[Senate Hearing 116-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                    S. Hrg. 116-382

                          PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
                   PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON


H.R. 823/S. 241                   S. 4215             S. 4616
S. 1695                           S. 4569             S. 4625
S. 2804                           S. 4599             S. 4696
S. 2875                           S. 4603             S. 4889
S. 3492
 
                               ----------                              

                           NOVEMBER 18, 2020

                               ---------- 
                               
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
42-592 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
 
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
                                 ------                                

           Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                           MIKE LEE, Chairman

JOHN BARRASSO                        RON WYDEN
JAMES E. RISCH                       MARIA CANTWELL
STEVE DAINES                         DEBBIE STABENOW
BILL CASSIDY                         MARTIN HEINRICH
CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
CINDY HYDE-SMITH                     ANGUS S. KING, JR.
MARTHA McSALLY                       CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
JOHN HOEVEN

                      Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                      Lucy Murfitt, Chief Counsel
            Nick Matiella, Senior Professional Staff Member
            Annie Hoefler, Senior Professional Staff Member
                 Renae Black, Democratic Staff Director
                Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
        Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member
                     Darla Ripchensky, Chief Clerk
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from 
  Utah...........................................................     1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 
  from Oregon....................................................     4
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     6
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, a U.S. Senator from Nevada.........    17
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............    18

                               WITNESSES

French, Chris, Deputy Chief, USDA Forest Service.................    19
Nedd, Michael, Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land 
  Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................    51
Babbott, Hon. Art, Supervisor-District 1, Coconino County, 
  Arizona, Board of Supervisors..................................    83
Brown, Susan Jane M., Wildlands Program Director and Staff 
  Attorney, Western Environmental Law Center.....................    88

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Agenda...........................................................     2
Ala Kahakai Trail Association, et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   182
Alaska Federation of Natives:
    Letter for the Record........................................   186
    Resolution 19-42.............................................   188
    Resolution 19-43.............................................   190
    Resolution 19-45.............................................   192
Alaska Native Brotherhood Camp 1 Sitka, Alaska:
    Letter for the Record........................................   194
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................     9
Alaska Natives Without Land:
    Petition of Support and Signatories..........................   195
Allen, Marian:
    Comment for the Record.......................................   209
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   210
American Exploration & Mining Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   218
American Whitewater:
    Letter for the Record regarding S. 2875......................   220
    Letter for the Record regarding S. 2875 and S. 241/H.R. 823..   222
Americas Gold & Silver Corporation, Pershing Gold Corporation, 
  and Gold Acquisition Corp.:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   224
Association of Public & Land-grant Universities:
    Letter for the Record........................................     7
Aurora Water:
    Letter for the Record........................................   152
Babbott, Hon. Art:
    Opening Statement............................................    83
    Written Testimony............................................    85
Back Country Horsemen of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................   229
Barnes, Beret:
    Letter for the Record........................................   231
Beebe, David:
    Letter for the Record........................................   232
Bennet, Hon. Michael:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   237
Bernstein, Mary-Claire:
    Letter for the Record........................................   241
Berry, Anissa:
    Letter for the Record........................................   242
BikeFlights.com:
    Letter for the Record........................................    96
Bishop, Gretchen H.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   243
Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee:
    Letter for the Record dated 3/10/20..........................    97
    Letter for the Record regarding S. 4215......................   244
Brakel, Judith:
    Comment for the Record.......................................   246
Brown, Susan Jane M.:
    Opening Statement............................................    88
    Written Testimony............................................    91
Brown, Dr. Zach:
    Letter for the Record........................................   248
Cabuag, Jr., Jacob KM:
    Letter for the Record........................................   249
Cache Trails Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................    98
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska:
    Letter for the Record........................................   250
Chichagof Conservation Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   251
City and Borough of Wrangell, Alaska:
    Letter for the Record........................................   253
City of Craig, Alaska:
    Letter for the Record........................................   255
City of Tenakee Springs, Alaska:
    Letter for the Record........................................   257
Clayton, Lee E.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   259
(The) Coalition to Protect America's National Parks:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   260
Coeur Mining, Inc.:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   265
Colorado Department of Natural Resources:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   267
Colorado Springs Utilities:
    Letter for the Record........................................   281
Colorado Wool Growers Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   162
(The) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   288
Contender Bicycles Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   100
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
    Opening Statement............................................    17
Crandall, A.J.:
    Comment for the Record.......................................   292
Crapella, Jai:
    Letter for the Record........................................   293
Culp, Wanda J.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   294
Davis County, Utah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   101
Doyon, Limited:
    Statement for the Record.....................................    10
Draper City, Utah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   102
Dunleavy, Hon. Michael J.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    12
Earthjustice, et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   297
Edgmon, Hon. Bryce:
    Letter for the Record........................................   298
Elko Mining Group LLC:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   299
Farnell, Richard M.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   301
French, Chris:
    Opening Statement............................................    19
    Written Testimony............................................    22
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   171
Gardner, Hon. Cory:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   302
Giessel, Hon. Cathy:
    Letter for the Record........................................    14
Harold, Stephanie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   303
Heacox, Melanie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   305
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
    Opening Statement............................................    18
Hemenway, Deborah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   306
Hemenway, Matthew:
    Letter for the Record........................................   307
Hemenway, Steven:
    Letter for the Record........................................   308
Herbert, Hon. Gary R.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   103
Herriman Trails Committee:
    Letter for the Record........................................   104
Howell, Wayne:
    Letter for the Record........................................   309
Intermountain Forest Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   163
International Mountain Bicycling Association:
    Letter for the Record addressed to Rep. John Curtis regarding 
      the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.............................   105
    Letter for the Record regarding S. 4215......................   107
    Letter for the Record regarding S. 241.......................   311
Jenson USA:
    Letter for the Record........................................   111
(The) John Muir Project:
    Letter for the Record........................................   314
Kane, Dr. Emily:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   322
Kennedy, Terry:
    Letter for the Record........................................   323
Ketchikan Indian Community:
    Letter for the Record........................................   324
Knight, Kyle:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   325
Knight, Rebecca:
    Letter and Comments with supporting attachments for the 
      Record.....................................................   327
    Letter and Supplemental Comments with supporting attachments 
      for the Record.............................................   347
Koehler, Bart:
    Letter for the Record........................................   357
Kona Bicycle Company:
    Letter for the Record........................................   112
KS Wild:
    Letter for the Record........................................   360
Kuat Racks:
    Letter for the Record........................................   113
Lee, Hon. Mike:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Levy, Abe:
    Comment for the Record.......................................   361
Lewis, Stephen:
    Letter for the Record........................................   362
Link-New, Virgene:
    Letter for the Record........................................   365
Loberti, Joe:
    Letter for the Record........................................   366
Mackovjak, Ann:
    Letter for the Record........................................   367
Mackovjak, James:
    Letter for the Record........................................   368
Mapes, Craig:
    Letter for the Record........................................   369
McBeen, Joan:
    Letter for the Record........................................   370
McBeen, Samuel:
    Letter for the Record........................................   371
McCarthy, Kathrin W.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   372
Mecham, Aaron:
    Letter for the Record........................................   114
Miller, Jr., Billy Joe:
    Letter for the Record........................................   373
Mineral County (Colorado) Board of County Commissioners:
    Resolution No. 2019-11 for the Record........................   165
Monson, Dr. Michael E. and Kris:
    Letter for the Record........................................   115
Moody, Megan:
    Letter for the Record........................................   374
Moore, Frank L.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   377
Moore, Kathleen Dean:
    Letter for the Record........................................   378
Mountain Trails Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   118
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
    Opening Statement............................................     6
National Congress of American Indians:
    Letter for the Record........................................   379
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior:
    Statement for the Record.....................................    81
Nedd, Michael:
    Opening Statement............................................    51
    Written Testimony............................................    53
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   174
Niner Bikes:
    Letter for the Record........................................   119
Orbea USA:
    Letter for the Record........................................   120
Orr, Christopher Ryan:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   381
Outdoor Alliance:
    Letter for the Record dated 7/15/20 regarding the Bonneville 
      Shoreline Trail Advancement Act............................   121
    Letter for the Record dated 11/17/20 regarding various bills.   382
Owens, Shelley:
    Letter for the Record........................................   391
Parker, Steven:
    Letter for the Record........................................   392
Paul, Ben:
    Letter for the Record........................................   393
PeopleForBikes:
    Letter for the Record........................................   125
Pershing County (NV) Board of County Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   398
Petersburg Borough (Alaska) Assembly:
    Letter for the Record........................................   400
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   402
Pivot Cycles:
    Letter for the Record........................................   127
Richards, Elizabeth:
    Letter for the Record........................................   407
Rinehart, Richard ``Tashee'':
    Letter for the Record........................................   408
Rivera, Kim and Tracy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   419
Romney, Hon. Mitt:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   128
Salt Lake Valley Trails Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   129
Sandy City, Utah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   131
Save Our Canyons:
    Letter for the Record........................................   421
Save Our Canyons, et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   468
Schlichting, Sally:
    Letter for the Record........................................   470
Sealaska Corporation:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   471
Sebastian, Joe:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   580
SG Interests VII, Ltd.:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   167
Sisk, John:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   581
Skullcandy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   132
Smith River Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   584
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   585
Southeast Alaska Landless Native Communities:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   586
SRAM LLC:
    Letter for the Record........................................   133
Stansbury, Colleen and Bruce Smith:
    Letter for the Record........................................   614
Stewart, Sarah:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   615
Stokes, Richard:
    Letter for the Record........................................   616
Streveler, Greg:
    Letter for the Record........................................   617
Sustainable Trails Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................   618
Svancara, Theresa:
    Letter for the Record........................................   624
Swope, Rod and Gaile:
    Letter for the Record........................................   625
Tavoliero, Cecilia:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   626
Taylor, Mike:
    Letter for the Record........................................   627
Territorial Sportsmen, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   628
Trails Foundation Northern Utah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   134
Trails Utah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   136
Trout Unlimited:
    Letter for the Record dated 11/16/20 regarding S. 4889.......   630
    Letter for the Record dated 11/18/20 regarding various bills.   632
(The) Trust for Public Land:
    Letter for the Record........................................   138
University of Alaska Board of Regents:
    Letter for the Record........................................    15
Utah High School Cycling League:
    Letter for the Record........................................   139
Wells, Ralph:
    Letter for the Record........................................   638
Western Landowners Alliance:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   639
Western Spirit Cycling Adventures:
    Letter for the Record........................................   140
Wheeler, Marc:
    Letter for the Record........................................   656
(The) Wilderness Society:
    Letter for the Record dated 11/18/20 regarding various bills.   658
    Letter for the Record dated 12/3/20 regarding S. 2875........   665
Wilson, Jeff and Karen:
    Letter for the Record........................................   666
Wisenbaugh, Vicki:
    Letter for the Record........................................   667
Wrangell Cooperative Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   668
Wyatt, Cindy:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   670
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening Statement............................................     4

----------
The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can 
be found on the committees website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
hearings/2020/11/subcommittee-on-public-lands-forests-and-mining-
legislative-hearing

 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020

                               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 2:30 p.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, 
presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee [presiding]. Good afternoon, everyone. The 
Subcommittee will come to order.
    Today the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and 
Mining will hold a hearing on various pieces of pending 
legislation. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony 
from the Forest Service and from the Department of the Interior 
on a total of 13 bills. These bills cover a pretty wide range 
of issues from considerations of land use and rural economic 
development to protecting our forests and rural communities 
from destructive and deadly wildfires.
    The complete agenda will be included in the record.
    [The complete agenda for today's meeting follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Lee. I was excited to see provisions of the 
University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act addressing promises 
made to the University multiple times, including in the 
Enabling Act for the State of Alaska. Agreements struck in a 
state's Enabling Act are especially and unusually important. 
They need to be honored. I would say that these are somewhat 
sacred commitments that are made. When a territory enters into 
the Union as a state, it does so with specific considerations, 
carefully negotiated and devised. I am sure the State of Alaska 
and the university are very excited to see this promise 
fulfilled.
    The State of Utah has its own Enabling Act which promises 
that land shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the 
admission of said state into the Union. Similar language can be 
found in Enabling Acts for Missouri and South Dakota, and many 
other states ended up being honored over time. Almost all of 
the federally-owned land in those states was transferred to the 
state or sold decades ago, but Congress has not honored that 
promise to sell federal land in Utah. But it should, and this 
is not something that we should disregard. It does not mean 
every scrap of federal land, but certainly those pieces of 
federal land, at least those that don't amount to either 
national parks or declared wilderness or something of that 
sort. There is no reason why the default should be that two-
thirds of the land inside of a sovereign state's boundaries 
ought to be held in perpetuity by the Federal Government and 
fighting back to make sure Congress keeps that promise and to 
mitigate the damage the Federal Government is inflicting on 
rural communities in the meantime. That damage is not limited 
to the economic harm. It also includes significant 
environmental harm, as resulted from the fact that we simply 
got too much land under federal ownership.
    Now I want to take a minute to talk about the two wildfire 
enforced management bills that we have on the agenda. We have 
Senator Wyden's National Prescribed Fire Act of 2020. It 
proposes to expand the use of prescribed fire across federal, 
state, tribal, local and private lands. The other bill is 
Senator McSally's Forest Health and Biomass Energy Act. This 
bill proposes federal assistance to cover the cost of hauling 
low value biomass out of forest restoration projects for energy 
production. We had an active and very deadly fire season this 
year, so it is especially critical that we expand our efforts 
to effectively and actively manage our forests using all the 
tools in our tool box and to expand that tool box whenever 
possible. I would note that although prescribed fire is an 
important component of forest management, it is not a 
substitute for mechanical thinning that often must occur first. 
Management can bring about an effective means of prevention, 
and prevention is worth a whole lot of cure.
    I also want to highlight two bills on the agenda that are 
important to the people of my home State of Utah: S. 4215, the 
Bonneville Shoreline Trail Advancement Act; and S. 1695, the 
Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act. Both bills deal 
with the issue of trail use in federal wilderness areas. An 
estimated 40 million Americans engage in mountain biking every 
year. It is the second most popular trail activity in the 
United States, and Utah's diverse terrain and scenery makes it 
a world-class biking destination. Although mountain biking is 
allowed on most public lands in Utah and across the nation, it 
is restricted inside federally-designated wilderness and 
federally-managed wilderness study areas. The Wilderness Act of 
1964 prohibits motorized or mechanized transport in wilderness. 
The Forest Service's first regulations for wilderness were 
issued in 1966 and they banned only those devices powered by a 
``non-living power source,'' thus allowing for human-powered 
transport, like bicycles. It was not until the 1970s that the 
Forest Service changed its regulations to prohibit bikes in 
wilderness. The Department of the Interior has had a similar 
story.
    My bill, S. 1695, would address this issue by amending the 
Wilderness Act to ensure that the rules restricting mechanical 
transport do not include forms of human-powered, non-motorized 
travel. Additionally, the bill would grant federal land 
managers at the local level the authority to determine whether, 
where and when to allow non-motorized travel over particular 
existing routes. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail Advancement 
Act, S. 4215, on which I was an original co-sponsor, would 
advance a locally-driven initiative to complete the Bonneville 
Shoreline Trail. The bill would adjust the boundary of 
wilderness to exclude segments of the trail in Salt Lake County 
where 75 percent of the population resides. Utahans are asking 
Congress to act because they cherish the trails and want them 
open to more recreation areas including mountain biking. As our 
nation continues to fight the spread of COVID-19 and support 
our economic recovery, Congress must ensure that we continue to 
promote families and friends safely participating in activities 
that allow for social distancing. Outdoor recreational 
activities like biking are some examples of that activity, and 
I hope that we can advance these two bills in order to support 
it.
    Another component of our recovery is to ensure the United 
States does not rely on supply chains, particularly critical 
minerals, from foreign adversaries. We should be looking to 
streamline regulations that promote responsible energy 
development on public lands and to unlock domestic mineral 
resources wherever possible. I would say to my colleagues that 
it would be a grievous mistake to undo what we and what the 
current Administration have accomplished over the last 4 years, 
especially during a global pandemic. Energy jobs in the West 
contribute significantly to America's energy independence and 
now, more than ever, American families are depending on a 
return to the soaring economy that preceded COVID-19. I look 
forward to hearing testimony from today's witnesses on the 
legislation pending before the Subcommittee.
    I will now turn the time over to Ranking Member Wyden for 
his opening statement.
    Senator Wyden.

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

    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Chairman Lee.
    Thank you for agreeing to hold this hearing. We have 14 
bills that our colleagues feel very strongly about, and I just 
want to make one comment before I go to my prepared remarks 
with respect to the Chairman's assessment about the role of 
prescribed fire. The reason that I am--and the Ranking Member, 
Senator Manchin, and Senator Cantwell, have come together on 
the prescribed fire bill that I have introduced, S. 4625, is 
that we think prescribed fire is a horribly underfunded tool in 
the forest management tool box. The way, I think, I would 
describe it is that in the forest management tool box we want 
to look at a variety of different approaches. I think 
responsible mechanical treatment certainly should be one of 
those tools in the tool box. The reason we introduced our 
legislation is because we do think that it does not serve our 
communities well to have prescribed fires so woefully 
underfunded, and that has really been our position.
    As I mentioned, I do want to thank my colleagues, our 
Ranking Member, Senator Manchin, and Senator Cantwell, for 
working with me to put together a bill that elevates the 
importance of prescribed fire as one of the tools in this 
forest management tool box. The increasing severity of fires 
that we have seen in the West make it clear the reality that we 
are dealing with, that our forests are burning. They have been 
burning for a millennia and land managers have been lucky over 
the last 100 years that they have been able to suppress them 
quickly. Due to changing climate, suppressing every fire is 
nearly an insurmountable challenge, so much so that the 
question now is not if an acre will burn, but when. The 
wildland firefighters I have spoken with would rather have that 
acre burn in the cooler, wetter months with firefighters at the 
ready rather than scrambling to fight a wildfire that ignites 
on the hottest, driest, windiest days of the year in the 
backyard of our rural neighbors. Controlled burns are an 
effective, science-based way to reduce hazardous fuel loading 
on forested land and ultimately reduce fire risk to homes and 
businesses.
    I would also point out that controlled burns are cheaper 
than mechanical treatments. They are essential at restoring the 
long-term health and resiliency of forests and cost much less, 
roughly one-fifth of the cost of a wildfire. In 2018 the Forest 
Service determined that 234 million acres of forest are at high 
risk of dangerous wildfire, yet the federal agencies treated 
only three million acres annually during the last decade which 
means that federal land managers will never get ahead of the 
problem unless there is a substantial increase in resources. S. 
4625 takes a fundamentally different approach to forest 
management with new tools, incentives, and workforce to do 
large-scale, proactive, hazardous fuels reduction. The bill 
establishes two funds dedicated specifically for controlled 
burns: one at the Forest Service and one at the Department of 
the Interior, designed to increase the pace and scale of 
controlled burns. The bill creates a new collaborative 
controlled burn program so people on the ground have a say in 
when and where they take place and establishes several 
workforce development programs to increase the number of 
prescribed fire practitioners, people who really understand 
what the science is all about. Finally, the bill works within 
the Clean Air Act to get states more flexibility for extending 
their burn windows to increase the number of large-scale, 
controlled burns that can happen during the winter.
    Another bill on the agenda is S. 2875, the Smith River 
National Recreation Expansion Act, introduced by Senator 
Merkley and myself. The bill has strong bipartisan support, 
local support and would expand the existing Smith River NRA by 
roughly 55,000 acres and would designate roughly 80 miles of 
wild and scenic river. I hope that we will be able to consider 
both of these bills as soon as possible when we have our next 
markup.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 
courtesy.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
    It is now time for us to hear from our witnesses. We have 
two witnesses joining us in person today.
    I am so sorry. We are going to have member statements right 
now. Sorry about that. I went off script here.
    Chairman Murkowski.

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

    The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Lee. I appreciate that, 
and I will try to keep my comments brief because we do have a 
good number of bills on the agenda this afternoon. Mr. French, 
Mr. Nedd, thank you for being here to provide testimony. A 
couple of the bills, as you know, are pretty important to me 
and the State of Alaska. I want to acknowledge Senator 
Sullivan's support and co-sponsorship of both of these bills as 
well as Congressman Young, who could partner on these issues.
    The first bill on today's agenda relating to Alaska is S. 
4696 which would help the University of Alaska receive its 
long, outstanding land endowment. It is a pretty long and 
complicated and a very frustrating history, but to sum it up, 
the largest state with more than 365 million acres of land has 
a land grant university with a land grant of only about 110,000 
acres which is smaller than just about every other land grant 
university in every other state. By comparison, New Mexico has 
the largest land grant at 1.3 million acres, followed by 
Oklahoma at over 1 million acres. We have a significant need 
right now and, quite honestly, up to this point, our university 
is facing some difficult economic headwinds within our state. 
What I am hoping is that my colleagues can appreciate that this 
bill brings the State of Alaska and the Federal Government 
together to cooperatively execute a program to fulfill the 
university's land entitlement.
    The lands in question will come from the pool that is 
already selected by the state for receipt under its statehood 
entitlement, and that will be counted against the state's 
entitlement. So there is no net loss of land to the Federal 
Government. The university would receive an additional 360,000 
acres of land, equal to just .001 percent of all the land in 
the state, and these are lands that are already heading there 
now but will be dedicated to supporting higher education. The 
measure is supported by our Governor, the university, and many 
more in Alaska who want to see a thriving education system to 
support our young people. I have a letter that I am going to be 
submitting for the record from the Association of Public and 
Land-grant Universities for the record.
    [Letter from the Association of Public & Land-grant 
Universities follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. The second bill on the agenda, S. 4889, 
addresses a number of outstanding issues related to ANCSA, the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. We include two 
provisions to ensure that Alaska Native shareholders and elders 
who are beneficiaries of ANCSA settlement trusts are not 
rendered ineligible for federal needs-based programs because of 
increases in payments from the resolution of their indigenous 
land claims and birthrights. The exemption level for small 
dividends and needs-based calculations has not been updated 
since 1988. It is not indexed for inflation, but these 
provisions would be helpful in combating some of the poverty 
and health care challenges for many who in live remote and 
rural areas.
    This bill also includes provisions that would finalize the 
ANCSA land entitlements for two communities, Canyon Village and 
Katovich. They have been frustrated by significant 
administrative delays, Congressional restrictions, and federal 
land patterns that have found layer on top of lands that they 
have lived on and stewarded for thousands of years. The bill 
would also end a requirement that the village corporations, 
created by ANCSA, convey lands into trust to the State of 
Alaska that could then theoretically be transferred to future 
municipal and local governments. The last time this authority 
was used was 1995 which shows that this kind of a local 
government formation just does not fit small, remote 
communities in the state. So it is time to wind this program 
down for communities that have no expectation for using it or 
needing it.
    Finally, the bill would remedy a half century injustice 
where five communities in Southeastern Alaska--the communities 
of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell--were 
omitted from ANCSA's authorizations to form urban corporations 
and thus have not received land entitlements. The bill allows 
formation of these long-delayed corporations and specifies 
parcels that they would receive. It also includes a number of 
conditions to ensure that public access, recreation, and 
hunting can continue without impediment. I would just ask 
colleagues to listen to those Alaska Native leaders whose 
parents pushed for the passage of ANCSA decades ago when they 
were children and who are now passing the torch to their own 
children because the omission still has not been resolved. This 
is a critical matter for members to understand and to work with 
those of us in the Alaska delegation so that we can move this 
through the legislative process.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding the hearing. I am 
glad that we could hear additional legislation before the end 
of the year and determine what it is that we can accomplish. 
Thank you for your leadership and commitment on the Committee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thanks for your patience 
with my poor attention to detail and protocol in almost 
skipping over you.
    The Chairman. I do have letters for the record that I will 
have you submit.
    Senator Lee. Those will be admitted without objection.
    [Submissions for the record from Chairman Murkowski 
follow:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Lee. Ranking Member Manchin would go next if he is 
on. Any other members present who want to make a member 
statement at the outset?
    Okay, Senator Cortez Masto.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Lee 
and Ranking Member Wyden, for holding today's Subcommittee 
hearing. I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee for 
also ensuring that two bills critical to the people of Northern 
Nevada are included on today's agenda, and I want to talk a 
little bit about those: S. 2804, the Pershing County Economic 
Development and Conservation Act; and S. 3492, the Elko 
National Cemetery Act. As this Committee well knows, the State 
of Nevada has a proud, long history of coming together in a 
bipartisan fashion on legislation pertaining to land 
management, and I am grateful for the community-led advocacy 
and support we have earned from the people of Nevada on these 
two bills. So let me just take a moment to talk about them.
    S. 2804, the Pershing County Economic Development and 
Conservation Act. This bill is a bipartisan bill that primarily 
aims to resolve a number of public land management issues in 
Pershing County, Nevada, while preserving and protecting 
136,000 acres of land in seven new wilderness areas in some of 
the most remote, beautiful parts of Nevada. In Pershing County, 
75 percent of the land is federally-owned and this bill 
particularly reflects compromise and collaboration among a 
diverse group of stakeholders. It also establishes a process 
for resolving the problematic checkerboard that encompasses 
much of this rural county. The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 
granting the Union Pacific Railroad alternating sections of 
public land along several proposed railroad corridors worked to 
encourage construction of the Trans-Pacific Railroad nearly 200 
years ago. Much of the land ownership created by the Pacific 
Railroad Act has created management inefficiencies for both 
local land managers and private landowners. What was then an 
innovative way to spark development has resulted in fractured 
ownership that hinders economic development, and it stifles 
advancement toward needed conservation efforts. The bill does a 
number of things, but let me just highlight three of them.
    It would create more efficient land management; it creates 
a checkerboard resolution program that allows the local 
communities and federal agencies to work together to identify 
areas within the checkerboard that are better suited for 
federal management such as sage grouse habitat, recreation 
areas, wildlife preservation areas, and other important public 
purposes, and together consolidate public and private lands 
through exchange or a limited sale. The goal is not to get rid 
of public land, but rather generate both funding and policy 
initiative to make it easier to block up public land within the 
county for better land management purposes. This effort is 
unlikely to result in a net loss of public lands but rather it 
incentivizes a net public land management benefit.
    The second thing it does is it provides for sustained 
economic growth in a rural economy with limited economic 
opportunity. It allows for the conveyance of land to interested 
entities that currently hold mineral rights or are actively 
mining on those lands for fair market value. This keeps our 
rural economies going, potentially creating green jobs and 
attracting new investments while keeping our land productive. 
Equally important is that the bill requires any result in 
proceeds from those sales to be used to purchase lands 
important for acquisition of environmentally sensitive wildlife 
habitat and lands that enhance public access and recreation.
    Finally, the bill designates wilderness, preserving the 
Northern Nevada desert landscape. It designates nearly 140,000 
acres of wilderness across seven areas in the county. 
Preservation of these areas are crucial to Nevada's thriving 
outdoor economy, and they enjoy the support from local 
ranchers, from private landowners, from conservation advocates, 
from wildlife groups, hunters, miners, and many other 
stakeholders committed to preserving Pershing County's natural 
heritage for generations to come.
    Then finally, let me do this very quickly, talk about S. 
3492 which is the Elko National Cemetery Act. This bill on 
today's agenda would authorize an interagency transfer of 15 
acres from the BLM to the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
use as a national cemetery for veterans. This bill facilitates 
a legislative request from the VA's annual budget request. 
Fiscal Year 2021 was the fifth consecutive budget proposal that 
included this proposed legislative priority, and it also 
facilitates further action on the VA's rural initiative to 
establish national cemeteries in rural areas where the veteran 
population is less than 25,000 people within a 75-mile service 
area. I very much appreciate the correspondence that I received 
from the BLM on July 20th expressing their support for this 
effort. I have also had recent conversations with the VA 
Undersecretary for Memorial Affairs, Randy Reeves, and he 
shares my commitment to establish this cemetery for our 
veterans in rural northern Nevada, and we have an agreement to 
work together to see its completion. Today's hearing is just 
another step toward closing, finally and hopefully, this 
effort.
    In conclusion, I would just like to thank all the devoted 
stakeholders that have contributed to these important bills in 
Nevada, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as 
well as the federal agencies to move these bills forward.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Heinrich, you are next.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Heinrich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    S. 4599, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act is, I think, a 
reflection of the fact that in New Mexico, while we do not have 
a great deal of water, we understand the value of water and 
there is literally no commodity, no substance, which is more 
important to our state culturally or to our state economically. 
The Pecos Watershed is one of those special places where the 
community has come together and said that the river at the 
heart of this valley and at the heart of this community is 
literally the most important thing we can protect and pass on 
to our heirs, so this legislation reflects the fact that this 
is a community that has come together--local leaders, county 
commissioners, acequia members, tribes, farmers, all sorts of 
community interest, recreational, and others--and said this is 
the heart of our community and we need to see it protected.
    This legislation reflects that desire, reflects an enormous 
and broad coalition that has been working to protect the Pecos 
River and the Upper Pecos Watershed, and I look forward to 
working with members on this Committee to refine this 
legislation and move it forward.
    Senator Lee. Are there any other members wanting to make a 
member statement at the outset of the hearing?
    If not, we will now proceed to hear from our witnesses.
    We have two witnesses here joining us in person today. The 
first is Chris French, the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest 
Service. The second is Michael Nedd, the Deputy Director for 
Operations at the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of 
the Interior.
    And joining us virtually are two witnesses. Mr. Art 
Babbott, a member of the Coconino Board of Supervisors, is here 
to testify on S. 4603, the Forest Health and Biomass Energy 
Act. Finally, Ms. Susan Jane Brown, a staff attorney at the 
Western Environmental Law Center, who will testify on S. 4625, 
the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2020.
    At the end of the witness testimonies, members will be able 
to ask questions. Your full written testimony will be made part 
of the official hearing record. Please keep your statements to 
5 minutes so that we can have time for questions. I look 
forward to hearing testimony from each one of you.
    Mr. French, you are first. Please proceed.

           STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, 
                      USDA FOREST SERVICE

    Mr. French. Thank you.
    Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today. I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for their support 
during this unprecedented and devastating fire year. We've seen 
nearly 50,000 fires that have burned 8.7 million acres across 
all jurisdictions. That's more than two million acres than an 
average year. In addition to communities, homes and property 
lost or damaged, these fires have taken lives, including those 
of wildland firefighters, who have paid the ultimate sacrifice 
in serving their country.
    As I shared with the Subcommittee in September, the Forest 
Service is committed to working with our partners to change the 
wildland fire trend that is our new reality. We must embrace a 
paradigm shift in our approach. The scale of our actions must 
match the scale of our problem. We know that we need to treat 
two to three times more per acres per year than our current 
efforts, and they need to be in the right places. We look 
forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee to find 
solutions that match this great challenge together.
    Given the challenges that we had this year, the Forest 
Service has found new and unprecedented ways to provide 
customer service, natural resource management and engagement 
with communities. To that end, I am pleased to share that the 
Forest Service has finalized modest but valuable updates to our 
NEPA implementing regulations. Based on extensive public 
comment and scientific review, the final rule looks 
considerably different from the proposed rule we published in 
2019. For the most part, the update streamline administrative 
actions, special use permitting, recreation and focus 
vegetation restoration projects. It allows us to better 
leverage previous analysis, if and when appropriate. This 
update is key to our strategy for successful ramping up 
capacity to implement the Great American Outdoors Act and will 
allow us to more effectively staff our large landscape 
restoration and fuels projects.
    Given that need for restoration, we support the objective 
of the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2020 to substantially 
increase the acres of prescribed burning across all lands, 
especially in Western states. USDA agrees that more prescribed 
fire will help mitigate the risk of unplanned wildfire and help 
in the restoration of our forests. We look forward to working 
with the Committee and the bill sponsors to address some of the 
implementation challenges associated in this bill to ensure it 
realizes its intended objectives.
    The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Fulfillment Act 
amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to authorize the 
Southeast Alaska Native communities to organize as urban 
corporation. USDA recognizes the special relationship that 
Alaska Natives have to the lands of Southeast Alaska. The 
Tongass National Forest plays a significant role in the 
economic health of local Southeast Alaska communities. The USDA 
looks forward to working with the sponsor of the bill to 
address the legislation's impact on the Tongass National 
Forest's recreation, permitting and timber sale programs.
    The Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act includes 
provisions that pertain to the management of national forests 
in Colorado. Generally, we support the provisions of this 
legislation that are consistent with applicable forest plans 
and have broad based local support. However, as a whole, the 
Administration opposes the bill given concerns related to 
imposing broad land restrictions and reducing areas open for 
motorized recreation.
    The Human Power Travel in Wilderness Act amends the 
Wilderness Act of 1964 to create an exception to the current 
prohibition on mechanical transport in Congressionally-
designated wilderness. The USDA supports increased access to 
the National Forest System lands and thus supports the bill's 
intent. We'd like to work with the Committee to work through 
concerns we anticipate in implementing the bill.
    The Smith River National Recreation Expansion Act includes 
additions to the Smith River National Recreation Area and 
designates certain wild rivers in the State of Oregon. We look 
forward to working with the Subcommittee and sponsors of the 
bill to address the concerns that are outlined in my written 
statement.
    The Bonneville Shoreline Trail Advancement Act designates 
parcels of forest service lands in Utah as wilderness and also 
makes boundary adjustments to remove acres from the National 
Wilderness Preservation System. We look forward to working with 
the Subcommittee and bill sponsors as this bill progresses.
    We support the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument 
Boundary Adjustment Act and also support the Gilt Edge Mine 
Conveyance Act.
    The Administration opposes the proposed withdrawal 
contained in the Pecos Watershed Protection Act as it does not 
support the President's vision to balance conservation 
strategies and policies with the need to produce minerals that 
benefit the American economy.
    Finally, the Forest Health and Biomass Energy Act of 2020 
encourages the removal of an increased amount of biomass from 
National Forest System lands. We agree that forest biomass has 
great potential as a renewable energy source and look forward 
to working with the bill sponsor and Committee to consider 
technical and scope changes to the bill.
    Thank you for the chance to testify and this concludes my 
remarks.
    [The prepared statements of Mr. French follow:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Lee. Mr. Nedd, you are next.
    Thank you.

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

    Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, 
and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
be here today. I am Michael Nedd, the Deputy Director of 
Operations at the Bureau of Land Management. I will briefly 
summarize our written statement concerning the nine bills on 
today's agenda related to the Department of Interior.
    S. 241 would provide direction for the future management of 
certain federal lands in Southwestern Colorado including the 
designation of new wilderness and withdrawal of certain federal 
lands, including Thompson Divide from the public land and 
mining law. The bill also requires the BLM to inventory and 
capture certain coal methane, mine methane emissions. The 
Department supports Congressional action to resolve wilderness 
issues on public land across the West; however, S. 241 would 
not achieve these goals in a balanced way and the Department 
oppose it as currently drafted.
    S. 1695 would amend the Wilderness Act to authorize the use 
of non-motorized travel and designate a wilderness area. The 
Administration has placed a high priority on increasing public 
use and enjoyment of our federal land. S. 1695 aligns with this 
priority by providing great access and recreational 
opportunities on public land and the Department supports the 
bill.
    S. 2804 authorizes public land sales and conveyance in 
Pershing County, Nevada. The bill also designates over 136,000 
acres of wilderness and release nearly 49,000 acres of 
wilderness study area. The Department remains concerned with 
the broad scope of the proposed land disposal that the bill 
could decrease public access and limit outdoor recreational 
opportunities.
    S. 3492 transfers the administrative jurisdictional 
approximately 15 acres of BLM-managed public land to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for the establishment of a 
national veteran cemetery in Elko, Nevada. The Department 
supports this bill as it would honor our nation's veterans and 
their families.
    S. 4599 would withdraw approximately 166,600--600,000 acres 
of federal land located near Pecos, New Mexico, from the public 
lands and mining law. The Administration is concerned that S. 
4599 would limit the potential development of important mineral 
sources and, therefore, cannot support the bill.
    S. 45--4625 directs the expanded use of prescribed fire on 
lands managed by the Department and the Forest Service. The 
Department has taken bold action to reduce wildfire by using a 
variety of management tools to reduce hazardous fuels and 
enhance wildfire resiliency. The Department supports the goal 
of S. 45--S. 4625 and would like to work with the sponsor to 
expand the bill to ensure hazardous fuel reduction measures and 
management flexibility is provided to reduce wildfire risk.
    S. 4696 requires the Department to establish a program to 
identify and convey selected lands to the University of Alaska 
for the use and support in the operation and maintenance of the 
University system. The Department has no objection to S. 4696 
and would like to work with the sponsor on some technical 
modification.
    S. 4889 amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 
1971 concerning various Alaska Native issues including certain 
land conveyance to Alaska Native communities, revision of lands 
to village corporations, an authorization for five native 
communities in Southeast Alaska to organize as urban 
corporation. The Department supports this legislation and looks 
forward to working the with sponsor on some technical 
modification.
    Finally, the National Park Service has submitted its 
statement for the record on S. 4569 concerning the Sunset 
Crater Volcano National Monument in Arizona.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the opportunity 
to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statements of Mr. Nedd and the National Park 
Service follow:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Nedd.
    Mr. Babbott, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. ART BABBOTT, SUPERVISOR-DISTRICT 1, COCONINO 
             COUNTY, ARIZONA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

    Mr. Babbott. Good afternoon, Subcommittee Chairman Lee, 
Ranking Member Wyden and distinguished Subcommittee members. 
Thank you for holding today's hearing to discuss Senator 
McSally's proposed bill, Senate bill 4603, the Forest Health 
and Biomass Energy Act of 2020. My name is Art Babbott, and I'm 
a Coconino County Supervisor in Coconino County, Arizona.
    Catastrophic wildfire and post-fire flooding are the number 
one public health and safety issues and risks facing Coconino 
County and our communities. I have been privileged to serve as 
a Chair of the 4FRI for forest restoration initiative, the 
ambitious 2.4 million-acre, landscape scale restoration effort 
spanning four forests across eastern and northern Arizona. 
Coconino County is the second largest county in the contiguous 
United States, and just 12 percent of our total land mass is 
privately owned. We are home to the largest ponderosa pine 
forest in the world and, like so many Western communities, 
northern Arizona has increasingly seen destructive wildfire 
playing out in our communities, costing federal, state and 
local entities hundreds of millions of dollars in suppression 
and recovery costs.
    Landscape scale forest restoration cannot succeed without 
viable private sector forest industry partners. The lack of 
industry capacity for biomass disposal has created severe 
impediments to the successful implementation of the 4FRI 
program. The Forest Health and Biomass Energy Act addresses, 
arguably, the most critical bottleneck in moving landscape 
scale restoration efforts forward. That is, how do we deal with 
the millions of tons of no to negative value biomass and slash 
that must be removed to serve our restoration goals and 
objectives? To put this in perspective, an average of 30 tons 
of negative to no value biomass comes off every restored acre 
in Northern Arizona. If we do not have strategies to deal with 
the tens of millions of tons of biomass and fuel loads on the 
forest service lands, we will not reduce the threats of 
catastrophic fire and the subsequent ecological sterilization 
of millions of acres of public land. This bill is an important 
step to changing the narrative that plays out in the front 
pages of newspapers each fire season and in our communities 
every year as well.
    Senate bill 4603 provides a critical vehicle for moving the 
conversation on the biomass bottleneck forward. We should not 
get sidetracked by whether or not 12 inches, 14 inches or 10 
inches is the correct dimension for no value designation 
because the big picture approach that needs to be supported at 
this point, not every last detail of the proposal. The fact is, 
there is a broad consensus among diverse stakeholders that we 
must make progress on the biomass question if we are to make 
progress on reducing the threat of catastrophic fire in our 
communities. At its core, the Forest Health and Biomass Energy 
Act recognizes that unless we deal with the reality that the 
majority of timber in Arizona forests have negative to no 
value, forest industry cannot play their pivotal role. As one 
forest service assessment showed, just 25 percent of forested 
acres in 4FRI's first phase had any positive economic value.
    We cannot expect the private sector to carve value out of a 
no value product without some action on our part. Expanding 
biomass energy opportunities serves in reducing carbon 
emissions, protecting public safety and infrastructure and puts 
into action the understanding that prevention is a far more 
fiscally responsible strategy than paying for fire suppression 
and post-fire cleanup. We are--we know we are going to have to 
pay to manage these threats of catastrophic wildfire. It's a 
question of when we pay and whether we pay in a manner where we 
have some ability to control the cost. We are not going to 
solve the biomass bottleneck using tools and strategies of the 
past. We are going to have to give something to get something. 
This bill opens the window to a discussion that is not 
tangential but integral to protecting our communities, our 
public lands and our economies. It does this while thoughtfully 
supporting viable forest industries in and the economies of 
rural America.
    I want to express my deep appreciation to Senator McSally 
for introducing S. 4603 and thank each of you for taking the 
time to hear our comments, and I look forward to questions 
after testimony, if you have them.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Babbott follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Lee. Thank you, sir.
    We will now hear from Ms. Brown.
    Ms. Brown, proceed.

 STATEMENT OF SUSAN JANE M. BROWN, WILDLANDS PROGRAM DIRECTOR 
      AND STAFF ATTORNEY, WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER

    Ms. Brown. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden and members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to join you 
today to discuss S. 4625, the National Prescribed Fire Act of 
2020, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden and co-sponsored by 
Senator Manchin and Senator Cantwell. My name is Susan Jane 
Brown, and I am the Wildlands Program Director and Staff 
Attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, or WELC. I 
use she/hers pronouns, and I am joining you from my office on 
the banks of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers on the lands of 
the Klamath and Paiute people.
    The Western Environmental Law Center is based in Eugene, 
Oregon, with offices in Portland and Bend, Oregon; Seattle, 
Washington; Taos and Santa Fe, New Mexico; and, Helena, 
Montana. WELC uses the power of the law to defend and protect 
the America's West treasured landscapes, iconic wildlife, and 
rural communities. We combine our legal skills with sound 
conservation biology and environmental science to address major 
environmental issues in the West in the most strategic and 
effective manner. WELC is also deeply engaged in collaborative 
forest conservation in Oregon, working closely with the Blue 
Mountain's forest partners on the Malheur National Forest in 
Eastern Oregon as well as other forest collaboratives on the 
Ochoco, Deschutes, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 
Forests. WELC's work with these forest collaboratives, our 
service on Oregon Governor Brown's Council on Wildfire 
Response, and dialogue with forest and fire ecology experts and 
land managers has informed our position on S. 4625 and has led 
to our support for this much needed legislation.
    One of the most respected researchers working on wildfire 
today, Dr. Paul Hessburg with the Forest Service's Pacific 
Northwest Research Station, gives a TED talk called ``Wildfires 
have gotten worse and what we can do about it.'' In it, Dr. 
Hessburg talks about and asks his audience, ``How do you want 
your fire? How do you want your smoke?'' Dr. Hessburg advises 
that for many reasons, while there is no future without more 
fire and more smoke in our Western landscapes, we do have the 
ability to influence how fire and smoke affect the landscapes 
and communities we care about. S. 4625 answers Dr. Hessburg's 
challenge.
    The National Prescribed Fire Act of 2020 directs federal 
land managers to dramatically increase the use of prescribed 
fire to achieve management objectives, including reducing 
hazardous fuels. The legislation dramatically increases funding 
for the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to carry 
out prescribed fire on public lands and would incentivize 
cross-boundary work for all lands-controlled burning. S. 4625 
adds to the Fire Corps by increasing training opportunities for 
federal and non-federal burners and would allow seasonal 
firefighters to become permanent employees with off-season fire 
responsibilities which will help increase the amount of 
controlled fire on the landscape. The National Prescribed Fire 
Act also facilitates the recruitment and increases our 
attention on under-represented persons in fire, particularly 
women. Importantly, S. 4625 amends the civil liability standard 
for federal prescribed burns, establishing a gross negligent 
standard of care for federal employees to facilitate an 
increase in fire use. The legislation also directs federal land 
managers to utilize the exceptional events procedures currently 
within the Clean Air Act for large prescribed fires, provided 
that burners follow a strict process approved by State and 
Federal officials.
    The best available science tells us that using fire to 
fight fire is one of the best, most cost-effective tools we 
have to reduce future fire risk. S. 4625 addresses critical 
gaps in existing law and policy and would have a meaningful 
impact on the ground. As I mentioned in my introduction, I work 
closely with the Blue Mountain forest partners, a forest 
collaborative of diverse stakeholders including 
conservationists, elected officials, and timber industry 
representatives on the Malheur National Forest in eastern 
Oregon. Working with our Forest Service partners, we've 
collaboratively developed science-driven, large landscape 
forest restoration treatments on well more than half of the 1.2 
million acres that comprise Malheur National Forest, all 
without a single forest management-related lawsuit since 2003 
or any streamlining of environmental laws. All of our 
restoration projects include a substantial acreage of 
prescribed fire. We aim to burn about three-quarters of each of 
our 30,000 to 40,000 acre planning areas.
    Despite the success, we still struggle to fulfill our 
restoration vision. For example, we have between 160,000 and 
200,000 acres of NEPA-ready, prescribed fire acres ready to 
burn today. In the next four years we will have an additional 
400,000 acres that are NEPA-approved and ready to burn. All, I 
might add, without a single NEPA or Endangered Species Act 
waiver or efficiency. Let me say that again, hundreds of 
thousands of NEPA-ready acres with full environmental review 
and public comment, without environmental waivers and without a 
single lawsuit. Despite these numbers, in Fiscal Year 2020 
which closed September 30, the Malheur only burned 274 acres. 
So far in Fiscal Year 2021, which began October 1, the Malheur 
has burned more than 6,000 acres. What explains this 
inconsistency?
    In some ways, life--the COVID-19 pandemic, weddings, 
children, schools--these things take personnel away from 
positions in fire. But other reasons--lack of funding, narrow 
burn windows, not enough trained personnel, liability risk 
aversion and community reluctance to burn--would be addressed 
by enactment of S. 4625. The National Prescribed Fire Act of 
2020 is an important step forward in achieving the vision of 
the cohesive wildfire strategy. By increasing the amount of 
fire on the landscape on our terms, we can make important 
progress on safely and effectively restoring degraded 
landscapes, better protect homes and communities, and ensure 
that when we must, that we are able to suppress the most 
threatening wildfires because 4625 addresses these needs and 
enjoys broad support from myriad stakeholders including forest 
collaboratives, fire protection associations, conservationists, 
forest product companies, restoration contractors, tribes, and 
members of the Oregon State Legislature, among others. I, 
therefore, urge the Subcommittee to report out this 
legislation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and 
experiences with you, and I would be pleased to answer any 
questions that you have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Lee. Thanks to all of you for your opening 
statements. Those were very helpful. We are now going to 
proceed to questions from the Committee. We will alternate, 
going back and forth between Democrats and Republicans on the 
Subcommittee. I am up to bat first, so I will begin now.
    I want to start by talking a little bit about the 
Bonneville Shoreline Trail Advancement Act, S. 4215, and I am 
going to raise this with Mr. French. As I mentioned, Mr. 
French, in my opening statement the purpose of this particular 
bill is to complete and also expand the use of the Bonneville 
Shoreline Trail, or BST. The BST is a non-federal, mixed-use 
trail, and most of it runs along urban development in Salt Lake 
County inside of four wilderness areas. The bill would subtract 
about 20 parcels that together total 344.16 acres from 
wilderness in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest areas; 
about 19.06 acres in the Mount Naomi Wilderness; approximately 
197.4 acres in the Mount Olympus Wilderness Area; 9.8 acres in 
the Twin Peaks Wilderness Area; and, 107.9 acres in the Lone 
Peak Wilderness Area. The bill also would add the same amount 
of land as one contiguous parcel to the existing Mount Olympus 
Wilderness Area to create a one-to-one swap. These lands were 
selected through research and discussion among local trail 
supporters and conservationists, and I would like to ask 
unanimous consent that written statements from BST Trail 
Advocates endorsing S. 4215 be added to the hearing record and 
those will be admitted into the record without objection.
    [Statements from BST Trail Advocates follow:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Lee. Mr. French, you may be well aware that the 
parcel of land being designated as wilderness rests miles away 
from the Salt Lake Valley while the parcels being removed are 
backed right up against urban development and are currently 
impeding trail traffic. Do you feel this swap would help the 
lands under the wilderness designation to better match the 
Wilderness Act's description of wilderness as an area where the 
earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man where 
man himself is a visitor who does not remain?
    Mr. French. Yes, I think that if you look at consolidating 
that land and away from those edges, it's, it makes for a more 
consistent management and is more consistent with the 
Wilderness Act.
    Senator Lee. Did the Forest Service participate in this, in 
local stakeholder discussions about this proposal and that the 
proposed no net loss of wilderness?
    Mr. French. Yeah, the local forest worked with the 
proponents to help develop some of the proposals and the maps.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    I also want to ask you about the Human Power Travel and 
Wilderness Areas Act, S. 1695. So another approach to solving 
some of the access issues at BST is to ease the nationwide ban 
on bicycles inside of wilderness. This bill that I introduced, 
S. 1695, the Human Power Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, would 
amend the Wilderness Act of 1964 to authorize local land 
managers to determine on a case-by-case basis where and whether 
to allow mountain bikes to access wilderness. I would like to 
thank you, Mr. French, and also you, Mr. Nedd, and your 
respective departments and agencies for your support of this 
bill.
    Now I have heard some concerns that the bill, according to 
some, would authorize new roads in wilderness. Mr. Nedd, can 
you confirm that my bill would not allow for new roads?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding. The 
bill would allow just for the existing, the existing path and 
road would not allow for the use of new roads.
    Senator Lee. And would the Department seek public input 
before deciding on the suitability of a trail for other types 
of motorized travel?
    Mr. Nedd. Well, my understanding, there's two years for the 
federal manager at the local level so that process would 
include seeking input from stakeholders.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    Mr. French, how prominent has mountain biking become on 
National Forest System lands compared to the 1960s when logging 
was a more dominant use?
    Mr. French. It's a tremendous use. Three out of every four 
miles of trail right now that we have, it's like 120,000 miles, 
currently are open to mountain biking and we see increased use 
year after year. It's a dominant expanding use.
    Senator Lee. Now is the ban on mountain bikes contained in 
and directed by the Wilderness Act, and if it is not, could the 
Forest Service change its regulations on bicycles if it decided 
to do so?
    Mr. French. Our advice and interpretation from our 
attorneys is that the Wilderness Act specifically calls out 
mechanized, not allowing mechanized and there is some court 
cases that support that and that was the change in our 
regulations in the '80s that created that.
    Senator Lee. The original understanding at the time the 
Wilderness Act was enacted in 1964 did not encompass bicycles, 
is that correct?
    Mr. French. Sir, I'd have to get back with you. I know the 
language in 1964 specifically called out not using mechanized--
--
    Senator Lee. Right.
    Mr. French. ----transportation.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    Senator Lee. I see my time has expired. Let's see. We will 
go next to Senator Wyden.
    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Susan Jane, we have a long history of working on innovative 
forestry solutions together. I remember your work with Chairman 
DeFazio, and I want to ask about the Clean Air Act in 
particular to start, because this is something that has been 
right at the foundation of my public service. When I was a 
young member of the House, one of the first things that I was 
able to do, and I am especially proud of, is we stopped the 
polluters from unraveling the Clean Air Act with a proposal to 
protect the national parks. I would like to get your take on 
how our legislation, the Prescribed Fire Act, addresses the 
Clean Air Act by directing the agencies to use existing clean 
air authorities to, in effect, accelerate the pace and scale of 
controlled burns. In your view, how does this type of 
flexibility ensure better forest management while at the same 
time protecting a bedrock environmental law?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that question.
    You know, the Clean Air Act is obviously a bedrock 
environmental law. Very few nations have a law quite like ours, 
and it is very strong, and it has given us some of the cleanest 
air in the world. And I think that that's something that's 
important and should be celebrated. What's great about your 
proposed legislation is that it directs the federal agencies to 
use a tool already at their disposal, that is already part of 
the Clean Air Act, which is the exceptional events provision of 
the Act. And it, therefore, really is not a streamlining 
proposal or an amendment to the Clean Air Act, but instead, 
it's just pointing out to land managers that they have this 
tool and that they should utilize it.
    And one of the things that we have seen here in Oregon as 
we have attempted to accelerate the pace and scale and quality 
of restoration, including the utilization of prescribed fire, 
is that sometimes those restrictions are simply too narrow and 
don't understand and don't recognize or take into consideration 
the fact that although humans are putting smoke into the air by 
lighting a fire and using that fire in a prescribed manner, 
that that has an ecological benefit. And it is a health benefit 
as well because if we don't use these tools that the law 
already provides for us, nature is going to do that burning 
without us, and you're going to have situations like we saw 
this year where you have fires during the hottest, driest, 
windiest part of the year which is usually during the summer as 
opposed to allowing us to put fire on the ground on the 
shoulder seasons. And so, your legislation would allow us to 
have more flexibility to really put fire and smoke out in the 
atmosphere and on the ground on our terms which is really what 
we need.
    Senator Wyden. I very much appreciate your point that what 
we are doing in the legislation, and this is what we set out to 
address, is to say, let's try to make sure we use an existing 
tool and do it in a way that is going to let us get more work 
done without raising the prospect of litigation. And one of the 
things I have admired about your work over the years is that 
you have tried to bring people together. You have been able to 
strike that balance, get important environmental work done and 
avoid litigation. So hats off and big thanks for your help on 
this.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    Senator Wyden. Mr. French, let me kind of follow up with 
you in the context of what Susan Jane has just said. We worked 
closely with you. We are very appreciative of this. We have 
mentioned that this is all about using proven tools, controlled 
burns, making sure that you protect the Clean Air Act. It is 
all about forest health and wildfire resiliency.
    Now Susan Jane also talked about the enormous backlog of 
work that you have to address, Mr. French. How would the 
National Prescribed Fire Act help the Forest Service deal with 
that enormous backlog by increasing the pace and scale of 
controlled burns and how would this help reduce wildfire risks 
in forests?
    Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
    I think the two factors that are really helpful in 
addressing that backlog is it adds capacity, it gives us more 
flexible tools on how to add to that capacity, and it creates a 
more flexible environment for those burn windows in terms of 
the discussion you were just having on the Clean Air Act. Those 
two pieces alone, I think, are really helpful in helping us 
overcome that backlog.
    Senator Wyden. Well, thank you and that is, in effect, two 
of the big points that I wanted to make this afternoon. I have 
already thanked Chairman Lee for giving us the opportunity to 
address this during this hearing. What we are doing here is 
making sure that we ring every bit of value out of existing 
environmental laws and we address Mr. French's point which is 
we get at the backlog because both Mr. French and Susan Jane 
have made the point that there is an enormous backlog. We have 
a lot to do.
    I will just close by way of saying Senator Merkley and I 
were all over the State of Oregon during the incredibly 
powerful fires that we had. These fires are not your 
grandfather's fires. They are bigger, they are more powerful, 
and we saw not too long ago fires leap the Columbia River. I 
thought I had seen everything, but this summer I saw even more 
when I was out with Senator Merkley. We saw communities where I 
had been having town hall meetings basically turned into what 
amounts to dust, just literally dust.
    So my thanks to you, Susan Jane, for your help; the Forest 
Service and Mr. French representing them today, and again, 
Chairman Lee, thank you for your consideration on this matter. 
I see I am well over my time, and I will yield.
    Senator Lee. Thanks so much, Senator Wyden.
    Next at bat will be Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. I will pass for a second.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    Now let's see. Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to start 
by, I know Senator Michael Bennet had asked to be able to 
testify in this Committee today and was denied that opportunity 
and I think it is important to state that S. 241, the CORE Act, 
just the breadth of local support for that legislation, having 
spent quite a bit of time in Colorado myself, having family 
there, the number of county commissions and other leaders who 
have really embraced this legislation is impressive. I think it 
was unfortunate that he was not able to be here today to give 
his testimony in person, but I understand that has been 
included for the record.
    I guess I would start my questions, Mr. Nedd, with respect 
to S. 4889. I wanted to ask, given that ANCSA was passed in 
1971, regarding the particular communities that are called out 
in this legislation, why were they not formed as corporations 
at that time and did they meet the legal qualifications for 
population that were included in that legislation back in 1971?
    Mr. Nedd. Senator, thank you for the question. I will have 
to take that as a question back. I just don't have information 
as to what happened back when the legislation was passed and 
why did they not meet it. And in terms of meeting the legal 
definition, I just don't have that information. I'll be glad to 
take the question back.
    Senator Heinrich. I think that would be very important for 
looking at this legislation to understand, first and foremost, 
what the intent of the original legislation was. Would the 
mineral rights that are under the withdrawals in this 
legislation, would those be retained by the government or would 
they transfer as well?
    Mr. Nedd. My understanding is those rights will be 
transferred as well.
    Senator Heinrich. Now would they transfer to these 
communities or to a regional corporation?
    Mr. Nedd. Senator, it is my belief it would be transferred 
with whomever is the surface owner. So it may be the regional 
community. I don't want to speculate so that's something----
    Senator Heinrich. So my understanding is that is actually 
not the case that they would all be transferred to Sealaska 
which is the regional corporation. So I think that's another 
point that should be clear on this legislation and something we 
probably all need to understand before this legislation is 
marked up.
    And then finally what I would ask is I have a map but I 
can't, I can't quite tell from the map whether any of the 
selections that clearly are very close to Misty Fjords National 
Monument and the Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness, but 
I can't tell whether any of the selections are actually inside 
or not. Mr. French, would you know the answer to that question?
    Mr. French. I'm going to get back with you, but my working 
knowledge right now is that they're not, but I'm going to 
verify that and come back to you, Senator.
    Senator Heinrich. Alright, I would appreciate that.
    And then finally, I guess I would just simply make the 
point that in 1964 when the Wilderness Act was passed and when 
one of my predecessors in New Mexico, Clinton P. Anderson, 
managed that legislation on the Floor of the Senate, I think we 
should be originalists in our interpretation of the language 
because I think they were actually quite deliberate in choosing 
the word ``mechanized'' because it was not just about keeping 
internal combustion engines out of these special places, but it 
was also about the experience that people can have in these 
special places and mechanized applies not only to, is it 
applies to mechanical objects and has been interpreted over the 
years, not just to apply to bicycles, but to other conveyances 
as well.
    When I hunt in wilderness, I don't use a game cart. You are 
not allowed to fly a hang glider. And one of the things I will 
tell you is that if you want to see the wild game change their 
behavior in a wilderness area, open those trails to mountain 
biking. We have many, many trails, three out of four miles, I 
understand from Mr. French, that are open to mountain biking. 
And I will tell you that every wilderness bill that I have ever 
been a part of drafting, we took very seriously what areas 
should be open to mountain biking and what areas should not 
because nothing will change the behavior of an elk herd faster 
than changing a pedestrian trail to a mountain biking or, for 
that matter, internal combustion engine bike trail.
    Mr. Chair, that is the balance of my time.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
this hearing.
    Obviously, I would like to talk about prescribed burning 
and a variety of issues, but I want to mention, again, that in 
our state more than 800,000 acres burned in the 2020 fire 
season with over 300,000 of those acres burning in just one 
day. These have forced hundreds of evacuations of structures 
and homes, and throughout the West we are seeing these 
unbelievable numbers with over 47,000 fires having burned over 
8 million acres, and this is not an anomaly. Every year since 
2000 we have had an average of 71,000 wildfires, and they burn 
an average of 6.9 million acres. So clearly we need to do more, 
and the statistics are telling us we need to have new 
strategies, and that is why I am a big supporter of cross-
laminated timber (CLT) and reducing our risk to wildfires. We 
can store the carbon instead of it burning in wildfires and 
help our rural communities--for example, with very long-term 
timber contracts, under which if they promise to produce CLT, 
they will receive a selection preference. We need to be doing 
more of this and obviously this is why I am a sponsor of S. 
4625, the National Prescribed Fire Act, with Ranking Member 
Manchin and Senator Wyden.
    Both of these, I think, are steps in the right direction. I 
am also interested in the role that women are playing in our 
forests workforce and the women-in-fire aspect of that 
legislation, S. 4625. So I wondered, Mr. French, if you could 
address both that issue and what the agency did on the agency 
tracking provisions of our last Act, tracking smoke and public 
health impacts and being able to measure that. What kind of 
results did we get?
    Mr. French. So on your first question, are you specifically 
asking about the agency's focus on CLT and second about our 
focus on diversifying the ranks of our fire organization?
    Senator Cantwell. Women-in-fire, sorry.
    Mr. French. Yeah, okay, thank you for that clarification.
    It is a particular focus of ours as an agency right now to 
create a work environment that not only recruits and retains a 
more diversified space for folks, including in our fire 
organization, but especially a place that is, again, we can not 
only recruit, but retain. It's welcoming and valuing women in 
the fire workplace. We recognize the history we've had in this, 
and we have taken many proactive and deliberate and concrete 
steps under the leadership of Chief Christiansen to change that 
vector. And I'm quite proud of the approach the agency has been 
taking. I grew up in the fire organization. I certainly 
understand and have seen many of the issues that our agency has 
been plagued with, and I'm proud to be part of the different 
cultural change and mindset of where we need to go.
    In terms of tracking the specifics on air quality that you 
spoke of, I will get back to you on that because I don't have 
those right at my hands right now.
    [Information requested was not received as of the date of 
printing.]
    Senator Cantwell. Okay. Well, we think that is a really 
important point. I wondered if Susan Jane Brown could also add 
to our discussion about the women-in-fire, if she has any 
comments?
    Ms. Brown. Sure, thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Like Mr. French, I agree that the Forest Service has come a 
long way in terms of welcoming, in particular, women into the 
Fire Corps. But there's a lot of work that needs to be done 
still and the prescribed fire legislation does take another 
step forward by encouraging the recruitment and retention of 
women in fire which I think is great. Some of the changes that 
are also being proposed in terms of shifting seasonal fire 
employees to permanent fire employees is also very helpful to 
many women in fire who do want a career in fire but also have 
other responsibilities in terms of caring for the home. And so 
this legislation provides some additional flexibility, and I 
think that will incentivize attracting women to the fire corps.
    One of the suggestions for an amendment to the legislation 
that I proposed in my written testimony is to really think 
holistically about how we approach fire and many times the way 
that we see how women are represented in the workforce is by 
looking at mascots. And so this legislation does utilize an 
existing mascot called Burner Bob which, I understand, is a 
very effective program down in the Southeast. I would suggest 
perhaps thinking about a different mascot by the name of Burner 
Betty. This would be a female character in fire and as a 
mascot, as a public relations, and a public education tool 
would be really a forward-facing and forward-thinking 
representation of the Forest Service's commitment to being a 
more diverse workforce including in fire. So I put that forward 
for your consideration.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. That is so helpful. I want to 
point out, just because we have done so much work with the 
Coast Guard on a similar issue of workforce issues, there are 
policies we can put in place to encourage more diverse 
workforce and we should consider that.
    I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 
note for Mr. French--regarding your testimony on the Tongass 
proposal, that it would be hard to carry out your review under 
the National Environmental Policy Act and issue a schedule or 
offer any sales in 2021-2022. I concur on that point. I am not 
a fan of the proposal overall, but I also don't think you can 
even deliver on it.
    To the BLM, it was very important that we not disturb the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge habitat, specifically for polar bears, 
and I think the Department's plan relies heavily on an 
unreliable polar bear surveillance technology. I understand 
that recently we found that there was 55 percent of the known 
dens that were missed by this technology. So I am going to 
submit a question for the record for BLM on that, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you so much.
    Senator Lee. Without objection. Thank you, Senator 
Cantwell.
    Okay, we will now start our second round. I am not seeing 
any additional members who have not yet had the chance to ask 
questions, so we will start a second round now. They are 
expected to call a vote in a little while so at some point we 
have to either adjourn or recess for that. Depending on the 
timing, we will try to work through things as quickly as we 
can.
    Let's see. I am going to go to Mr. Nedd next. I want to 
talk to you a little bit about the Colorado Outdoor Recreation 
and Economy Act. This legislation, the CORE Act, H.R. 823 would 
allow, it would withdraw 200,000 acres from mining and mineral 
leasing development in an area that is known to have critical 
mineral and energy resources. From the perspective of the 
Administration, does the CORE Act support the Department's goal 
of maintaining American energy dominance and promoting domestic 
production of critical minerals over that of a less friendly 
set of countries, like for example, China?
    Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This bill does not support the Department's goal of 
maintaining its energy dominance and relying less on foreign 
countries, and so it would not.
    Senator Lee. Now would construction of a new dam/reservoir 
be compatible with the CORE Act, in your view, Mr. Nedd?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, Mr. Chairman, certainly the Bureau of 
Reclamation can answer this best, but my understanding is as 
long as future or proposed water projects are consistent with 
Congressional designation, they should not, but again, I would 
defer to the Bureau of Land Management or the state that 
manages water rights.
    Senator Lee. Okay. They should not, but it doesn't 
necessarily mean they would not or could not?
    Mr. Nedd. That's my understanding. They should not.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    Mr. French, do you have any, anything to add to that?
    Mr. French. Not at this time. I think, in general, with the 
CORE Act which we've testified on before, those provisions that 
have gone through our broader land management planning process 
and there's consensus on, we support, but the overall intent, 
the Administration does not.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    Mr. French, with regard to S. 2875, the Smith River 
National Recreation Area Expansion Act, do you feel like the 
expansion of the NRA and designation of the wild and scenic 
river areas will impact the ability of the agency to combat 
wildfires and what type of activities do you think the 
designation might prevent?
    Mr. French. It really depends on how it's crafted and the 
specifics. You know, I think we saw this year intense fire 
activity in that whole area. I mean, we lost hundreds of homes 
and others. So anytime that you're looking at a designation 
like a national recreation area, it's really important that it 
does not preclude our ability for restoring those forests, 
treating fuels, having access for suppression, of course. And 
so, if it does those sorts of things, it can be quite 
challenging and add to the problem.
    Senator Lee. Turning to S. 4599, Senator Heinrich's bill, 
the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, what type of recourse 
development is available or is currently taking place in the 
Pecos Watershed?
    Mr. French. So you know, I'm not sure. Are you asking the 
question like how do we manage that, Senator?
    Senator Lee. Yes.
    Mr. French. In terms of recourse development?
    Senator Lee. Yes.
    Mr. French. What we can do, I mean, under the 1872 Mining 
Law there's not discretion for whether someone can use those 
minerals, obtain those minerals, but we can work with how they 
do that and ways that--we're doing it in a way that most 
protects the environment of how they're pulling that away and 
that's our primary role.
    Senator Lee. Is there interest in more exploration or 
future development of the region?
    Mr. French. There is some limited, yes, there is some 
limited interest right now. It's mainly around metal, lead, 
zinc, gold, copper, silver.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Nedd, Mr. French mentioned some minerals. 
What impact might this withdrawal have on access to critical 
minerals that are necessary for U.S. national security?
    Mr. Nedd. So, Mr. Chairman, not withstanding valid and 
existing right, it would permit--prohibit any new development.
    Senator Lee. Prohibit any new development, including any 
development not foreseen or rights not previously staked out?
    Mr. Nedd. Right. Again, not foreseen, unless there's a 
valid and existing right there, a withdrawal would then prevent 
any future development.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    With regard to S. 4625, Senator Wyden's bill, Ms. Brown, I 
have a question for you on this. When wildfires occur, some 
species of plant or animal life may thrive while others might 
suffer. In addition to prescribed fire, would you say we also 
need to ensure that we can reasonably access fragile ecosystems 
for managing--for mechanical thinning to prevent their demise 
in foreseeable wildfires?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that question, Senator.
    Yes, I think that in most situations we do need all tools 
in the tool box and in many situations mechanical treatment, 
prior to prescribed fire, is the wise and best choice. So I do 
think that in many cases mechanical treatment definitely has a 
role to play.
    Senator Lee. Mr. French and Mr. Nedd, are there some 
vegetation types that some forest lands in the United States, 
particularly in the Western United States, that are just too 
dense or too diseased or otherwise problematic to run a 
prescribed fire?
    Mr. French. Yeah, I mean, there are certain forest types, I 
think, lodgepole is an existing one, where just by the nature 
of it and depending on its age, you're going to look at other 
approaches to do that. Most of your western adapted fire, fire 
forests, at some point you can start to use prescribed fire as 
the primary goal for maintaining it. On your first entries you 
may need to do mechanical treatments to prepare them for work 
like that because they're too dense.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Babbott, do the forests in Coconino County 
need more mechanical thinning or more prescribed fire?
    Mr. Babbott. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the answer is 
yes to both, but really, importantly, I think we need to 
understand that there are thousands and tens of thousands of 
acres that have to come from a first things first approach. You 
cannot place fire, prescribed fire, in landscapes and settings 
where tree densities do not allow that to serve the purpose of 
what managed fire is. I'm going up tomorrow with the District 
Ranger to look at the upper steep slope of the Museum Fire. No 
prescribed fire ever could have been put on those areas prior 
to mechanical thinning. So there is a first things first 
approach that not all acres are created, kind of, equal in 
terms of their unhealthiness. Areas that prescribed fire can be 
safely put on or managed--natural ignition fires are great 
candidates--but we should not be confused that there are 
hundreds of thousands of acres in the 4FRI footprint that 
cannot have prescribed fire safely put on it because we have 
suppressed for a century that natural ignition in a fire-
adapted ecosystem and 20 years of drought and climate change 
are all contributing to what was just referenced by one of your 
colleagues.
    And while I'm sitting here, we just got a fire start on 
north of the peaks here, the third week of November. So the 
rules are changed. We can't use the same strategies or approach 
that used to work because they don't work anymore.
    Senator Lee. I would imagine there are a lot of places 
within the Kaibab National Forest where you do not want any 
burn prior to mechanical thinning.
    Mr. Babbott. One hundred percent correct.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to come back to something that Mr. French said and 
just make sure I got it right so that everyone understands. 
Under existing law under the 1872 Mining Act, could the Forest 
Service just decide that the Pecos River Valley just is not the 
right place for a mine? Do you have that discretion?
    Mr. French. Not at this point. If there's a valid existing 
right under the 1872 Mining Law, we would not have the 
discretion----
    Senator Heinrich. You cannot deny the ability to develop 
that right, correct?
    Mr. French. That's correct. We would work with----
    Senator Heinrich. And so, and I don't disagree with you on 
that fact at all. I want to be clear about the situation my 
constituents are in, because today no one makes their living in 
this valley by hardrock mining. Now there is interest from 
international corporations in changing that, but the people who 
live in the Pecos Valley do not want to see new mines along the 
Pecos River because they have experienced, firsthand, what the 
devastation of a mine waste spill looks like in the 1990s with 
the former Tererro Mine which we have finally, finally, gotten 
cleaned up. So we have people who make their living by guiding 
people to fly fish, we have people who make their living by 
farming, we have people who make their living through 
recreation, and they are concerned that their right to be able 
to do the things that they want to do now, that they are doing 
now, is going to be taken away. So the only way those folks can 
protect their watershed from new mines is this kind of 
legislation and that is why we are here today.
    I want to switch to Mr. Nedd and go back to the question 
that Senator Cantwell had and, basically, I think a lot of us 
were dismayed but frankly not surprised to see President 
Trump's last-minute effort to shortcut environmental laws and 
try to jam oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge through on his way 
out the door. While there is a lot of justifiable concern about 
this, many of us are quite confident that efforts to shortcut 
the review process and to ignore the law will ultimately fail. 
That is why I would urge this Administration to actually focus 
on ensuring a smooth transition rather than trying to expedite 
legally-deficient projects that will degrade our nation's 
public lands.
    So Mr. Nedd, this call for nominations comes less than a 
month after BLM released a plan to move forward with seismic 
testing throughout the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 
Area using heavy trucks and machinery that may kill/threaten 
polar bears and damage the Tundra as well. I understand that 
the Department's seismic testing plan relies heavily on a very 
unreliable polar bear surveillance technology that a recent 
study found missed more than 50 percent of known dens, 
actually, 55 percent of known polar bear dens. So I want to 
know what actions the BLM is taking to actually ensure that 
critically endangered polar bears are afforded the protections 
required under the law if a lease sale goes through.
    Mr. Nedd. Senator, thank you for that question.
    The BLM does, will ensure there's, adequate protection is 
provided. Specifically with the polar bear and what protection 
it will be, I would need to take a question back for the 
record.
    Senator Heinrich. I am trying to understand what those 
protections actually are, and you are telling me you don't 
know.
    Mr. Nedd. Well, again, Senator, I don't have detailed 
information here to answer the specifics, but I'll be glad to 
take a question back for the record.
    Senator Heinrich. Well, I would just point out that this is 
not the first time today that you did not have the answers to 
questions that are very specific to what the BLM does and what 
it is doing right now and the role of this, these various 
pieces of legislation. This is the national interest. This is 
not only a national wildlife refuge, it is the crown jewel of 
all national wildlife refuges, and we have critically 
endangered polar bears that don't have anywhere else to go. 
They cannot go any further north because the sea ice doesn't 
form as early as it used to. I have watched these bears on the 
North Slope of this refuge, and every year their existence gets 
more and more tenuous. If you are going to drill for oil, you 
should have a plan in a wildlife refuge for how to protect the 
wildlife. Do you disagree?
    Mr. Nedd. Well, Senator, again, I am here to testify on 
several bills, and I would like to take a question back on the 
polar bears. So I didn't come prepared to answer questions on 
the polar bear and drilling in the Arctic. And again, I would 
like to take a question back.
    Senator Heinrich. I look forward to that answer, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Nedd. Thank you.
    Senator Lee. All right, the vote has now been called. We 
are going to wrap up here in a second. Before we do that I want 
to submit for the record a series of letters that have been 
submitted in connection with the Colorado Outdoor Recreation 
and Economy Act and those will be admitted into the record, 
without objection.
    [Letters for the record regarding S. 241 follow:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Lee. We are now going to adjourn. We will keep the 
record open for a period of two weeks. Thank you for your 
testimony today and for answering our questions.
    We stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]