are made here affecting public lands
    benefit from community involvement, from guidance of decision-
    makers and the expertise of scientists. To exclude that kind of
    input in this decision-making process not only doesn't get buy
    in for the decisions, but creates some of the problems that, I
    think, the Chief mentioned too.
        But it tends to limit people's ability and then their
    support for these decisions. So it's problematic to expand it.
    I think that there are particular instances, limited instances,
    where they can be utilized effectively.
        Senator Heinrich. Well I do think that buy in is probably
    the single biggest hedge we have against litigation. There are
    obviously process things we can take on, but when you have
    people who have bought into the outcome it makes it much harder
    to do an end run at the end of the game.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Mr. Neiman, follow up. Would you summarize the benefits of
    S. 1691 for the forest where you operate?
        Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Senator, Chairman, I appreciate it.
        From my end, I've had a number of opportunities to meet
    with my staff and different forest supervisors in the Black
    Hills in South Dakota and Colorado. One of the main common
    threads is that each one, our team and the Forest Service,
    wants to figure out how to treat more acres, particularly those
    acres that are dense stands recognize they're subject to bugs
    and/or fire. I constantly hear there's lack of adequate funding
    and/or personnel to solve those problems or they would be in
    trying to treat more of those acres.
        I want to step to the big picture for a second, if I could.
    The National Forest System is growing 22 billion board feet a
    year, and we're cutting, we're just sneaking back up to three.
    I give the Forest Service credit. They've been growing that
    volume, but we're back to three out of 22.
        We're continuing to add volume to our forest every year.
    We're overstocking our forest. It's getting denser each and
    every year, and 1691 helps give some remedies so we can
    increase that volume and help solve that problem, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. You talk about the importance of more
    rapid implementation of needed management projects and how
    litigation is one of the ``choke points.'' I think your phrase
    was choke points to timely forest management. Can you talk
    about how litigation has prevented needed projects from going
    forward in your experience?
        Mr. Neiman. Well, if I could, if I could talk about one
    particular example. The cement project near Sundance, Wyoming,
    while the Forest Service was doing further review and there was
    serial litigants that stopped the process and delayed it and
    the timber sale was burned and we lost it.
        The opportunity was there to treat that and we lost it due
    to the fire, and those were centered around wildlife objectives
    for mule deer habitat. They went backward and lost and did not
    accomplish the original goals.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay. Would arbitration be useful to get
    these projects implemented in a more timely fashion? Do you
    think it would have made a difference in this specific case
    related to Sundance?
        Mr. Neiman. If I--I have some concerns about arbitration.
    I'm clearly willing to try it. Clearly it has to be better than
    litigation. Litigation stopped that fire. I can give you other
    examples in Montana where timber was lost to fires due to
    litigation.
        There's two or three examples in the Custer National Forest
    and in Wyoming where, hopefully, arbitration would have sat us
    all down and where sensible people could sit around the table
    and find solutions quicker than litigation that drags out after
    NEPA took three years and then the three years of litigation
    would not help us.
        Senator Barrasso. Just one final question for you. You know
    Wyoming has been hard hit by the Mountain Pine Beetle and
    continues to have to deal with the problem. In your experience
    what was the primary factor leading up to the Mountain Pine
    Beetle outbreak and what were the challenges associated with
    the Forest Service's response to that outbreak?
        Mr. Neiman. Senator, from my end, and I have a lot of
    experience, and the Black Hills is a real good example.
    Overstocking is the issue.
        If people would look back, the Black Hills National Forest
    in 1899 had 1.5 billion board feet of timber; in 1999, a
    hundred years later, 6.2 billion board feet. Now we've lost a
    few hundred thousand. We're back down to 5.5, but that forest,
    the reason the beetles have been on a rampage.
        If you look up the history, the first Roosevelt brought in
    an entomologist. They identified the bug in the Black Hills, so
    the pine beetle is called the Black Hills Pine Beetle before it
    was called the Mountain Pine Beetle. You've got 110 years of
    history and science. Let's use that to help us out, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Neiman.
        Mr. Ellis, there seems to be a significant debate over the
    level of timber harvest likely under S. 132. The staff from
    your Oregon State office with the assistance of Norm Johnson, a
    university professor, provided one estimate late last year.
    Meanwhile a 31-year veteran, retired analyst from your agency
    doing work for the affected counties authored another analysis
    finding those estimates were unrealistic and predicting volumes
    less than half of those that were provided for by your Oregon
    office. So there are some discrepancies there. What is your
    view of the likely harvest volumes under S. 132, and how
    confident are you that they can be achieved under the
    legislation?
        Mr. Ellis. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the retiree, I understand
    the retiree did come up with some different numbers, but I
    don't know what calculations he used----
        Senator Barrasso. Yes.
        Mr. Ellis. There's various numbers around.
        If you look at our staff in Oregon, they worked with some
    of the staff in trying to come up with some numbers on the
    earlier bill, and those numbers ranged from 310 to 320 million
    board feet.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        Mr. Swanson, I wanted to ask you about these estimates for
    the likely harvest under S. 132. What is your view of the
    likely harvest under the bill and do you have any
    recommendations for how we could get greater clarity because
    it's a pretty important issue here?
        Mr. Swanson. Well the BLM lands grow about 1.2 billion feet
    a year. The legislation would reduce the number of acres by 71
    percent. I'm not a forester, but the math is pretty simple. If
    you reduce the acreage that much and still apply restrictive
    harvest policies, it just doesn't add up and certainly can't be
    sustained.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Swanson.
        Well, I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and
    your testimony. Some of the members were here and had to leave
    before they were able to ask questions. They may want to submit
    written questions. They are going to have time to do that so we
    will keep the hearing record open for two weeks.
        I want to thank all of you for being here today to
    participate.
        Mr. Neiman?
        Mr. Neiman. Can I add one comment?
        Senator Barrasso. Sure.
        Mr. Neiman. I'd like to clarify or add to your question
    about the overstocked, my answer on the overstocked.
        Part of the public perceives that part of our bug issue is
    tied to climate change. I don't want to debate that issue, I
    just want to accept and get people to think in terms of if we
    do have climate change we could have a lower--a longer growing
    season. We could then have more growth. If you have longer
    growing season and have more drought you should have less
    carrying capacity.
        So my concern is when you combine overstocked forests with
    and overlay that with climate change which is a secondary
    factor to it, we have to really focus on what is the carrying
    capacity of these forests and look at the bigger picture
    instead of microcosm or one animal or one species and look at
    the big picture.
        I would encourage people to look out 75, 100 years and not
    just for our self interest now.
        Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Well thank you.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and
    testimony.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]