    [Senate Hearing 115-227]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-227

                         S. _, THE WILDFIRE PREVENTION
                           AND MITIGATION ACT OF 2017

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 25, 2017

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    29-916 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              KAMALA HARRIS, California

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                OCTOBER 25, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Crapser, Bill, State Forester, Wyoming State Forestry Division...     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso......    19
    Moretti, Miles, President/CEO, Mule Deer Foundation..............    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
        Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso.....    29
    Kruse, Dylan, Policy Director, Sustainable Northwest.............    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    40

                                  LEGISLATION

    The text of S. _, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of
      2017...........................................................   134

                         S. _, THE WILDFIRE PREVENTION
                           AND MITIGATION ACT OF 2017

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Boozman, Whitehouse,
    Merkley, and Harris.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Now that the markup is completed, I call
    this hearing to order.
        Today we are having a hearing on Wildfire Prevention and
    Mitigation, the Act of 2017. It is a discussion draft. The
    discussion draft we consider today focuses specifically on
    issues that have been referred to this Committee. It combines
    tools for habitat conservation for mule deer, sage grouse, and
    other wildlife, and streamline processes for addressing
    specific areas that need immediate attention.
        The three titles include bipartisan initiatives from six
    different members and represent many months--if not years--of
    work to give land managers the tools that they need to prevent
    catastrophic wildfires.
        It does not include a budget fix for the simple reason the
    budget issues are outside the jurisdiction of this Committee.
    Ultimately, a budget fix should be paired with tools to reduce
    forest density for improved wildlife habitat and healthier
    forests, and the ability to react quickly to mitigate
    environmental harms after a fire.
        On September 27 this Committee held its first hearing on
    the catastrophic damage caused by wildfires across the country.
    We heard testimony of homes burned, children unable to attend
    schools because of poor air quality, damaged city water
    supplies, and historic forest destruction.
        Since that hearing, fires have continued to burn in
    California and across the West, with devastating effect.
    According to the latest numbers from the USDEA, ``Year to year,
    there have been 52,277 fires, covering 8.82 million acres
    across all jurisdictions, 2.3 million of which are on national
    forests.'' To put this into perspective, that is nearly 7 times
    the State of Delaware, 12 times the State of Rhode Island.
        The cost of these fires is real: lives are lost and family
    history and livelihoods are destroyed in an instant. The
    communities and ecosystems will be needing rebuilding for
    years. We must ask ourselves what kind of future are we leaving
    for the next generation when we fail to conserve Federal
    forests that overwhelm the sky with thick smoke and ash when
    they burn.
        As a physician, I see many parallels between human health
    and forest health. These catastrophic fires are a symptom, not
    the underlying problem. I believe we have to take a holistic
    approach. On the one hand, we must take preventive action so
    that, when fires occur, they don't burn so hot, so long, and so
    fast and destroy everything in their path. Additionally, we
    must also enable restoration to ensure that, when fires do
    occur, agencies have the tools they need to restore and improve
    wildlife habitat, access for recreation and whole forest
    ecosystems. Both of these things must be paired with a
    comprehensive budget fix.
        Before hearing from our witnesses today, I would like to
    turn to Ranking Member Carper for his remarks.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To our witnesses, I had a chance to welcome you all
    personally, but in public I want to say, welcome. We are glad
    you are here.
        Since the last time we met to discuss wildfires, just about
    a month ago right here, 21 major wildfires have ravaged the
    State of California. These fires have destroyed over 8,000
    homes and buildings, scorched more than 245,000 acres, and
    tragically taken some 42 lives. More than 11,000 firefighters
    from I think about 18 States and Australia are still working to
    contain these fires.
        My wife and I were out in California about a week and a
    half ago, and from San Francisco down to San Jose we were
    struck by the haze, the smoke that was still in the air,
    especially in the northern part of the Bay area. A lot of
    people were wearing masks almost 100 miles from where the fires
    were taking place.
        Challenging fire conditions persist throughout California,
    but now that the October fires are waning, cleanup begins.
    Chemicals present in burned out homes and buildings may cause
    new health and human safety concerns. We need to act to address
    wildlife risk now more than ever. We also need to be thoughtful
    and strategic as we do that.
        During our September hearing our colleagues and witnesses
    seemed to agree on several issues, ranging from the urgent need
    for Federal funds to address fire to the possibility that
    narrowly tailored policy solutions should also be considered.
        Unfortunately, that bipartisan consensus is not well
    reflected in the draft legislation that we are considering
    today. The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act does
    incorporate two bipartisan bills, but it also includes broad
    changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. I am
    concerned about the negative implications of these proposed
    reforms which would be layered on top of existing underutilized
    forest management authorities.
        This management reform-only approach is not going to solve
    our nation's wildfire problem. The draft bill does not
    acknowledge or address root causes for increasingly severe
    wildfire seasons, such as climate change or increased
    development near forestlands. It also fails to provide adequate
    funding resources to the Forest Service.
        I have mentioned the Forest Service's funding challenges
    before, but the facts are worth reiterating. In 1995 only 16
    percent--16 percent of the Fire Service's budget was dedicated
    to fire suppression. Since 2015 the Forest Service has been
    spending more than half of its annual budget fighting fires.
    More than half.
        In order to meet fire suppression needs, the Forest Service
    borrows money from other important programs, including those
    focused on forest management and restoration. This practice,
    known as fire borrowing, is not sustainable. We have to get
    ahead of this problem. It is not getting better; it is getting
    worse, and it prevents the agency from taking necessary action
    to prevent fire.
        According to Secretary Perdue, firefighting activities will
    likely consume two-thirds--two-thirds of the Forest Service
    budget by 2021. Two-thirds by 2021. When Secretary Perdue
    announced these projections at a bipartisan press event last
    month with our Senate colleagues, he asked Congress to focus on
    a permanent funding fix. He also reported that the Forest
    Service is cooperating well with local communities and does not
    necessarily need legislative management reforms.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We look
    forward to hearing from each of you this morning who have
    traveled, in some cases long ways, to share your expertise,
    your counsel with us today.
        Mr. Chairman, I do hope we will also be able to refocus our
    efforts and develop a truly bipartisan approach to better
    prevent and address wildfires across our nation. Thank you so
    much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
        We have today with us three individuals who will be
    testifying. We will hear from our witnesses. Today we have Mr.
    Bill Crapser, who is the State Forester for the State of
    Wyoming; Mr. Miles Moretti, who is the President and CEO of the
    Mule Deer Foundation; and Mr. Dylan Kruse, who is the Policy
    Director for Sustainable Northwest.
        I want to first introduce Mr. Crapser, who serves as
    Wyoming's State Forester and recently served as the President
    of the National Association of State Foresters.
        I am very pleased, Bill, that you join us today. You have
    served as the Wyoming State Forester since 2003. As part of
    your leadership of the Wyoming State Forestry Division, you
    know that collaborative work across the many private, State,
    and Federal boundaries is the key to healthy forests across
    Wyoming.
        As a key member of Governor Mead's Task Force on Forests,
    Bill helped to develop a series of recommendations to reduce
    the threat of destructive wildfire through vegetation
    management, to enhance forest health and wildlife habitat
    across migration corridors, and to expand outdoor recreation
    opportunities in healthy forests.
        Bill provides critical expertise and is a valuable resource
    when addressing challenging issues like those we will discuss
    today.
        So I appreciate you making the trip, Bill, to be with us.
    And before asking you to testify, I would like to recognize
    Senator Merkley to introduce his constituent who is here as
    well.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
    to be able to welcome Dylan Kruse, who has made the trip from
    Oregon to testify. He serves as the Policy Director for
    Sustainable Northwest, an organization focused on resolving
    conflict by developing solutions that improve community and
    economic well being, while preserving healthy forests.
        Mr. Kruse also serves as a member of the Real Voices for
    Conservation Coalition, where he works with people across the
    western United States in a collaborative manner to develop
    solutions to challenges facing our public lands and our natural
    resources.
        I know that Mr. Kruse has been a great resource for my
    staff. His work on natural resources and public land issues
    will provide insight to this Committee as we discuss the
    Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act.
        Thank you, Mr. Kruse, for making the trip out here and for
    your work to bring people together from across a broad array of
    perspectives.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
        I also note that Mr. Moretti, who is here, you were born in
    Evanston, Wyoming, I understand, and grew up in the Bridger
    Valley. So we welcome you as well.
        With that, I would like to remind the witnesses that your
    full written testimony will be made part of the official
    hearing record, so please try to keep your statements to 5
    minutes so we may have time for questions.
        Mr. Crapser, please begin.

              STATEMENT OF BILL CRAPSER, STATE FORESTER,
                    WYOMING STATE FORESTRY DIVISION

        Mr. Crapser. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper, members of the Committee. My name is Bill Crapser. I
    serve as the Wyoming State Forester. I am also the immediate
    past President of the National Association of State Foresters.
        Through the 2008 Farm Bill, State foresters were tasked
    with developing State forest assessments and action plans for
    all ownerships, including Federal. In 2013, our Governor,
    Governor Mead, commissioned the Task Force on Forests. This was
    a diverse group of Wyomingites who worked collaboratively for
    over a year to create a vision for our forests. The Task
    Force's No. 1 recommendation was to endorse and implement the
    strategies and direction laid out by our State Forest Action
    Plan.
        In Wyoming, our State Forest Action Plan identifies the
    areas of greatest risk for catastrophic wildfire, as well as
    insects and disease. Much of these at risk forest areas are on
    Federal land managed by the USDEA Forest Service. For a variety
    of reasons, the Forest Service has not treated the majority of
    at risk forested areas as identified in our plan. Much of the
    challenge for Federal managers is due to overly burdensome
    environmental regulations that are, in many cases, doing more
    harm than good to Wyoming's forests. Frankly, we are quite
    frustrated.
        It is not just Federal lands that are impacted by this lack
    of active management. Wildfires and insects and disease know no
    boundaries, and virtually all catastrophic wildfires in Wyoming
    burn through multiple ownerships.
        The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017
    addresses many of the regulatory challenges our Federal
    partners face. Arbitration to resolve disputes would be
    helpful. The use of categorical exclusions for forests at risk,
    or wildfire and forest needing habitat improvement would also
    be helpful. The ability to use CEs, or categorical exclusions,
    for making decisions on salvaging burned and beetle killed
    timber so that the wood will still have value when sold would
    be most helpful. Expansion of the Good Neighbor Authority that
    has been a huge success so far would really be helpful. There
    is increasing opportunity through this Authority for States to
    implement federally approved projects, NEPA completed, with
    State personnel. We applaud the bill's sponsors for this
    thoughtful piece of legislation.
        NASF has a policy platform with specific and detailed
    Federal forest reform--a copy is attached to my written
    testimony--as well as a Forest Resource Committee and Fire
    Management Committee comprised of State foresters from around
    the nation, and could offer assistance to these important
    issues. We believe we can help the Committee in fine tuning the
    details of this bill. In addition, we would ask that the
    Committee consider language which would encourage Federal
    managers to consult their State Forest Action Plans and work
    closely with State foresters to ensure Federal resources are
    focused on the highest priorities.
        While regulatory reform is a significant part of today's
    challenge in addressing our overgrown and insect and disease
    prone forests, there are other factors that would help as well.
    We need a solution to the way Federal wildfire suppression is
    funded. This fire season has been one of the most devastating
    in history. The Forest Service's budget for fire suppression
    has grown from less than 20 percent to more than 50 percent of
    the agency's total budget. This will have repercussions not
    only on Federal land, but for the funding of State and private
    forestry programs across the country. These programs include
    State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance, which fund
    much of the nation's initial attack on Federal lands.
        In Wyoming and across the nation, a private forest
    landowner who works with our staff and with the forest
    stewardship program is almost three times as likely to manage
    his forest as a landowner without a management plan. Helped by
    State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance, every
    county in Wyoming now has a Community Wildfire Protection plan.
    Also, much of our wildland fire equipment and training which we
    use to respond to both private and Federal fires comes from
    this program. In addition, through the support of community
    forestry programs, half of Wyoming's communities are designated
    as ``Tree City USAs.'' This has a huge impact on the quality of
    life, stormwater control, air quality, and carbon capture in
    these communities.
        Again, we applaud the Chairman and the Environment and
    Public Works Committee for making the health of our Federal
    forests a top priority. I know the nation's State foresters
    stand ready to work with you to address these most important
    challenges.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crapser follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Crapser.
        Mr. Moretti.

              STATEMENT OF MILES MORETTI, PRESIDENT/CEO,
                          MULE DEER FOUNDATION

        Mr. Moretti. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking
    Member Carper and members of the Committee. My name is Miles
    Moretti. I am the President and CEO of the Mule Deer
    Foundation. We are the premier wildlife conservation group
    working on mule deer, black-tailed deer, and their habitat. I
    also am a proud professional member of the Boone and Crockett
    Club, and have served as a past Chair and current Board Member
    of the Intermountain West Joint Venture.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of
    the draft Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017. The
    draft legislation is an important step toward the enactment of
    bipartisan solutions to address a national forest health crisis
    which addresses the threat of catastrophic wildland fires in a
    manner that yields significant benefits for wildlife
    populations and their habitat.
        In particular, the Foundation appreciates the inclusion of
    the Sage Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and
    Restoration Bill, which was coauthored by the senior Senator
    from the State of Utah--Senator Hatch--and Senator Heinrich, in
    cooperation with sportsmen's conservation organizations, the
    private sector, and other stakeholders.
        And I would like to say that when we put this bill together
    with Senator Hatch and Senator Heinrich, and we had groups like
    Boone and Crockett, National Wildlife Federation, and the
    American Petroleum Institute all give quotes in a press
    release, I had people call me and say, I don't know what is in
    your bill, but if you can get all those people to help sponsor
    this bill and support this bill, I am for it.
        So, with that, in order to achieve our mission, the
    Foundation works with a diverse cross-section of Federal and
    State government partners, nonprofit conservation
    organizations, and the private sector, particularly the oil and
    gas industry, to undertake projects to create, restore, and
    protect sage habitat.
        While the motivation for engaging in these projects may
    differ across these partnerships, the model of working together
    to achieve our shared goal of reversing declining trends in the
    populations of sage dependent species has proven successful
    time and again.
        A primary impediment to replicating the successful
    collaborative model is the onerous and unnecessary and
    duplicative requirements of a full National Environmental
    Policy Act review of projects that would be better allowed to
    proceed under a categorical exclusion.
        While we have moved forward on many projects in the West,
    we have three projects that are being held up by the lack of
    NEPA being conducted by BLM. In my experience, time delays
    resulting from current NEPA requirements stem not only from a
    lack of human and financial resources, but from the fact that a
    full NEPA review, when applied to projects for which NEPA was
    intended to apply, are inherently time consuming. We are not
    asking to pass this bill to circumvent the process, but to
    expedite the process on projects using proven practices that we
    know will have net conservation benefits.
        My ask of you today is that you help us restore our forests
    and rangelands to a healthy condition by giving us the tools
    and flexibility to accomplish that tool, and we believe that
    whatever form that takes, we need action now. There is just so
    many wildfires in the West, and they are becoming such
    catastrophic events that we need to get proactive. The hands
    off approach has not worked. We need a hands on approach to
    working with our partners in restoring healthy forests and
    rangelands.
        Thank you for your time and allowing me to testify before
    you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moretti follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    Mr. Moretti.
        Mr. Kruse.

        STATEMENT OF DYLAN KRUSE, POLICY DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE
                               NORTHWEST

        Mr. Kruse. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. My name is Dylan Kruse, and I am the Policy Director
    at Sustainable Northwest. We are a regional nonprofit located
    in Portland, Oregon, developing solutions to natural resource
    challenges that maintain working lands and promote
    environmental stewardship. I appreciate the chance to speak
    with you all today, as the subject matter could not be more
    urgent.
        Sustainable Northwest is a strong supporter of active
    forest management that sustains ecosystem resiliency, supports
    natural resource livelihoods, and protects life and property.
    Unfortunately, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act will
    do little to address the underlying challenges affecting the
    health of our Federal forests, and omits critical opportunities
    to address the rising costs and threats of wildfire.
        We are troubled by proposals that shortcut environmental
    laws, create bureaucracy, and introduce unnecessary authorities
    likely to cause increased tension in land management planning
    and decisionmaking.
        Regarding Title I of the bill, we recognize the need for a
    legislative fix to conflicting court decisions about
    consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We commend the
    Committee for swift resolution on this matter, but urge you to
    work with interested parties to improve the legislation based
    on two principles: that forest restoration projects should be
    permitted to proceed in a timely fashion, and that we should
    not diminish the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.
        We are particularly troubled by Title III of the bill.
    Section 311, on Environmental Assessments. Discretion and
    timely decisionmaking are imperative in the production of any
    environmental review, and we expect agencies to exercise
    prudence to satisfy sufficiency. However, the Forest Service
    should retain independent decisionmaking authority that relies
    on its technical and scientific expertise when selecting the
    appropriate criteria and level of detail to be incorporated
    into analysis.
        In Section 314, on an Alternative Dispute Process,
    introducing a binding arbitration process with agencies and
    restricting the ability of the public to file legal challenges
    undermines essential tenets of our democratic process. We
    appreciate the intent to reduce litigation and expedite legal
    resolution, but have not seen evidence proving that arbitration
    will result in a different outcome than judicial review. It
    also prohibits case law for future precedent and is vague on
    expectations and qualifications for arbitrators.
        And Section 332 to 336 on Categorical Exclusions, we agree
    that there is a pressing need to increase the pace and scale of
    restoration, but the Forest Service already has at least 25
    internal categorical exclusions, as well as 5 additional
    authorities in statute. CEs and streamlined options already
    exist for insect and disease treatments, hazardous fuels
    reduction, protection of water sources, and salvage logging.
    This is not to say that review of NEPA is not warranted.
        We are pleased to note that the Forest Service experts are
    already reviewing environmental authorities and opportunities
    for efficiency. We urge the Committee to let the agency
    complete this process and propose new approaches based on data
    driven analysis.
        So, as far as alternatives for success, in contrast to the
    broad reforms in the proposed legislation, we suggest a more
    targeted approach that addresses the causes of extreme
    wildfire, reforms budgets, and utilizes existing authorities.
        First of all, we must fix fire funding. Unlike other
    natural disasters, the Forest Service and Department of
    Interior are required to pay for wildfire response out of their
    annual budgets and transfer funds when they exceed their
    allocation. More than 50 percent of the Forest Service budget
    is consumed by wildfire suppression. By 2021 it will be 67
    percent. We must address this now.
        We need to seek a comprehensive solution. Alternative
    bipartisan proposals such as the Wildland Fires Act of 2017
    more effectively address the causes of wildfire and provide
    resources to prepare for and prevent future wildfires. This
    includes funding to at risk communities, investment in forest
    products infrastructure and work force, and incentives for cost
    savings to complete restoration.
        We need to use the tools we already have. The 2014 Farm
    Bill authorized stewardship contracting, Good Neighbor
    Authority, insect and disease designations, and designation by
    prescription and description in timber sales. These tools have
    been embraced by partners, as you have heard, but have just
    recently been adopted.
        We need to support collaboration. Oregon and Washington are
    home to 33 forest collaboratives. A recent academic review of
    the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program showed
    that 75 percent of respondents said the program resulted in
    decreased conflict, and 61 percent had seen decreased
    litigation. Federal agencies should adopt collaborative
    recommendations to the maximum extent possible.
        We need to get ahead of the problem. We continue to take a
    reactive approach to wildfire, instead of proactively
    addressing its causes. In Oregon and Washington alone, there
    are over 2 million acres of forests that have already completed
    NEPA but have yet to be carried out due to funding. These
    projects will reduce fuel loads, improve forest health, and
    allow fire to return in a controlled and beneficial way. But
    Congress must be willing to pay for them.
        And thus we must invest accordingly. Landscape restoration
    will only be implemented with appropriate investment from
    Congress. This includes funding for collaborative initiatives
    and programs that cut across ownership boundaries, leverage
    resources, and achieve integrated outcomes. However, funding
    levels in President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget propose a
    dire and austere vision for our Federal lands and rural
    communities. Instead, we should sustain land management agency
    funding levels as included in the fiscal year 2017
    appropriations bill.
        In closing, with these conditions in place, significant
    gains could be made to improve the health of our landscapes,
    create natural resource jobs, and secure the safety of rural
    and urban communities.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kruse follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Kruse.
        I thank all of you for your testimony. We will now turn to
    some questions.
        Mr. Crapser, how would this legislation before us today
    lead to increased programmatic efficiency and effectiveness in
    what you do?
        Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman, I think any tools in the Forest
    Service's toolbox potentially help with their efficiency. If
    you look at the CE language, there has been some hesitancy on
    the agency's part to utilize some of the CEs under the current
    Farm Bill. I think the big thing that it does, it gives them
    more tools, it gives them more options when they look at any
    management concerns.
        Senator Barrasso. When we talk about tools, the Good
    Neighbor Authority can be an important tool that allows the
    Forest Service to work with States so they can perform
    watershed restoration, forest management services. Congress
    enacted two different Good Neighbor Authorities under the
    Department of Interior a couple of years ago. Do you see
    benefits in a single national Good Neighbor Authority as
    provided by this Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act?
        Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. I think any time we
    have conflicting authorities, even though they are relatively
    the same, it causes confusion. As I understand it, the current
    Authorities, one that was in the Appropriations Bill, will
    actually expire a year from now. I believe the other one is
    long term, the one that was in the Farm Bill. There are some
    issues with road construction and road reconstruction in the
    two. Having one that is consistent would be helpful for both
    States and for the Federal agencies.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Moretti, kind of a two part question
    about NEPA. Do you believe that the existing NEPA structure is
    sufficiently effective and flexible in terms of promoting
    effective forest management? And then the second part is why do
    you think it is necessary to have categorical exclusions, which
    we outline in this Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of
    2017, to help expedite the forest management projects?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, overall, the NEPA process as the law is
    good, but it has been interpreted so many different ways, and
    it is holding up our projects and has become so cumbersome. And
    what we are also finding is the agencies no longer have the
    budget and the manpower to deal with NEPA on these projects
    that we are working on that are projects that are probably
    going back into an area that had NEPA done on them over 20
    years ago, 30 years ago.
        We are doing maintenance in a lot of these areas. We are
    trying to reduce this invasion of pinyon-juniper that is coming
    in and invading sage habitat and mule deer habitat. So we
    believe that the categorical exclusions can help us expedite
    this process, get this going as you see what is going on in the
    West, whether it is on BLM land. People forget that over 2
    million acres of sage grouse habitat burned up this year, and a
    lot of that was pinyon-juniper country that just burned into
    the sage habitat. So it is more that we need expedited, to have
    the flexibility to get out there and get these projects done.
        Senator Barrasso. It seems that environmental laws and
    regulations affecting forest management projects do play an
    important role in protecting wildlife and habitat, but projects
    are often halted; not over compliance issues, but by litigation
    and appeals of the litigation. This Wildfire Prevention and
    Mitigation Act would establish a pilot arbitration process to
    conduct alternative dispute resolutions over forest management
    activities.
        Do you see value in this legislation's arbitration
    provision in terms of solving some of the disputes that
    basically have an impact on the work that is trying to be done?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, I think anything that brings the parties
    to the table to work it out, and hopefully they would be able
    to work it out before there is a decision, so there isn't a
    winner and a loser. But believing that getting people face to
    face around a table and working things out, and finding those
    touchpoints that are causing the conflict. I think when
    reasonable people get together, they can make reasonable
    decisions.
        Senator Barrasso. And Mr. Crapser, the Wildfire Prevention
    Act makes several references to collaboration. Can you provide
    the Committee with maybe a couple of examples of collaboration
    in our State that have benefited Wyoming's natural resources?
    And as a State forester, how do you think of the term
    collaboration?
        Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had some great
    successes on both recreation collaboratives and on forest
    management vegetative collaboratives across the State, in the
    Big Horns. In the western part of the State, on the Bridger-
    Teton we have an active collaborative working right now that I
    think will come up with some good solutions, some community
    based solutions.
        I think collaboration, like a lot of buzz words, we love to
    throw the term collaboration around and collaboratives around,
    and I think a lot of times it requires us to just old fashion
    work together and roll up our sleeves and talk to one another
    to see what is the best for our forests.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Thank you all.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Let me just ask my Democratic colleagues,
    anybody on a tight timeline? If so, I will yield to you.
    Anybody? I see none. OK, good. In that case, I will take 15
    minutes. Not really. All right, here we go.
        My colleagues know one of the things I always search for
    when we have a hearing on an issue about which there is not
    unanimity is that I like to use a panel like you to help us
    find the common ground where it is missing.
        Let me just ask this multi-part question, but first, ask
    each of you to briefly mention three things we talked about
    here today where you think there is agreement among the three
    of you. Three things. Important points.
        Mr. Crapser.
        Mr. Crapser. Listening to my colleagues on the panel, I
    would think we would be in agreement that collaboration and
    folks working together is a good thing; you can make better
    decisions. I think utilizing the Good Neighbor Authority and
    the Federal agencies working closer with the State, with the
    State Forest Action Plans, with the State Wildlife Plans, I
    think we would probably all be in agreement that that is a
    positive thing. And I think at the end of the day the other
    thing we all would find in agreement, we probably all want what
    is best for the forests, for the wildlife, and for the folks
    that recreate and live around our forests.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        How do you pronounce your name, Miles?
        Mr. Moretti. Moretti.
        Senator Carper. Moretti. Thank you so much. Mr. Moretti.
        Mr. Moretti. Ranking Member Carper, I appreciate that
    question because I think we all agree that what we have done in
    the past has not worked, and that we are facing some extreme
    conditions that we have never faced before, and we need to be
    proactive and we need to be aggressive, and that is everything
    in funding, fixing those administrative barriers to getting the
    job done. And I think as my friend from Wyoming says, I think
    we can all agree that--bottom line--we want to see a healthy
    forest and healthy rangelands.
        We may disagree on how we get there, but I think our end
    goals are all the same.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Carper, I definitely agree with my
    colleagues on the panel. We certainly want to see active
    management for improved forest, watershed, and community
    conditions. I think we all agree on the need for a
    comprehensive wildfire funding fix; I think we all see a clear
    and defined role for collaboration to help get us to those
    outcomes; and I think we all agree on the need to invest in our
    Federal land management agencies to get the work done.
        Senator Carper. That is quite a bit of agreement.
        Let me just ask you a follow up question. Where is the most
    significant disagreement, the most significant disagreement
    that we face, from your perspective, and how would you
    recommend that we address that disagreement to reach our
    differences?
        Very briefly, Mr. Crapser.
        Mr. Crapser. Senator, I think the devil being in the
    details, as the old saying goes, is probably----
        Senator Carper. I have never heard that before.
        Mr. Crapser [continuing]. Where most of the disagreement
    would come. I think on how we get there, I think there is, for
    whatever reason, lack of trust between different communities
    involved in natural resources on trusting that other parts of
    the community are really out for the same thing that they are
    and are trying to do the right thing. So I think the biggest
    area of disagreement is understanding or misunderstanding of
    the trail we want to follow to get to where we need to go.
        That is kind of--I didn't really answer your question, I
    feel, but that is, I think, the biggest issue we face.
        Senator Carper. OK. And again, there is a second part to
    the question. That is the biggest. How do we bridge that.
        But go ahead, Mr. Moretti. What I am really interested in
    is how do we go about bridging the major difference that you
    see. The 800 pound gorilla in the room, if you will; how do we
    bridge that?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, I have always found that the way you
    bridge and get together with disagreements is you sit around
    the table and look each other in the eye. And everybody is
    going to come to the table with their agenda, and I think that
    the trust has to be there, and if you don't have the trust that
    people are there trying to do the right thing, and everybody
    thinks that you have some hidden agenda, I think if we can put
    that on the table and sit down and hammer it out, again I go
    back to reasonable people can come up with a reasonable
    solution, and we need that out there.
        I mean, we are literally dying out there. Our forests are
    dying; we are having catastrophic fires that are taking human
    toll, and we need help. So we have to get serious people to the
    table to figure out how to fix this.
        Senator Carper. Good.
        Same question, Mr. Kruse.
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Carper, trust is certainly the operative
    word there. I think for certain members of the natural
    resources community this distrust is fostered by the notion
    that we are changing the rules of the game, when we begin to
    look at certain reforms especially to bedrock environmental
    policy like NEPA. Our recommendation as far as overcoming that
    distrust is, again, to focus on all of the authorities that we
    have.
        What can we do with stewardship contracting? What can we do
    with Good Neighbor Authority? What can we do with our
    categorical exclusions, with the Healthy Forest Restoration
    Act? We already have lots of tools to do action, no action,
    alternatives, to expedite judicial review, and those have been
    passed by Congress in a bipartisan fashion. This is a question
    of leadership, and it is a question of investment and funding.
        And if we are creating the conditions for success, and we
    have already enabled a playing field where we can succeed, it
    is about direction from this Congress to those agencies and to
    the general public about what we are trying to accomplish. But
    we certainly have the tools and the resources available to us
    as far as the mechanisms to meet the rule of the law, to meet
    environmental stewardship and get work done, but we have to
    invest in it, and we have to foster that bipartisan spirit,
    rather than change and move the goal posts.
        Senator Carper. Excellent. Thank you so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for being here. I think Senator Carper's question about what we
    can agree on was really very, very good, and that is what we
    try and do, and those are the things that we ought to be able
    to get done. I think everybody in this room, listening to you
    all, listening to your testimony, agrees that we can't continue
    to spend 50 percent of the dollars that we spend on fire
    suppression. It just makes no sense at all.
        So I would like for you to talk, whoever wants to jump out,
    and then we will go down the panel, tell me about when you are
    spending that many dollars on that and you don't have any money
    to really do the job on managing things, tell me the impact of
    that. Tell me why that is such a huge problem.
        Mr. Moretti. Well, Senator, I can tell you from our
    standpoint what happens a lot of times, we are out on the
    forests, around the BLM, we are doing projects, doing active
    management, and a lot of times we will get shut down come the
    fire season because everybody is gone, and then they are having
    to pull their budget back.
        So, you know, projects that we have, we have contractors on
    the ground, and we are ready to go, and we just can't move
    forward; we have to shut down, and then we may not get started
    until the next year; it may be delayed. So those are the kinds
    of things that affect us, and the agency gets shut down, and
    basically they do nothing but fight fires during that fire
    season, and there needs to be a better way of conducting
    business.
        Senator Boozman. And in not managing the ecosystem, doing
    the management because of what you describe, you are pulling
    this off all over the country; what is the effect of that?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, we don't get the projects done that can
    help alleviate the problem we are talking about. So with some
    active management and being proactive in these areas, we can go
    in and we can make sure that the forest is in a good, healthy
    condition. We have actually had projects in Arizona where some
    large wildfires have happened, and when they have gotten to one
    of these projects that we have done, mostly for wildlife, the
    fire has slowed down; it has not gone out, but it has slowed
    down. And a lot of times these projects that we are doing serve
    as kind of a fire break and are really helpful.
        Senator Boozman. Mr. Kruse, before you do, it is sad, we
    have heard testimony here about people in fire prone areas,
    people who have had devastating fires and talking about the
    managed areas, many of them private areas that are managed
    well, and then you have the areas that we are managing, and
    they are raging infernos compared to the other and really part
    of the problem.
        Mr. Kruse.
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Boozman, I agree with Mr. Moretti,
    certainly. The challenge associated with the funding budget
    situation is that we are unable to do the work on the ground
    because it is consumed by fire funding. The Forest Service has
    become the Fire Service. And a comprehensive wildfire funding
    fix includes access to disaster funding; it minimizes the need
    to do those transfers, so the agency doesn't halt its work
    during fire season, and it freezes or minimizes the
    cannibalization of the agency's budget because of the rising
    cost of the 10 year average. The result of that is potentially
    hundreds of millions of additional dollars that are freed up to
    do this management work on the ground; to do that thinning, to
    do that fuels reduction, to do those prescribed burns to
    protect communities.
        I mentioned 2 million acres of forestland in Oregon and
    Washington that have already been approved for NEPA to go
    through that management process. With money we could save from
    a fire funding fix, we could get that work done.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Yes, sir.
        Mr. Crapser. Senator, kind of as my colleagues have already
    talked about, it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that we
    are in right now. We have high fuel loadings, poor forest
    conditions, large fires. The Fire Service uses all their money
    to fight fires, so they don't do their hazardous fuels work,
    and we just keep going down the road. It impacts the Forest
    Service's ability to do Federal land management.
        It also impacts, where we are at with wildland fires now,
    the State's ability to help private landowners. As you know,
    large parts of State Forestry's budgets come from the Forest
    Service for State and private projects. Those funds are
    somewhat up for grabs during fire borrowing. Also, our folks
    are helping the Forest Service on fires, so we have the same
    issues during the summer. So it ends up being a self-fulfilling
    prophecy again, just that we keep moving into a worse and worse
    situation.
        Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you. And we do appreciate all
    of your all's hard work very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        The order I have based on arrival of the Democratic members
    is Senator Merkley next, then Senator Harris, and then Senator
    Whitehouse, if that is agreeable to you in the order in which
    you have arrived.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Moretti, I believe you were speaking to the fact that
    when thinning and hazardous fuels are reduced, the forest can
    become much more naturally resistant to fires. Did I understand
    that correctly?
        Mr. Moretti. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. And Mr. Crapser, would you agree with
    that?
        Mr. Crapser. Yes, Senator, I think I would.
        Senator Merkley. And Mr. Kruse?
        Mr. Kruse. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. So I was very struck. I was visiting
    eastern Oregon this last weekend, and central Oregon, and I
    went up to a forest outside of Sisters, where the fires had
    raged, and they were coming toward the town, and they stopped.
    And why did they stop? Well, because this forest had been
    thinned, it had had its hazardous fuels removed, some many
    years ago, and it had a 15 year or so prescription burn done
    that had reduced the grass and brush that had grown up over
    those years. And it really helped the Forest Service get in and
    fight the fire, also, because it was much easier to move about
    in this forest that had been thinned.
        So it seems like we have several things that I think
    everyone agrees with, and I will just say them out loud. We
    need to fix fire funding so that we are not continuously
    draining all the other programs in the Forest Service; that
    thinning and hazardous fuels reduction has a positive outcome
    both for forests as timber stands, as healthier ecosystems that
    supply saw logs to the mill, and it makes the forest more
    resistant.
        Are there any of those points that any of you would
    disagree with?
        [All witnesses shook their head in the negative.]
        Senator Merkley. So we have, just in Oregon and Washington,
    as you pointed out, Mr. Kruse, 2 million acres. I know we have
    1.6 million acres in Oregon, so I guess a smaller number in
    Washington State, that have already gone through the
    environmental process. The only thing that stops us from
    adopting this strategy which produces saw logs, makes the
    forest healthier, makes it fire resistant is funding. So why
    not concentrate on getting the funding to do these things and
    the fire borrowing, and get the funding to do the work up
    front?
        My concern about some of the proposals is when there is
    that easily available and very effective solution, as soon as
    many of us hear, well, let's authorize no environmental review
    and clear cuts, it is just the timber wars of the past, instead
    of actually a strategy to make the forests healthier, supply
    saw logs. Why go back to the timber wars of the past if we have
    the solution sitting right in front of us?
        Mr. Kruse.
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Merkley, I agree strongly with what you
    are suggesting. I think part of the challenge that we have here
    is a series of categorical exclusions that have expanded beyond
    what the intent of a categorical exclusion should, by
    definition, be, which is having no direct impact, no indirect
    impact, or no cumulative impacts. So we are taking a tool that
    can and appropriately be used in certain situations and being
    expanded to something that it should not be.
        More importantly, as you mentioned, we should be focusing
    on those existing authorities to actually address these
    challenges at a landscape scale. We should be investing in
    programs like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    Program. We should be doing programmatic environmental impact
    statements.
        We want to have an impact on the land, as you noted. That
    is not accomplished with the category of exclusion that has no
    impact. We shouldn't be treating 1 or 3 or 6,000 acres at a
    time; we should be treating hundreds of thousands of acres. And
    with adequate funding and authorization of those programs and
    utilization of all of our existing authorities, we can and
    should be able to do that without returning to the rhetoric and
    the conflict of the timber wars.
        Senator Merkley. I do think many of you or maybe all of you
    have spoken to the cycle we are trapped in of we are just
    depleting the funding on the front end to do the hazardous
    fuels and the thinning, and then we are spending it on the back
    end. And breaking that cycle is something I think Democrats,
    Republicans, and everyone on every side of this could agree
    with.
        We have a mill up in John Day, Oregon, that was going to go
    out of business, and I met with the millworkers and said I
    would do everything I could to help keep that mill open. But
    you couldn't do it through a timber sale because that didn't
    give the at least 10 year horizon that the owner needed to be
    able to invest in equipment for the mill.
        So we were able to do it through a stewardship agreement.
    And that meant that the forest was healthier, they got a steady
    supply of saw logs, so they employed more people at the mill.
    In a small town, that is a really big deal.
        And I am out of time, but you are welcome to respond if the
    Chair will allow it. Why not focus on these tools that are
    right before us that everyone on this panel agrees with?
        Mr. Crapser. Senator, I think there is a lot of good tools
    out there that we can already use; however, not all the West,
    not all the Forest Service is as far ahead on NEPA documents as
    I think Washington and Oregon obviously are. One advantage that
    I see in categorical exclusions, or one of the advantages I see
    in categorical exclusion is, first, to clarify, a CE is an
    environmental document, it is part of NEPA, it is covered under
    NEPA. And it takes about 7 months to put together the analysis
    for a CE; it takes about 2 and a half years for an EA or an
    environmental assessment.
        While I think a lot of our tools are very good that we
    have, I think we have had a tendency, because of fire
    borrowing, because of lots of other reasons that you have
    talked to that we do have to address, to not have a sense of
    urgency. On some of the mountain pine beetle areas, some of the
    fire salvage areas, I think in those areas, in particular,
    there is a need of urgency to try to get things done in a
    fairly rapid form.
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Merkley, I don't want to belabor the
    point because I certainly and strongly agree with your
    comments. I do just want to thank you. To the point we have had
    a lot of great successes in Oregon and Washington, and that is
    a testament to the leadership that we have had in our region,
    so thank you for your continued advocacy to identify and pacify
    our funding fix.
        Thank you for your advocacy to fight for surge funding in
    this Congress to get additional investments to help our
    communities recover from the devastating fires we have seen
    this year, including the Chetco Bar and the Eagle Creek fire in
    Oregon. We are reeling from that. We need to help rebuild our
    communities, and we need to get additional investments to start
    to get ahead of the problem. So thank you for your leadership
    on that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
        I am going to introduce letters and testimony in support of
    the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017. There are
    78 testimonies and letters received from a diverse group of
    stakeholders representing conservation and sportsmen's group,
    farmers, ranchers, counties, water and irrigation
    organizations, forestry job creators, all in support for the
    staff draft bill into the record. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Harris.
        Senator Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As has been mentioned and I think is widely known, the
    recent wildfires in my home State have been devastating to
    California. I was there last week. For hundreds of miles
    surrounding the wildfire devastation and disaster, you could
    see and smell the smoke. It has presented health issues to
    surrounding communities that will linger.
        When I went there, I actually flew over in a Black Hawk
    with the Governor and others to survey the scene from the air
    and see the path of the wildfire. I then walked the
    neighborhoods that had been devastated, and I will tell you
    seeing those neighborhoods, all of the houses had been
    destroyed. They were gone. Ash. The only thing standing were
    the chimneys. And I will tell you when I looked at it, what I
    saw, it looked like a graveyard, and the chimneys looked like
    tombstones.
        I met with the residents of those communities in the
    evacuation centers. They are devastated. And the impact, the
    trauma, the emotional, the physical; we lost 42 lives. I met
    firefighters who lost their own homes and were battling the
    fire knowing they had nothing to return to. I met one
    firefighter who was at one of the centers. He was wearing
    sweatshirt and sweatpants that someone loaned him because he
    had been fighting the fires but he had nothing to change into
    because his home had been destroyed.
        So the devastation is very real, and I think this Committee
    understands in a very bipartisan way that we need to address
    the issue, and we need to address the issue, as my colleagues
    have discussed. It includes understanding that, for example, in
    California we have over 245,000 acres that have been destroyed.
    That is about 5 times the size of DC. Eighty-four hundred homes
    and buildings have been destroyed. So it is true devastation.
        So, Mr. Kruse, I have a question for you. After speaking
    with California Fire Chief Ken Pimlott, I have become very
    aware and it has become clear to me that Congress needs to
    reform our outdated budgetary practices, and in particular,
    those that do not treat wildfires like other disasters.
        Do you agree that wildfires are in fact disasters and
    should be treated as such?
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Harris, thank you for the question.
    Wildfires are certainly a natural part of the ecosystem and
    part of our forested landscapes, but unfortunately, because of
    the effects of climate change, longer, hotter, drier fire
    seasons, extensive fuel build up in 100 years of fire
    suppression, we are seeing increasing numbers of these
    wildfires becoming extreme disasters, and they should
    absolutely be categorized as such.
        Senator Harris. Thank you. Currently, more than 50 percent
    of the Forest Service's budget is dedicated to fire
    suppression, leaving little money for forest management, which
    has been the discussion here. Do you believe we have dedicated
    enough Federal funding to the Forest Service to help prevent
    and mitigate the likelihood of a wildfire before it happens?
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Harris, we certainly have not, and we
    have shovel ready projects to invest in both planning and
    implementation right now. We desperately need additional
    investment.
        Senator Harris. My colleagues and I have cosponsored a
    bipartisan bill that is known as the Wildfire Disaster Funding
    Act. This bill would allow for wildfires to be treated like
    other disasters and allow States to access emergency funding
    through FEMA. Do you think that this bill would help mitigate
    the harm and the damage caused by wildfires?
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Harris, absolutely. In fact, when the
    Wildfire Disaster Funding Act was introduced in the last
    Congress, it was the most bipartisan bill of the Congress. Over
    150 bipartisan, bicameral cosponsors and over 200 organizations
    from environmental communities, industry, counties, and
    recreation and wildlife groups all support that legislation. It
    is imperative that we pass it. We should be able to do it
    immediately.
        Senator Harris. I appreciate your expertise on this panel.
        Mr. Crapser, the Forest Service estimated last year that
    there are nearly 102 million dead trees in California forests.
    This is especially concerning right now because it contributes,
    obviously, to wildfires. Are you familiar with tree mortality
    issues?
        Mr. Crapser. Yes.
        Senator Harris. And California fire officials have told me
    that our State uses its own resources to remove dead trees on
    Federal lands like national forests, which should be, I
    believe, an obligation of the United States Forest Service. Are
    you aware of other States that have had to use their own
    resources to remove dead trees from Federal land?
        Mr. Crapser. Senator, in Wyoming, which we are a small
    State, we have about 4.5 million acres of mountain pine beetle
    impacted areas. In the last 6 years, the legislature has
    actually appropriated probably a total of about $7 million for
    us to use for bark beetle projects on private, State, and on
    Federal lands. So we have used State money on Federal land, and
    I know other States have done the same.
        Senator Harris. And then my final question, I know my time
    has expired, but would you agree that Federal funds managed by
    the U.S. Forest Service should be used to remove dead trees
    from Federal lands?
        Mr. Crapser. Senator, I think Federal funds with the
    managed Forest Service should be used for managing our Federal
    lands. There are some places where dead trees are probably
    appropriate to leave. They should be used for the effective
    management of our lands.
        Senator Harris. And would removal of dead trees be included
    in that?
        Mr. Crapser. Yes.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Thank you. I have nothing else.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Harris.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Let me first ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record a number of letters
    from concerned stakeholders, including Center for Justice and
    Democracy, Public Citizen, and the Wilderness Society.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        Gentlemen, what is the connection between carbon emissions,
    climate change, and the wildfire season?
        Mr. Kruse. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. For the record, two Republican
    witnesses gestured to the Democratic witness to have him answer
    the question.
        Mr. Kruse. Happy to inherit the question, Senator
    Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
        Senator Whitehouse. You are not going to get off that easy;
    I will turn to you guys in a minute. And I know what the Boone
    and Crockett Club has said about this, too, Mr. Moretti.
        Mr. Kruse. There is clear and overwhelming consensus from
    both objective scientists inside and outside of the agency that
    climate change is absolutely having an effect on our forested
    landscapes. The wildfire season is 2 months longer than it used
    to be.
        Senator Whitehouse. One month earlier and 1 month later,
    right?
        Mr. Kruse. Correct. We are fighting fire from April to
    October right now.
        Senator Whitehouse. When had that happened before?
        Mr. Kruse. It has not; it has only been in the last 10 to
    15 years that we have seen this. This is a recent phenomenon.
    And as a result of that fuel build up, it is hotter, it is
    drier, and it is continuing to dry out and build up year after
    year after year. And as the temperature has continued to rise,
    when we do have those fire conflagration events, they are
    extreme. So there is a clear connection between carbon
    emissions, climate change, and what we are now experiencing
    with wildfire in our forests.
        Senator Whitehouse. Factor bugs into that equation, like
    the bark beetle. Does that have any effect on the
    susceptibility of forests to wildfire, and is that connected to
    climate change and carbon pollution?
        Mr. Kruse. Senator Whitehouse, bark beetles, again, are a
    natural part of forest ecosystems; however, as we do see the
    habitat changing for bark beetle, and extending the season by
    which they can migrate and mate, we are seeing increased
    infestations.
        Senator Whitehouse. Meaning they can survive in northern
    latitudes and northern altitudes they couldn't get to before
    because winters were killing them off, but milder winters
    because of climate change are allowing them to move in those
    directions?
        Mr. Kruse. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. And then how does that roll into
    wildfires?
        Mr. Kruse. As we continue to see increased die off of those
    forests, they are less resilient. When wildfires move through,
    we do have additional build up of fuels. And when fires do
    occur, they are burning more of that fuel and they are more
    extreme.
        Senator Whitehouse. A dead tree burns faster than a living
    one, ordinarily, correct?
        Mr. Kruse. It certainly can in this case.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Moretti, agree or disagree?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, I believe that whether it is climate
    change or whether it is a lack of management, our forests are
    in need of--they are in bad shape. They are in bad health.
        Senator Whitehouse. That wasn't the question that you were
    asked, though.
        Mr. Moretti. But the question I am saying is is whether it
    is climate change or whether it is lack of management----
        Senator Whitehouse. And that is the question. What do you
    have to say about whether it is or isn't climate change? Does
    climate change have any role in this?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, we believe that we have gone through a
    much drier cycle in a lot of areas in the West. In this last
    winter, in western Wyoming, we had one of the hardest winters
    we ever had on record, so we believe that these forests are
    under a huge amount of stress, again, whether it is through
    climate change, lack of management, or whatever.
        Senator Whitehouse. Do you have another explanation for why
    the forest fire season or the wildfire season would have
    expanded a month out in either direction? Could that in any
    rational way be ascribed to management issues?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, I think it can be. I think that when we
    go through these periods of dry conditions and we have these
    forest fuels build up and these dead trees that we haven't been
    able to get out and harvest, that anything from manmade to
    natural cause can start a forest fire; and once it starts, you
    see how they are all-consuming. And as we have heard, there
    have been millions of acres consumed this year.
        Senator Whitehouse. So it sounds like what you are saying
    is that the expansion of the wildfire season could be helped by
    management practices that could reduce some of the fuel load
    and so forth.
        Mr. Moretti. We could reduce the fuel load.
        Senator Whitehouse. But it is not management practices that
    are actually expanding the wildfire season, is it?
        Mr. Moretti. Well, it all depends. It depends on what is
    causing those fires. If it is a manmade fire----
        Senator Whitehouse. Now we get back to my original
    question.
        Mr. Moretti. I know. But if it is a manmade fire, it is
    the----
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, let me start by this. Do you
    agree that the wildfire season has expanded by 2 months, as Mr.
    Kruse has said?
        Mr. Moretti. I will agree to that.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. And do you have an explanation as
    to why that is happening on a consistent basis? It is not just
    a one-off, that it happened in 1 year.
        Mr. Moretti. No.
        Senator Whitehouse. It is persistent, and it is at trend
    now, is it not?
        Mr. Moretti. That is not my area of expertise.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK.
        Mr. Crapser, anything to add? You only have about a second.
        Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman and Senator, I think if we look
    at the wildfire season over the last 50 years, we have seen an
    increase in the fire season. If we look historically, in the
    early 1900s, we had a period of years with very long fire
    reasons.
        I am not an expert in carbon; I am not an expert in climate
    change. I do know that investing in forest management means
    healthier forests, less fires, less carbon emissions. I do know
    that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you to the witnesses.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse.
        For Mr. Crapser or Mr. Moretti, there was a question
    earlier about funding, if we had enough funding. Is funding
    alone enough, or do we need some regulatory changes as well?
        Mr. Crapser. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is hand in hand.
    Funding is a huge issue on the fire funding, I believe on
    overall support of our Federal lands, Federal land management.
    But I also think tools that can help industry, can help maybe
    alleviate some of the funding issues are also important, as the
    CE for salvage and fire, both insect disease and fire salvage
    would be.
        Senator Barrasso. It is interesting, this discussion of
    climate. I am just going to point out to my colleague that
    there was an article in The Economist this past weekend that
    just came out on Friday called ``Paleoclimatology: A Stormy
    Past.'' It has to do with hurricanes, and the subheadline is
    ``Geological Traces of Ancient Hurricanes Show How Hard Climate
    Science Is.'' This is The Economist that is currently on the
    market. You can pick it up on a newsstand.
        And they talked about what is happening in Florida, and it
    says, ``Geological survey suggests that the hurricanes which
    struck Florida during a cool period 12,000 years ago were more
    powerful than those during a subsequent time of war.'' Just the
    difficulty of trying to get all the information together from a
    scientific standpoint.
        Well, I appreciate each of you being here today to testify.
    I thank you very much for your comments. There are other
    members of the Committee who may have written questions. I
    would ask that you respond promptly to those. The hearing
    record will be open for the next 2 weeks. Thank you again for
    being here and sharing your knowledge and your insight.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
        [The text of S._, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation
    Act of 2017, follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]