    [Senate Hearing 117-455]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 117-455

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

    			S. 1734      S. 2564
                            S. 1964      S. 2650
    			S. 2404      S. 2806
    			S. 2436      S. 2836
    			S. 2561

                                  __________

                                OCTOBER 21, 2021

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

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

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    46-061                     WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                         ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                          Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                 Bryan Petit, Senior Professional Staff Member
                 Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
                  Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                       James Willson, Republican Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
      Virginia.......................................................     1
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Wyoming........................................................     2
    Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana..................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from Colorado............     5
    French, Christopher, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
      Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................     9
    Rupert, Jeffery, Director, Office of Wildland Fire, U.S.
      Department of the Interior.....................................    32
    Crapser, Bill, State Forester, Wyoming State Forestry Division...    41
    Johansen, Paul R., Chief, Wildlife Resources Section, West
      Virginia Division of Natural Resources.........................    46
    Bertone-Riggs, Tyson, Coalition Director, Rural Voices for
      Conservation Coalition.........................................    51

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Woodcock Society et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................     7
    American Wood Council:
        Letter for the Record with attachments.......................    91
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    99
    Arapahoe Basin Ski Area:
        Letter for the Record........................................   104
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
        Photograph of Mr. Crapser with moose.........................     4
        Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Forest Thinning Helps
          Curb Wildfires'' by Jim Carlton, dated 9/29/2021...........    60
    Bennet, Hon. Michael F.:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    Bertone-Riggs, Tyson:
        Opening Statement............................................    51
        Written Testimony............................................    53
    Blue Forest Conservation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   105
    Bogus Basin Recreational Association, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   106
    Colorado Ski Country USA:
        Letter for the Record........................................   107
    Composite Panel Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   109
    Crapser, Bill:
        Opening Statement............................................    41
        Written Testimony............................................    43
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   112
    French, Christopher:
        Opening Statement............................................     9
        Written Testimony............................................    11
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    81
    Johansen, Paul R.:
        Opening Statement............................................    46
        Written Testimony............................................    48
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Mission Ridge Ski and Board Resort:
        Letter for the Record with attachment........................   114
    National Ready Mixed Concrete Association et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   118
    National Ski Areas Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   120
    Natural Resources Defense Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   122
    (The) Nature Conservancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   124
    Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   126
    Property and Environment Research Center:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   128
    Red Lodge Mountain:
        Letter for the Record........................................   133
    Rupert, Jeffery:
        Opening Statement............................................    32
        Written Testimony............................................    34
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    87
    Ski California:
        Letter for the Record........................................   134
    Ski New Mexico:
        Letter for the Record........................................   136
    Ski Utah:
        Letter for the Record........................................   137
    Trout Unlimited:
        Letter for the Record........................................   138
    Vermont Ski Areas Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   141
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   142

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills that were addressed in this hearing can
    be found at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/hearing-to-
    consider-pending-legislation

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
    III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. This
    morning we are here to discuss a number of pieces of
    legislation related to wildfires and to forestry. These bills
    represent the priorities of many members on both sides of the
    aisle, including several members of the Committee. I also want
    to welcome Senator Bennet to the Committee as he joins us this
    morning to talk about his bill.
        In May of this year, our Committee discussed how forests
    absorb and store carbon emissions, the role that forestry can
    play in addressing climate change, and how forest management is
    essential to addressing wildfires. Over the subsequent four
    months, we witnessed communities across the West again suffer
    catastrophic loss of life and property from horrific wildfires.
    I stand by my western colleagues, and I am ready to work with
    each of them. We must commit to taking the necessary proactive
    mitigation steps going forward, particularly those that are
    cost effective and have a proven track record of success. This
    perennial issue is worsening every year, and the fire agencies
    stand to greatly benefit from several of the bills on today's
    agenda. Now that rain has fallen across much of the West,
    tamping down this season's wildfires, we must get to work to
    get ahead of our country's wildfire problems. Specifically, we
    need enduring, long-term solutions put in place.
        Our Committee has talked at length about how many of our
    country's forests are unhealthy and in need of restoration. It
    is critical that we include forests and wildfires in our
    conversations about carbon emissions. That is why Ranking
    Member Barrasso and I, along with Senators King and Marshall,
    introduced the America's Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration
    Act. Our bill has been praised by dozens of groups, including
    the Nature Conservancy, the timber industry, a number of
    national forestry groups, and sportsmen's and women's groups
    like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. It
    authorizes agencies like the Forest Service and the Department
    of the Interior to accept money from outside organizations that
    want to invest in wildfire prevention and all these projects
    because they also see the carbon benefits of these projects.
    Our bill also contains proactive measures related to
    revegetation and expanding use of wood products--both
    activities that have been shown to help rural economies. I am
    particularly excited about a provision related to revegetation
    of abandoned mine lands, and I am very grateful for Chief
    Johansen to have made the drive here today from West Virginia
    to speak to us in detail about this initiative.
        There are eight other bills on this morning's agenda. While
    many of these bills are broadly supported, I understand a few
    are controversial. Senator Daines has two bills that address
    the litigation problems that sometimes hinder important
    forestry projects. While I support addressing this important
    issue, I want to be sure it is done, first, in a way that will
    procedurally work for the agencies and all the parties
    involved, and second, in a way that does not have unintended
    consequences. This morning's topic is unique because the
    proposals we will be discussing can make a tremendous impact on
    our nation's climate efforts and address our nation's wildfire
    problem. I believe we should focus on solutions that both
    parties can rally behind. With that, I will turn it over to
    Ranking Member Barrasso for his opening statement.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate you holding this hearing. It is good to have Senator
    Bennet here joining us as well, as he and I have co-sponsored
    legislation that is on the agenda today. I am very grateful to
    you to hold today's hearing. You know, our forests are really
    in a state of crisis and what we are seeing now should be a
    call for action. Now, those actually are not my words, those
    are the words of a recent quote by Randy Moore, who is the new
    Chief of the Forest Service, and I agree with him completely.
    Extreme drought coupled with decades of fire suppression
    without proper active management has left many of America's
    forests vulnerable to disaster. Recent catastrophic wildfires
    have devastated American lives and livelihoods and destroyed
    our forest and range landscapes.
        In June, Chairman Manchin and I wrote a letter to the White
    House saying, ``Proactive management is far better for our
    forests, our economies, and the safety of our communities than
    simply being reactive.'' That is why I am pleased to see a
    number of the bills on today's schedule that will move us in
    the right direction of proactive forest and rangeland
    management. This includes America's Revegetation and Carbon
    Sequestration Act, which I have introduced along with Chairman
    Manchin. This important bipartisan bill increases active forest
    management on a number of fronts. It is going to spur more tree
    thinning in overcrowded forests that are at high risk of
    wildfires. These projects give rise to healthier forests that
    are more resistant to wildfires and disease. Our legislation
    eradicates harmful invasive grasses that make landscapes more
    fire prone. In Wyoming and across the West, invasive grasses
    like cheatgrass and medusahead crowd out forage for wildlife
    and for livestock. This harms our ecosystem and deals a blow to
    local economies. The bill also directs federal agencies to work
    with local officials and experts. The goal is to restore
    vegetation on forested and range landscapes that have been
    destroyed by wildfires. The bill also includes a number of
    measures to store carbon through expanded use of wood products.
    This includes helping to expedite appropriate salvage logging
    projects in the event that disaster does strike a national
    forest. The America's Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration Act
    enables the use of proactive management tools that make a real
    change in our public lands in the natural ability to store
    carbon. Our bill enjoys broad support from a wide range of
    organizations, including sportsmen's groups, timber companies,
    conservation organizations, and state and private forestry
    associations.
        Today's hearing also includes the Ski Hill Resources for
    Economic Development--or SHRED Act--and this is a bill which I
    have introduced along with Senator Bennet, who is here to
    present an outline of the bill in a few moments. These retained
    fees will be used on projects to improve recreation management,
    protect our forests, and support local economies. This bill
    also has broad support and is co-sponsored by a number of other
    senators on the Committee.
        I also want to highlight the important forestry bills
    introduced by Senator Daines and Senator Risch. These bills
    would address the red tape and litigation traps that stymie
    projects designed to mitigate wildfires and improve forest
    health. I support these pieces of legislation and look forward
    to hearing testimony on all the bills before the Committee
    today. I am also hopeful that we can work in a bipartisan
    fashion to address the many issues facing America's forests.
        Finally, I would like to introduce to the Committee, Mr.
    Bill Crapser, who is joining us remotely. I am very pleased
    that Bill could be part of today's hearing. Bill has served as
    the Wyoming State Forester since 2003. He knows as well as
    anyone that collaborative work across private, state, and
    federal boundaries is key to a healthy forest across Wyoming
    and the nation. He provides critical expertise and is a
    valuable resource for the many issues that we are discussing
    today. Bill has a great excuse for not joining us here in
    person, because I know he likes to come to testify, because he
    very recently went on a moose hunt in Wyoming's Bridger-Teton
    National Forest, and as you can see by this picture--Bill, I
    don't know if you can see this. This is the moose and it was
    quite a successful hunt. So not only are you a great forester,
    you are also a crack shot and you probably had to wait 15 years
    to get that tag because those aren't things you can just go out
    and--Daines, you are a hunter. Look at this. Have you seen that
    moose? Very impressive.
        [Photograph of Mr. Crapser with moose follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. So Bill, congratulations again. Thank you
    for joining us, the Committee, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    hopefully we can have you come out----
        The Chairman. Is it legal?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. It was for him. For you, we are not so
    sure, but that is something, isn't it? That is impressive.
        The Chairman. That's great.
        Thank you, Senator.
        We have a great panel assembled this morning. Before we
    start with the panel, we have been blessed to have the presence
    of our good friend from Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I want to thank
    you and the Ranking Member for what you said about the West and
    fires. We are going to spend the money one way or another. We
    can just spend $50,000 an acre fighting fires. We can spend
    $1,500 an acre treating the forests and that is what we need to
    do. So thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Barrasso,
    for allowing me to say just a few words about the SHRED Act.
    The case for the bill is straightforward. Our national forests
    are fundamental to our economy, and in places like the White
    River National Forest in Colorado, our ski industries also
    generate millions of dollars for the treasury, but those funds
    do not make it back to the forests where they are needed most.
    Instead, Washington often shortchanges our forests, leaving
    them without the budget to hire staff, maintain trailheads, and
    manage recreation--placing a burden on local governments. The
    SHRED Act fixes that by keeping a portion of the fees paid by
    ski areas in the forests where they were generated. This small
    change would mean more researchers across the West in Colorado,
    Wyoming, Montana, and elsewhere to help our national forests
    contend with the surge in visitation and outdoor recreation.
    That is why the SHRED Act is supported not only by ski areas,
    but also local governments and regional organizations in my
    state, including the Colorado Association of Ski Towns and the
    Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
        So I am deeply grateful to Ranking Member Barrasso for his
    leadership and partnership on the measure, and I look forward
    to working with everyone on the Committee to advance this
    important legislation in a bipartisan way.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Now we have Senator Daines speaking about his piece of
    legislation.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines. Chairman Manchin, this is a great hearing.
    We are moose hunting and skiing already.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. I think my kids think I have a cool job
    now, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, let me talk about something that is very important to
    the West and specifically Montana. Over 940,000 acres burned
    during this past wildfire season in Montana. Meanwhile, there
    is more board-feet tied up in litigation than is actually
    harvested. Let me say that again. There is more board-feet of
    timber tied up in litigation than was actually harvested. When
    I was growing up in Montana, we had 31 active sawmills. That
    number has dwindled down to seven, and we are expecting the St.
    Regis mill to close next month. And oftentimes the reason we
    are seeing these mills closing is they cannot get enough timber
    into their mills. It is no wonder that we continue to hear
    calls for a paradigm shift in forest management. And in
    Montana, that paradigm shift will not occur unless we address
    obstructionist litigation. So I have introduced two bills that
    do exactly that.
        The first is the Protect Collaboration for Healthier
    Forests Act, which establishes a pilot program to resolve
    disputes against collaboratively developed projects through
    arbitration versus litigation. This bill safeguards public
    input by ensuring that consensus-driven decisions of the
    majority are not obstructed by isolated dissenters. This is the
    same language that passed out of this Committee with Chairman
    Manchin's support in 2018, and in Region 1, we have a
    litigation rate two and a half times any other region, and 30
    percent of the environmental impact statements are challenged
    on average in Region 1. It is time that Congress provide this
    tool to our partners in the Forest Service.
        My second bill reverses the 9th Circuit 2015 Cottonwood
    Decision, which the Obama Administration said, and I quote,
    ``Has the potential to cripple forest management.'' You know,
    the Obama Administration was correct. We have seen hundreds of
    projects impacted by lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits,
    including whole forests in New Mexico being shut down. My bill
    simply applies the standard across the rest of the country to
    the 9th Circuit by codifying the position that was taken by the
    Obama Administration and the 10th Circuit Court. This is the
    narrowest way to address this issue. Anything less will upend
    forest planning across the country and hold the Forest Service
    hostage to a never-ending procedural loop for consultation.
    From Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, to the Montana Wood
    Products, sportsmen, conservation, timber groups across the
    spectrum have called upon Congress to address this specific
    issue.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a
    letter of support from 33 members of the American Wildlife
    Conservation Partnership.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        [The letter referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Four Forest Service Chiefs spanning two
    administrations have called for a solution, and it is time to
    act. Forest management is good for our workers. It is good for
    watersheds. It is good for wildlife and for wildfire
    prevention. It is a critical part of our way of life in
    Montana. It is time to return to some common-sense forest
    management. I look forward to today's discussion and all these
    important policies.
        Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Now let me welcome our panel of witnesses. Today we have
    Deputy Chief Chris French from the Forest Service. We have Mr.
    Jeffery Rupert from the Department of the Interior's Office of
    Wildland Fire. We have Mr. Bill Crapser, the Wyoming State
    Forester. We have Chief Paul Johansen, Chief of Wildlife
    Resources at the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
    And finally, we have Mr. Tyson Riggs, Coalition Director for
    the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition.
        Deputy Chief French, we are going to begin with your
    opening remarks.

    STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
                      SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE

        Mr. French. Great, thank you.
        Thank you Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
    members of the Committee. I am Chris French, the Deputy Chief
    of the National Forest System at the USDA Forest Service.
    Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. Over the past
    years, I have had several opportunities to come in front of you
    and talk about the wildfire crisis facing our national forests
    and grasslands and the collective challenges we have to address
    it. When I look at the series of bills in front of you today, I
    want to say a heartfelt thank you. Thank you for engaging and
    presenting creative, innovative, and important proposals that
    are all intended to help the agency and our vast array of
    tribal, state, community, and private-based partners to
    overcome what has become our national reality--forests that are
    burning at scales and scopes we have not seen before that are
    having tragic and unacceptable effects to our communities, our
    interagency firefighting resources, and the long-term
    sustainability of our nation's forests.
        Many of the foundational aspects of our national forests
    and grasslands--clean water, clean air, sacred sites, suitable
    forest products and uses, robust wildlife, fish and plant
    habitats, pristine wilderness, and wild and scenic rivers, and
    a place for enjoyment for the nearly 168 million visitors we
    get each year--are clearly at risk. Our opportunity to find a
    new course is now, and the Forest Service is ready to take
    solutions that address this. From our experience, solutions to
    address this crisis must recognize the scale of our problem. We
    need to restore millions of acres of forest, not thousands. We
    need to protect thousands of communities, not dozens. We must
    act strategically and at a national scale and leverage and
    facilitate local collaboration and solutions. We must enable
    our partners and recognize that fire does not respect land
    ownership, administrative or management boundaries, or
    political jurisdictions--that our solutions must rely on
    science, traditional ecological knowledge, and on-the-ground
    management and local expertise. Our projects must deliver
    multiple outcomes based on public input that treat the right
    acre at the right scale that can finally end this spiraling
    cost of fire suppression.
        And finally, we need to keep all solutions and all tools on
    the table. We need more prescribed fire on the land. We need
    more mechanical treatments. We need more technological
    advancements. We need more training, resources, and expertise,
    and we need thriving tribes, interagency partners, states,
    communities, and supporting businesses, such as our forest
    products and service industries, if we are going to solve this
    problem. And we need to recognize and honor the toll this work
    has put on our employees, our community-based first responders,
    and our citizens that live in our at-risk forest communities.
    The past years have been mentally and physically exhausting.
    Today's solutions must fairly pay and bring relief to those
    trying to manage a system and threat that is currently
    outstripping our resources. Currently, the Forest Service
    carries out approximately three million acres of fuels
    reduction treatments. The Department of the Interior, states,
    and tribes accomplish an additional one million. It is not
    nearly enough. Our scientists say that we need to treat at
    least 20 million acres on federal lands in the next 10 years
    and 30 million acres on other lands if we are going to get
    ahead of this situation. So we have a lot of work to do, and we
    have a lot of work to do to restore our systems post-fire. In
    addition to impacting individuals, communities, and economies,
    wildfire damage of the nation's forests has profound impacts on
    their ability to sequester carbon, protect water resources,
    produce timber, support recreation, and provide wildlife
    habitat.
        The series of bills in front of us: S. 1734, the National
    Prescribed Fire Act; S. 2404, the Western Wildfire Support Act;
    S. 2436, the Forest Improvements Through Research and Emergency
    Stewardship for Healthy Ecosystem Development and
    Sustainability Act; S. 2564, the Protect Collaboration for
    Healthier Forests Act; S. 2650, the Wildfire Resilient
    Communities Act; S. 2561, an amendment to the Forest and
    Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and FLPMA; S. 2806,
    the Wildfire Emergency Act; and S. 2836, America's Revegetation
    and Carbon Sequestration Act, all take on different aspects of
    the work to help address this collective challenge. My written
    testimony provides specific thoughts on each bill, but as a
    whole, they offer innovative solutions and we look forward to
    working with the bill sponsor to address technical or policy
    concerns that we have to make them more implementable.
        Finally, I would like to address one other bill in front of
    us. S. 1964 would establish a ski area permit through retention
    account and authorize the Forest Service to deposit, retain,
    and spend these permit-fee revenues in certain activities. The
    bill would increase efficiencies in administering ski area
    permits and improve our customer service. We support the bill.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Next, we are going to go to Mr. Rupert for your opening
    remarks, sir.

    STATEMENT OF JEFFERY RUPERT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE,
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Rupert. Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss
    wildland fire management legislation. I believe that the bills
    being discussed today provide important tools to support
    meaningful progress toward reducing wildfire risk and
    protecting people, communities, and resources from the threat
    of wildfires. Climate change is a proven driver behind the more
    intense, larger wildfires that we have experienced this year
    and in recent years. Drier and hotter weather and the
    accumulation of dead and dying vegetation is sparking these
    larger and more intense wildfires, and as we have all seen, the
    effects are devastating.
        This past year, every geographic area in the nation
    simultaneously experienced large wildfires. Every western state
    was in extreme drought, and today, over 200 million acres of
    land across the entire United States continues to be in high or
    very high wildfire hazard potential. The nation reached
    Preparedness Level (PL) 4 on June 22nd of this year and
    elevated to PL 5 on July 14th. At these levels, firefighting
    resource demand is at or above supply. We remained at these
    levels for a record 99 days. We are unquestionably in the midst
    of a wildfire crisis in this country that is driven in part by
    climate change. The Department of the Interior plays a key role
    in implementing President Biden's Executive Order on tackling
    the climate crisis at home and abroad and in the larger federal
    effort to bolster adaptation, resilience, and mitigation to the
    impacts of climate change. The President's commitment
    underscores the work underway at the Department of the
    Interior, including ongoing efforts to transform the
    firefighting workforce to permit professional employees that
    are available to respond to wildfires year-round and conduct
    hazardous fuels treatments during periods of lower wildfire
    activity.
        This past year, DOI completed over 1.6 million acres of
    hazardous fuels treatment, which represents a 40 percent
    increase in accomplishments over the past five years. This is
    helping to improve resiliency by reducing wildfire risk in
    priority areas and watersheds. Further assessments being
    conducted by the EPA in partnership with CDC, DOI, and the USDA
    Forest Service are helping us to better understand the
    tradeoffs between smoke from wildfires and smoke from
    prescribed fires and their impacts on air quality and public
    health. Prescribed fire has long been recognized as an
    important tool to reduce accumulated vegetation that is driving
    these intense, catastrophic wildfires. Yet despite our long-
    term commitment to reducing wildfire risk, clearly, we must
    tackle climate change more broadly and significantly, and ramp
    up our treatment efforts beyond current levels. The success of
    our wildland fire management efforts is largely dependent on
    cooperative work with our partners. Collaboration with states,
    local governments, tribal nations, and other federal agencies
    is critically important to effective wildland fire management.
    The Wildland Fire Leadership Council continues to provide the
    forum for partners in the interagency wildland fire management
    community to discuss strategies that help establish resilient
    landscapes, support more fire-adapted communities, and promote
    safe and effective wildfire response.
        I believe that the bills being considered today can help us
    achieve these goals by advancing the pace and scale of
    hazardous fuels management, supporting the interagency
    operational response to wildfires, collaborating with
    communities in planning and preparing for wildfires, improving
    ecosystem health and facilitating landscape restoration,
    investing in wildland fire research and science, and funding
    technologies that better detect and report wildfires. Equally
    important, many of the provisions in these bills directly
    address the risk associated with climate change. Increasing
    hazardous fuels treatment as provided in S. 1734, the National
    Prescribed Fire Act of 2021 and S. 2650, the Wildfire Resilient
    Communities Act, would mitigate fire risk and reduce wildfire
    intensity. This, in turn, would reduce the carbon emissions
    from wildfires that are a contributing driver to climate
    change. Additionally, S. 2836, America's Revegetation and
    Carbon Sequestration Act, would establish broad-scale
    revegetation and carbon sequestration initiatives. S. 2806, the
    Wildfire Emergency Act of 2021 would advance interdisciplinary
    science to better understand the human dimensions driving
    climate change. We must get a handle on our nation's wildland
    fire crisis and tackle climate change head-on. Neither the
    status quo nor more of the same are viable wildland fire
    management options. We need many of the reforms that are
    envisioned in these bills. Thank you for your leadership and
    support.
        This concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rupert follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Now we are going to hear from Mr. Crapser.

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

        Mr. Crapser. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee for holding this
    hearing. My name is Bill Crapser. I am the Wyoming State
    Forester. It is an honor for me to testify before you today on
    behalf of the State of Wyoming and the National Association of
    State Foresters. I do apologize for not being there in person.
    Hopefully Senator Barrasso's explanation of my absence was
    sufficient. The National Association of State Foresters
    represents leaders of forestry agencies in all 50 states, eight
    U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. State foresters
    deliver technical and financial assistance to private
    landowners, who own over half of the forest in the United
    States. We also partner with federal land management agencies
    through cooperative agreements--Good Neighbor Authority--to
    help manage forests, national forests and BLM lands, and
    conduct wildfire management operations nationwide.
        First and foremost, I want to express my support for the
    bipartisan America's Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration
    (ARCS) Act. I am encouraged by the introduction of the ARCS Act
    and thankful to Senators Manchin and Barrasso for their
    continued leadership on forestry issues. We look forward to
    working with our federal partners to implement this important
    piece of legislation. Our nation's forests and rangelands face
    many serious challenges to their health and viability,
    including catastrophic wildfire, insects, and disease. The ARCS
    Act would go a long way to help
    land managers address these challenges through thoughtful
    afforestation and reforestation efforts, coordinated wildfire
    mitigation work, and expanded opportunities for responsible
    timber salvage. This bill supports working forests and forest
    landowners by advancing markets for wood products. Not only is
    the carbon sequestered in harvested wood and maintained in
    these wood products, wood products can be used in place of more
    energy-intensive materials like steel, plastic, and concrete,
    and when used in substitution of fossil fuels and non-renewable
    building inputs, the use of wood products can eliminate
    greenhouse gas emissions at their source.
        The ARCS Act supports wood innovation and emerging forest-
    based technologies. It would direct the Food and Drug
    Administration to establish a pilot program to explore how
    feeding livestock biochar produced from wood waste can reduce
    agriculture greenhouse emissions. This pilot would expand on a
    recent Nebraska Forest Service study that found substituting
    biochar for one percent of a cow's diet can lead to a ten-
    percent reduction in methane emissions. The bill would add tree
    planting and maintenance to the Job Corps curriculum and
    establish a new grant program at the Department of Energy for
    tree planting activities aimed at reducing residential energy
    consumption. Urban trees and forests help mitigate the urban
    heat-island affect and reduce cooling costs by providing shade
    to buildings and street surfaces. To increase active forest
    management, we can increase carbon storage by helping improve
    the resilience of our forests and maximize wood availability
    for forest products utilization.
        As you well know, forest products, like forests themselves,
    act as carbon sinks and have demonstrative benefits in many
    different applications, including building construction and
    energy generation, timber harvest transfer of carbon from
    forest ecosystems to wood products, like lumber for homes and
    furniture. Residues from harvested wood can be made into
    pellets and used as energy sources. With good science-based
    forest management, forest can remain forest. After a
    disturbance like a harvest or a wildfire, resilient forests are
    able to regenerate, and in doing so utilize carbon from the
    atmosphere to grow once again. This brings me to a critical
    point I want to stress to the Committee. Forest markets, both
    for wood and carbon credits, are critical to maintaining the
    forest health and sustainability of the forest in the United
    States. Wood markets in particular enable the carefully planned
    harvested trees that are needed for forests to have appropriate
    stocking levels and to balance age classes and species
    diversity. Managed forests are healthy forests. They are better
    able to withstand fire and pests and are more capable of
    sequestering carbon, providing clean air and water, wildlife
    habitat, recreational opportunities, and countless other
    benefits.
        I look forward to answering your questions today, and thank
    you again for this opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crapser follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Now we are going to have Chief Johansen.

       STATEMENT OF PAUL R. JOHANSEN, CHIEF, WILDLIFE RESOURCES
          SECTION, WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Johansen. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today in support of Senate bill 2836, America's
    Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration Act of 2021. My name is
    Paul Johansen, and I serve as Chief of the Wildlife Resources
    Section for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources.
    Senate bill 2836 provides a comprehensive, science-based
    approach for improving the management of the nation's forest
    and rangelands through the establishment of robust revegetation
    programs and carbon sequestration activities. This morning, I
    will be focusing my comments on one important component of
    Senate bill 2836. That is Title I, Section 106, Revegetation on
    Abandoned Mine Land.
        Section 106 creates a pilot program designed to establish
    native trees, shrubs, and grasses on eligible mine lands. The
    program seeks to establish vegetation that is ecologically
    appropriate and a benefit to wildlife, has a high capacity to
    sequester and store carbon, and serves to enhance habitat
    connectivity. Restoring and revegetating reclaimed and
    abandoned mine lands will produce significant ecological and
    economic benefits across the Appalachian region. West Virginia
    alone has more than 440,000 acres of lands impacted by surface
    mining for coal. These lands are a legacy from our past. They
    provide a link to our history and remind us of the role that
    Appalachia played in meeting the nation's energy needs. These
    lands also represent a bridge to the future. Senate bill 2836
    will enable us to polish this legacy by restoring biological
    diversity, enhancing wildlife habitat, providing essential
    employment training, and putting people back to work across the
    Appalachian coal fields.
        Most of these formerly mined lands are overrun with non-
    native invasive vegetation that provides little if any benefit
    to wildlife. Converting these lands into landscapes supporting
    native grasses, shrubs, and forests addresses two critical
    needs within the region. Those are job creation and ecological
    restoration. There is unique symmetry taking place here that
    involves opportunities for people formerly engaged in coal
    extraction to transition to work in areas of ecological
    rehabilitation on these same lands. This habitat restoration
    work will not only provide environmental benefits, but it will
    also deliver a sustainable economic boost to local communities.
    Senate bill 2836 provides rural Appalachia with hope and a
    clear path forward. The program affords opportunities for
    training in the following fields: heavy equipment operation,
    horticulture, environmental remediation, and natural resource
    management. These training programs will be designed for recent
    high school graduates, displaced or retired mine workers, and
    those seeking to learn a new skill. This transitional training
    will lay the foundation for building a new, dynamic, and
    employable workforce.
        Ecological restoration will focus on the removal and
    control of non-native and invasive species in an effort to
    establish native vegetation that provides greater benefits to a
    wide variety of wildlife, including ruffed grouse, wild turkey,
    American woodcock, and a whole suite of migratory birds.
    Opportunities for hunting, wildlife viewing, bird watching, and
    other forms of wildlife-associated recreation will greatly
    expand on these restored lands. Abandoned mine lands require
    active restoration to enhance ecological integrity, restore
    biological productivity, and create the connectivity necessary
    for fully functional landscapes across Appalachia. Senate bill
    2836 creates an important opportunity to provide targeted
    funding to local communities, conservation organizations, state
    fish and wildlife agencies, and federal natural resource
    agencies in a coordinated manner designed to restore wildlife
    habitat and provide opportunities for social and economic
    growth within the Appalachian region.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Johansen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Now we have Mr. Bertone-Riggs.

      STATEMENT OF TYSON BERTONE-RIGGS, COALITION DIRECTOR, RURAL
                   VOICES FOR CONSERVATION COALITION

        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today.
        I serve as the Coalition Director for the Rural Voices for
    Conservation Coalition. The Coalition is dedicated to advancing
    place-based, collaborative conservation efforts that support
    ecologically sound land management that benefit and include
    rural communities. We focus on non-partisan, practical, durable
    solutions. Many of our participants are directly engaged with
    restoration projects, whether that be through convening
    collaborative planning efforts, carrying out forest thinning or
    prescribed burning on the grounds. It is this applied
    perspective that I bring to share with you today.
        There is a near consensus among scientists that prescribed
    burning coupled with mechanical treatments works to reduce the
    risk of wildfire. While other actions, such as home hardening
    and land-use planning are vital tools, prescribed fire is
    unique in serving to both reduce risk and restore ecological
    function in forests. We cannot and do not want to stop fire
    entirely. Prescribed burning works to moderate fire behavior,
    allowing for lower-intensity wildfire that reduces fuels and
    provides safer conditions for wildland firefighters to operate
    in. In other words, the way to manage fire is with fire.
    However, treatments are not keeping pace with what we need. But
    we have seen recent Congressional investments in mechanical
    thinning. Use of prescribed fire by most federal agencies has
    been flat or declining for the past two decades. This is
    particularly problematic, as prescribed burning is needed not
    only to reduce the initial risk of wildfire, but is also needed
    to maintain treatments over time. This is not one-and-done.
    Absent regular reoccurring prescribed burning, investments in
    previous thinning and restoration work may be squandered.
    Prescribed fire is the essential, necessary, long-neglected
    ingredient in fuels-reduction projects.
        So what can be done to ramp up prescribed burning to meet
    the need?
        First, getting ahead of the risk of wildfire will require
    sufficient funding. This work rarely pays for itself and will
    require appropriated funds to meet the scale of need. Funding
    should be seen as an investment in reduced wildfire suppression
    costs in the future. Second, we need to grow the prescribed-
    fire workforce. That means increased partnership and workforce
    development. Waiving matching requirements and streamlining
    agreement mechanisms and credentialling systems would allow
    partners to add capacity to prescribed burning--and they are
    ready to add capacity. Third, we need to support inclusive,
    collaborative, place-based planning. Agencies rely on
    collaborative planning to design high-quality, socially
    accepted projects. But these efforts face an uncertain funding
    future. We have examples of regional models of federal
    financial support for collaboration, and these need to be
    enshrined in statute and funded. Finally, we need to modernize
    Forest Service business practices, including performance
    measures and targets that don't prioritize the use of
    prescribed fire. Timber volume targets and the number of acres
    treated are not proxies for fire risk reduction work. We need
    to develop inclusively planned, outcomes-based performance
    measures.
        And while this may take time, in the short-run we should
    prioritize the use of the existing acres-mitigated target,
    which measures the final treatment that effectively mitigates
    fire risk. Tellingly, the accomplishments of this performance
    measure have failed to meet targets since the measure was
    introduced in Fiscal Year 2016. Congress can act on some of
    these needed reforms today. To highlight a few bills, S. 1734,
    the National Prescribed Fire Act, would for the first time
    provide dedicated funding for prescribed fire and would fund
    workforce training and development, establishing prescribed
    fire training centers and improving pathways to employment for
    former convicts. S. 2650, the Wildfire Resilient Communities
    Act, would make significant investments in hazardous fuels
    reduction projects and fund community planning. It would also
    permanently reauthorize the successful Collaborative Forest
    Landscape Restoration Program, which centers collaboration. S.
    2806, the Wildfire Emergency Act, would provide direct
    financial support to collaborative planning so vital to
    developing social license and inclusion of local communities.
    And finally, supporting the forestry provisions of the
    reconciliation package and the infrastructure bill would
    provide the transformative level of funding that is needed in
    order to get ahead of this problem.
        There is no future for American forests that does not
    involve fire, but we can choose to manage fire on our own
    terms, to reduce future suppression costs, to make forests more
    resilient, and to protect communities. Thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bertone-Riggs follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, and thank all of you. Now we are
    going to start our questions.
        First, I have a question for Chief Paul Johansen. And
    Chief, again, I want to thank you for making the drive here
    today from our beautiful State of West Virginia to share with
    us the support for our bill, the America's Revegetation and
    Carbon Sequestration Act. I would like to talk with you more
    about the abandoned mine lands initiative because I believe the
    provision particularly holds an awful lot of a promise for us
    in our home state. More than 30 percent of our West Virginians
    live within one mile--it is hard to believe--30 percent live
    within one mile of a mine site. So I know we have included $200
    million in the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is over in
    the House right now, which we think is going to be a tremendous
    opportunity for a great start for us.
        So, if you can, tell a little bit more about the types of
    economic opportunities that you see coming from this
    revegetation of these abandoned mine lands?
        Mr. Johansen. Thank you, Senator. I see the benefits of
    this particular bill as two-fold, and I talked a little bit
    about the biological impacts and you know, that's really where
    my training is--on the wildlife side of the equation. But the
    thing that excites me most about this particular bill is the
    potential economic impact that this would have in rural
    Appalachia. It would afford the opportunity to put training
    programs in place that would get either newly graduating high
    school students or displaced miners back onto those lands doing
    some fabulous work in terms of restoring the habitat.
        So the economic impact would be not only training
    opportunities, but putting people back to work on the ground
    getting idle mine equipment that we could put back onto those
    reclaimed mine sites to rip the soils up, reduce the
    compaction, allow us to effectively manage and put in place
    vegetation. I am not an economist. I cannot tell you what the
    exact economic impact would be, but I am familiar enough with
    West Virginia to know that these rural areas of West Virginia
    need those opportunities, need those economic opportunities to
    put people back to work. And I really think this bill has that
    potential.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Also, to Deputy French, the land management plans of
    several national forests in the West are currently being
    litigated, as you know. I understand this is because they
    failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
    about new information that might have implications for their
    plans. My colleagues, Senators Daines and Tester and Senator
    Risch have brought their concerns to me and other members of
    this Committee. It seems like there is something to be done
    there, but I am also concerned about the large number of
    grossly out-of-date land management plans that the Forest
    Service has. So my question is going to be two-part. First of
    all, there are 154 land management plans. How many are older
    than 15 years?
        Mr. French. More than half, Senator.
        The Chairman. More than half. Okay.
        Over the last three years, you have been appropriated $540
    million for land management plans. During that time, how many
    old plans have you all started to update?
        Mr. French. We have had about 35, and I think we have 19
    that we are still trying to revise. However, that money that
    comes into the agency is also used for monitoring and NEPA as
    well as land management planning. So there is a broad number of
    uses for that figure.
        The Chairman. So out of 154, half are older than 15 years,
    correct?
        Mr. French. Yes, on average right now it takes us around
    six to eight years to revise a single forest plan.
        The Chairman. With the amount of devastation we are having
    from all the fires and all the weather and climate-related
    concerns--this is ravishing the West. Do you have the manpower,
    the personnel power, the womanpower, whatever it takes, to
    increase this as far as this review and making sure we take the
    necessary action? Everybody, Democrat and Republican, is all
    for this. So all we need is you all's cooperation and we can
    maybe make some things happen.
        Mr. French. So on land management planning we have not had
    the personnel or resources or skill sets to do the land
    management planning to the level we need. The agency has looked
    at this really hard in the last few years and has a new
    implementation model that we are starting to implement this
    week.
        The Chairman. Can you contract any of it out?
        Mr. French. Yes.
        The Chairman. Have you thought about contracting out?
        Mr. French. Yes, good portions of it can be contracted out.
    We are moving from a forest-by-forest approach to more of a
    bioregional approach.
        The Chairman. Is there anything we can do, as Senators?
        Mr. French. I think the main thing is, what we have seen,
    and this is directly tied to the cost of suppression, is we
    have seen about a 40 percent decline in our natural resource
    professionals across the agency. We just cannot pay for those
    positions anymore. That includes land management planning.
        The Chairman. Of the $540 million, what percentage would
    you say was used toward land management or other?
        Mr. French. If you look at the total amount that is going
    out to the regions after we are paying for NEPA across for
    projects, monitoring, and other costs that we have as an
    agency, somewhere between $40 and $50 million.
        The Chairman. That is all that was left of the $540
    million?
        Mr. French. For land management planning specifically, yes,
    because it gets used for multiple things, not just land
    management planning.
        The Chairman. Would it be possible for any of your people
    who are handling basically the disbursements of the funds, if
    we can get them in to explain to our Committee here, showing us
    the audit of how--what kind of effect we have gotten because it
    does not look like we are ever going to catch up, even at $40
    million. Were you all able to contract out before?
        Mr. French. Yes.
        The Chairman. But you haven't done it?
        Mr. French. No, we have.
        The Chairman. You have contracted out before?
        Mr. French. We contract out----
        The Chairman. Still, could not increase, as far as the
    efficiencies of it?
        Mr. French. Mainly because we have lost staffing on a
    forest-by-forest approach. Because this happens every 10 to 15
    years, or is supposed to happen, we end up having to rehire
    each time. The funding has not been there for us to do it. And
    again, Senator, of course we can bring our budget folks up, but
    that particular BLI, that $540 million has multiple things that
    get funded out of it.
        The Chairman. One last comment.
        Have you worked with any of the universities in the western
    states or in the states that are most affected to see if they
    could help accelerate this?
        Mr. French. Yes, we have. We have worked with multiple
    universities. We have worked with the federal advisory
    committee. We have worked with multiple--actually we have
    brought in consultants, hired in to look at workforce
    management----
        The Chairman. That might have slowed it down a little bit.
        Mr. French [continuing]. And our approach.
        The Chairman. I am going to Senator Barrasso, sorry. Thank
    you.
        Mr. French. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And
    to all of our witnesses, we are in the middle of three roll
    call votes. You may see some of us coming and going and coming
    back and it is--we are very interested in the topic and what
    you have to say. If some of us leave, that is the reason for
    it.
        Mr. Crapser, last month, the Wall Street Journal included
    an article entitled, ``Forest Thinning Helps Curb Wildfires.''
    And the story discusses how Lake Tahoe and Sequoia National
    Park survived wildfires thanks to tree thinning projects.
        [The article referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. The article goes on to say that many more
    of these types of projects are needed to avoid or to mitigate
    catastrophic fires. Can you elaborate on how strategically
    planned tree thinning projects can increase forest health, can
    mitigate wildfire risk, and can minimize threats to communities
    and to firefighters?
        Mr. Crapser. Sure, Senator Barrasso. Good forest management
    does several things for us, and a lot of the basis of forest
    management has always been to replicate wildfires. When we look
    at it strategically, whether it's a timber sale, a fuels
    reduction, or whatever type of management activity or
    prescribed fire, we can minimize fire risk by lowering the fuel
    load, making the forest stands more viable, more healthy, and
    to just make the whole ecosystem healthier moving forward.
    Probably one of the best examples of it was in Wyoming in 2018
    on the Medicine Bow National Forest. We had a fire--the Badger
    Creek Fire--in the interface area. Partnered with the Forest
    Service, state forestry had spent a lot of time, effort, and
    money with the landowners in that area doing fuels projects,
    thinnings, some fuel breaks in some strategic areas, and when
    the fire came through, it went around the subdivisions instead
    of going through the subdivisions and instead, I think, we lost
    two houses instead of losing 30 or 40 houses. So strategically
    placed fuels projects definitely have an impact on both forest
    health and on fire suppression and making both the public and
    firefighters safer.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. French, Wyoming is home of world class skiing. The
    resorts in Jackson, in the Jackson area, and across the state
    are critical to our economy. Yet Wyoming's ski communities are
    paying fees that come back to Washington, DC. This means that
    those fees do not benefit the forest they are generated from.
    This is a missed opportunity, I think, for our forests and
    local economies. The SHRED Act that Senator Bennet talked about
    would change this and allow ski fees to be reinvested locally.
    The Forest Service would use these fees to improve
    infrastructure and visitor's services, enhance wildfire and
    avalanche preparedness, and support ski permit and program
    administration on the forest where the fees are collected. I
    heard you speak specifically of the support by the Forest
    Service of this legislation. Do you believe that would improve
    and expand recreational activities that are vital to the local
    communities?
        Mr. French. I do.
        Senator Barrasso. Great.
        Mr. Crapser, the Forest Service has recommended a drastic
    reduction in timber harvest levels on the Black Hills National
    Forest. It spans Wyoming and South Dakota. In August, you and
    the South Dakota State Forester sent a letter to the Forest
    Service expressing concern over the dense forest conditions on
    parts of the forest. The letter also stated that active
    management is needed on these crowded portions. How do you
    square this with the Forest Service's recommendation to
    drastically reduce timber harvest sales, and does it appear
    that better collaboration is needed between the Forest Service
    and its private and state partners?
        Mr. Crapser. I think we can always improve collaboration,
    Senator. As much as we work and as well as we work with our
    federal partners and they work with us--collaboration can
    always be improved. As far as the reduction in timber and our
    opinion on managing, a lot of that, I believe--looking at the
    Forest Service's numbers, looking at our numbers--is stand
    density numbers, diameter numbers and probably an honest
    difference of opinion on what is possible on those given acres.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. French, at a budget hearing in June,
    then Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen told me that the
    Black Hills National Forest is ``Positioned to move forward and
    create sustainable forest management harvest levels.'' She also
    recognized that the industry is ``a critical tool and partner
    to make that happen.'' Yet, in spite of this, the Forest
    Service continues to move ahead with its plan to drastically
    reduce timber harvest levels on that specific forest.
        Mr. French, does the Forest Service recognize how damaging
    its actions here will be to our local economies and to the
    long-term health of the forest?
        Mr. French. Senator, these decisions, especially when our
    scientists show us data that say that we need to change or
    manage differently the levels of harvests from our forests in
    order to meet the laws that we are asked to achieve, can have
    very dramatic impacts to communities, and I know our leadership
    locally recognizes that. And any decision like this that we
    make--first of all, I have tremendous understanding and empathy
    to the communities and businesses that depend on us. And our
    approach to this is to be transparent. We are going to go
    through a forest plan revision process to look at those issues,
    bring in partners like the state to look at it, and we are
    looking for solutions to help those businesses and communities
    that are affected if we need to move forward with those levels.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, as you talk about doing this
    additional look, will the Forest Service commit to better
    collaboration with industry as well as state partners in moving
    forward, and what would that collaboration actually look like?
    And that is my final question, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. French. Yes, Senator, yes, we can commit to that and
    what I would say is that we will work individually and
    collectively with those as we go through that revision process
    and we will follow up with you on some specifics of what that
    looks like.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. French, just the other day I raised
    the issue of the prescriptive public easements in the Crazy
    Mountains and you said to me and I quote, ``We haven't changed
    our position.'' But the Forest Service is not defending those
    easements in the current litigation. Now, this is despite those
    easements being in the current travel management plan. It is
    despite the successful court decision in 2007, where a number
    of those easements were defended. In fact, I want to read to
    you what the court said in 2007. It said, ``The mere fact that
    a landowner disputes the presence of a prescriptive easement on
    his or her property does not mean that the landowner is legally
    correct and the plaintiff points to no authority for its
    apparent proposition that the Forest Service should simply
    abandon use rights previously acquired by the public.''
        You told me the Forest Service has not changed its
    position, but your lack of action says more than words. I am
    going to ask you again, why is the Forest Service not defending
    the public's access to their public lands?
        Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
        And I stand by that. We haven't changed our position. We
    will always look to defend those where we can. In this
    particular case--in the cases that you're speaking of in the
    Crazies--our attorneys and the Department of Justice have
    looked at the evidence, looked at the standards that we need to
    meet under Montana State Law, and have essentially said that we
    can't defend these.
        Senator Heinrich. So what changed between 2007 and now?
        Mr. French. It is a different set of easements that we are
    looking at and the specifics on that set are different.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay.
        Mr. French. That's the way that I----
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I can guarantee you that if we go
    to court, the public may win or the public may lose, but if you
    do not defend in this litigation, it is pretty clear what the
    outcome is going to be.
        Mr. French. I agree, and we want to defend. Our advice from
    our attorneys is that we can't in this case.
        Senator Heinrich. This summer, the Forest Service announced
    that it would actually no longer allow fire managers to manage
    wildfires for natural resource benefit, and additionally would
    be limiting the use of prescribed fire. Now, I understand that
    resources were stretched thin this summer.
        Mr. French. Yup.
        Senator Heinrich. But if you look at New Mexico, we had a
    wet summer and it was an ideal year to actually allow a
    resource benefit fire to occur, which is some of the cheapest
    treatment and the most manageable treatment that can occur. So
    what is the Forest Service's current policy with regard to
    managing naturally ignited fires for resource benefits? Have
    you restarted prescribed fires in New Mexico?
        Mr. French. We have restarted. Our current policy is,
    anytime that we are going to either do prescribed fire or fire
    for resource management benefits, right now, we approve those
    through the Chief's office and we have been doing that. The
    executive leadership team, with the Chief, today is reviewing
    the policy as a whole to see if it's time to shift it now that
    we don't have the demand on resources to address fires
    throughout the West, as we did a month or two ago.
        Senator Heinrich. So currently you are still not allowing
    naturally ignited fires to burn, even where they are manageable
    and would have a natural resource benefit?
        Mr. French. We allow exceptions to that with approval from
    the Chief on a case by case basis. It is just not a blanket
    policy, and we are reviewing that actually today to see if that
    policy will shift based on current fire conditions.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Bertone-Riggs, what are your thoughts
    on why prescribed fire and naturally ignited natural resource
    benefit fires are not a bigger part of our toolbox in agencies
    like Interior and the U.S. Forest Service?
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. Yes, that's an excellent question. I
    think a lot of this, to my thinking, comes back to the Forest
    Service business models. You treasure what you measure.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. And as long you are measuring things
    that are not good representations of fire risk reduction, the
    bureaucracy churns out what it will. So I think you really need
    to seek reform in that area.
        Senator Heinrich. So we need to set clear, transparent
    measures and hold the agencies to account year by year to those
    measures?
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. Yes, sir.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And now we have Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rupert, I would like to start with you, if that is
    okay. The Council on Environmental Quality encourages federal
    agencies to develop and use categorical exclusions to protect
    the environment and reduce the resources and the time spent
    analyzing proposals. Can you tell me what categorical
    exclusions the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has developed in
    order to address wildfire or forest management under this
    Administration?
        Mr. Rupert. Thank you. I may not be able to do justice,
    specifically, to every categorical exclusion that is out there
    specifically for BLM, but I can tell you that across the
    Department to include BLM, you know, we do have a number of
    categorical exclusions that do provide for efficiency around
    wildland fire management and that we do use those. We do
    recognize them and they have been valuable tools.
        Senator Lee. I was interested to hear in your testimony
    support for S. 1734, the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2021,
    which directs the Secretaries to evaluate previously issued
    findings of no significant impact, and on the basis of those
    policies develop categorical exclusions using the documents as
    the basis for doing so. It would seem to me that this should be
    a common-sense, standard practice. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Rupert. I think--well, specifically to S. 1734, in
    broad terms, the--any opportunity to focus priority on
    delivering, accomplishing more prescribed fire on the ground,
    we see as a real opportunity. In terms of specific provisions
    within the bill, I think, absolutely, you know, we're very
    interested in, you know, working with the sponsor, working with
    the Committee to make sure that all of the provisions that are
    contained in the bill are a really good fit, specifically to
    compliance issues and efficiencies. There's no--it's clear in
    Interior, I think----
        Senator Lee. As to the idea of categorical exclusions being
    drawn from--produced following a finding of no significant
    impact, do you think that's a good idea?
        Mr. Rupert. I am not specifically aware of any concern in
    Interior related to using categorical exclusions that are
    currently in place. In terms of identifying additional
    categorical exclusions moving forward, you know, I think, from
    my perspective, it really, you know, is sort of a case-by-case
    assessment of what the focus is there. What is clearly
    important in Interior is, you know, addressing Endangered
    Species Act values, cultural resource values, Preservation Act
    values. Those are extremely important in Interior and ensuring
    that we have a balanced approach moving forward, you know, say
    looking at new additional categorical exclusions, is going to
    be something that's very important to the Department.
        Senator Lee. Yes. Is the Department supportive of the
    categorical exclusion promulgated on December 10th of last
    year, the end of 2020, under the Trump Administration? That is
    the one that allows, in some cases, for up to 5,000 acres of
    dead or dying trees to be salvaged.
        Mr. Rupert. So the last thing I want to do is muddy the
    water on any specifics and, sir, I have not specifically spoken
    with anyone or been briefed on that specific categorical
    exclusion and the Department's position on it today. So we
    would have to get back to you.
        Senator Lee. Yes, I would love it if you could look into
    that.
        Mr. Rupert. Yes, you bet.
        Senator Lee. And if you could support it, I think it is a
    common-sense approach and it is one that you ought to embrace.
    I do not see a downside to that one. I would also love to see
    the Department take a stronger position--stronger stance,
    generally--on the use of categorical exclusions, but there is a
    part of me that wonders whether that is really possible as long
    as frivolous litigation can so easily be brought, you know, to
    enjoin critical public work--critical work on public lands--and
    I put up my own proposal that would require those litigating
    these actions to have personally suffered some type of direct
    tangible harm that they have either suffered that or will
    suffer it. Does the Department have any ideas on how to address
    that issue?
        Mr. Rupert. Not--I would say again, in general terms, on
    any specific issue, if there's an opportunity for us to move
    forward to address issues, to work collaboratively, whether
    it's with Committee stakeholders on the ground, clearly the
    Department, if fully committed to working--looking at
    innovative solutions and collaborative solutions moving
    forward, for sure.
        Senator Lee. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Rupert. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. We are going to take a break right now. We
    both have to go vote again. We will be right back. If you take
    about 10 minutes, Okay? If you need to take a break, please do
    so. Thank you.
        [RECESS.]
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Let us resume the hearing. I
    apologized previously for the fact that we have a number of
    votes going on so people are going to be coming and going, but
    I think Senator Daines, you are next.
        Senator Daines. Chairman Barrasso, thank you.
        I would like to start with a few yes or no questions to set
    the record straight to make it clear on my legislation that
    reverses the 9th Circuit Cottonwood decision. Mr. French, if my
    bill were to become law, would the Forest Service still
    reconsult on plans when appropriate?
        Mr. French. We will reconsult on plans, yes.
        Senator Daines. Does my bill have any impact on your
    obligation to reconsult on projects?
        Mr. French. No.
        Senator Daines. Given the 10th Circuit ruling and the
    Supreme Court ruling, isn't it true that my legislation would
    not have any impact outside of the states that are within the
    9th Circuit?
        Mr. French. So there are two rulings of the Supreme Court
    that essentially made the definition that a forest plan is
    considered a completed action, and there is the split between
    the 9th and the 10th. I would have to consult with my
    attorneys. I am not an attorney. My guess is yes, but I would
    have to consult with our attorneys.
        Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
        Our analysis is that it would not have any impact outside
    of the 9th circuit states but we would like you to confirm that
    for consultation with your legal counsel.
        Mr. French. Okay.
        Senator Daines. Mr. French, is it only outdated forest
    plans that are impacted by the Cottonwood decision?
        Mr. French. No. When new information comes forward, no
    matter the date of the plan, that also would be triggered for
    reconsultation under Cottonwood, and new information is not
    well defined.
        Senator Daines. And that is, hence, the problem we have
    right now with litigation tying up so many of these timber
    projects.
        Mr. French, in reality, do forest plans typically need to
    be amended or revised as a result of the Cottonwood-related
    lawsuits after all the extra paperwork is done?
        Mr. French. Of the examples I have, not typically.
        Senator Daines. The Obama Administration said that the
    Cottonwood case would cripple forest management. Has that been
    the case?
        Mr. French. Not yet. The 2018 appropriations bill
    essentially created this window--safe harbor--for five years to
    sort through and deal with some of this. However, you know,
    beginning in 2023, you know, I just got briefed on this about a
    month ago as we are planning and preparing for that, we have
    probably got around 100 plans that would have to go through
    reconsultation based on the various triggers. That will take us
    years and millions of dollars.
        Senator Daines. Isn't it true that the BLM is bound by the
    2004 Supreme Court decision on SUWA that ruled that a BLM plan
    is a completed federal action?
        Mr. French. I believe so.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Rupert, wouldn't it be the case that
    there will be no impact on BLM as a result of my bill?
        Mr. Rupert. Thank you, sir. So my fear is I am going to
    frustrate you here and, you know, the Department fully
    recognizes there are issues to address moving forward around
    Cottonwood and I am not an attorney and I am also not as deeply
    steeped in BLM planning regulations. And so, you know, I am not
    certain. The Department will have to circle back with you, sir.
        Senator Daines. For Mr. French and Mr. Rupert, you both
    state in your testimony that you are working on a solution.
    Isn't it true that the language of the 2018 Omnibus
    significantly handcuffs both agencies from fully resolving this
    administratively?
        Start with Mr. Rupert.
        Mr. Rupert. I am not certain, sir.
        Senator Daines. Mr. French.
        Mr. French. I am aware of concerns of the language of how
    you address it administratively, and that is certainly
    something we can follow up with you on.
        Senator Daines. And haven't you had six years to fix this
    administratively?
        Mr. French. Well, it's not--the administrative approach to
    this would be within the regulations that the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and NOAA promulgate.
        Senator Daines. It would be helpful to explain why you have
    concerns with the position taken verbatim in a Clinton and
    Obama Administration petition of certs. Mr. Rupert, please
    elaborate on why you would oppose the 2004 Supreme Court ruling
    which your Department is currently bound by.
        Mr. Rupert. Yes, sir. Again, sir, the Department is fully
    aware of issues, committed to working forward, and I don't have
    a good response for your question, sir.
        Senator Daines. I would remind you that four
    administrations have taken the same position on this issue,
    that two U.S. Forest Service Chiefs have, as well--that my
    proposed solution is the most targeted approach in that it just
    applies standard across the rest of the nation to the 9th
    Circuit.
        In closing, Mr. French, I would like to switch gears and
    talk about my legislation to establish a pilot arbitration
    program. Can you discuss the litigation rate in Montana and how
    this has impacted agency actions?
        Mr. French. Sure. So, you know, litigation across the
    agency--of course, it occurs everywhere. In Montana, in Region
    1, and specifically around veg management, decisions that we
    make, we have the highest rate of litigation. About one in ten
    of all decisions, including CEs, are litigated in Region 10 and
    then, as you stated earlier, about 30 percent of our EAs, EISs.
    The results of that is that, as an agency, the number of people
    and the cost to deliver on a treatment per acre is higher than
    other places that don't have that. It often results in long-
    term--it takes longer to actually do projects on the ground and
    sometimes if things are canceled it can have local economic
    impacts. I know on one project that was on the Flathead, the
    case study we did on that which was about 1,800 acres, we
    canceled that after litigation impacted about 130 jobs.
        Senator Daines. Mr. French, We introduced the Stem Act,
    which allows an eligible entity to take the lead on project
    design, the development of implementation, so forth. Mr.
    French, will you commit to working with me to get this bill
    across the finish line--the Root and Stem act?
        Mr. French. I am committed to read it and work with your
    staff, sure.
        Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. I
    want to thank the Chair of the Committee, Chairman Manchin and
    you, Senator Barrasso and also the Chairman's staff for being
    very sympathetic to my coming in and coming out as we are
    juggling all the obligations. Senator Barrasso knows I am
    trying to deal with the Finance Committee issues and
    reconciliation. So I thank them both.
        Let me start with the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2021.
    This is S. 1734. This is my bill that would make fire risk
    reduction a top priority at the Forest Service and the
    Department of the Interior. On this bill, we have not just
    Chairman Manchin, but Senator Cantwell, who is recognized as
    one of the real experts on forestry--and our Ranking Member as
    well--before she went on to Chair the Commerce Committee. I
    think as all of our terrific witnesses understand, these are
    not your grandfather's fires. They are bigger. They are hotter.
    They are more powerful. A fire like the Bootleg Fire in rural
    Oregon can actually change the weather, and we are going to
    have to take some fresh approaches. To just put it in basic,
    simple English, what the Prescribed Fire Act does is
    essentially give us the chance to go in and do some of the
    heavy lifting in the cooler weather when you can carefully
    control fire, and in the process, avoid these infernos that we
    would otherwise have when it is hot and dry in the summer, and
    in our part of the world, somebody drops a match or something,
    you have a lightning strike, all of a sudden, you have an
    inferno on your hands.
        And the reason I feel so strongly about the prescribed fire
    legislation and very much appreciate Chairman Manchin working
    with me as we endeavor to put this bill together is, I have
    seen the results on the ground. Folks in Central Oregon--
    Sisters, specifically--some of your colleagues in the agencies
    feel that a prescribed fire saved the Town of Sisters--period,
    full stop. Experts in the field say that a prescribed fire
    saved the Town of Sisters, a wonderful, modest-sized community
    in rural Oregon.
        Now, my question is going to be for you, Mr. Bertone. We
    wrote the legislation, and this is why I appreciated Chairman
    Manchin being involved because Chairman Manchin, like myself,
    always tries to give the states more flexibility. And so, we
    tried with respect to the Clean Air Act to give states more
    flexibility for extending their burn days, to increase the
    number of large-scale controlled burns that could happen during
    the winter months, and taking this approach that we are not
    going to say Washington, DC has all the answers for
    communities, you know, thousands of miles away, for example, in
    rural Oregon. So I would like you, Mr. Bertone-Riggs, to give
    me your assessment of how the National Prescribed Fire Act
    addresses the Clean Air Act issue, which we sought to make sure
    would give the agencies more flexibility, use existing Clean
    Air Act authorities to help increase the pace and scale of
    controlled burns, and I think the specific question I would
    frame this way--in you view, how does the type of flexibility
    that Chairman Manchin, Senator Cantwell, and I are trying to
    promote, how does this type of flexibility ensure better forest
    management while at the same time ensuring the fundamental
    integrity of a bedrock environmental law like the Clean Air
    Act?
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        Just as there's no future without fire, there's no future
    without smoke, but it's important to note that prescribed fire
    doesn't put out the same kind of smoke that a major wildfire
    does, and it provides much more advanced notice so that
    communities and smoke-sensitive individuals can take
    precautionary measures. So I think your bill--it doesn't give a
    free pass to smoke emissions, but it does recognize the urgency
    of the issue and the need to begin to ramp this up. The pilot
    projects that would be somewhat exempt from the Clean Air Act--
    those are still required to have best practices--smoke
    management practices--and that's a huge and important part of
    that. And then the bill also funds research that would continue
    to improve smoke modeling over time. So again, best practices
    would change and ideally improve so that we could keep smoke to
    a minimum.
        Senator Wyden. Well, I thank you for the comments. I know
    my time is expired.
        We worked very closely with the U.S. Forest Service--
    Chairman Manchin, myself, Senator Cantwell, Senator Feinstein,
    also, a very influential co-sponsor of our bill. We will
    continue to keep the doors open to work with the Service. Our
    legislation is seeking to use a proven tool--controlled burns--
    to improve forest health and wildfire resiliency. And if I have
    said anything that sticks with our witnesses, we can give you
    examples of how prescribed fires actually save communities in
    our part of the country, with Sisters being one that folks will
    just basically volunteer it. When you ask about prescribed fire
    in rural Oregon, people will mention Sisters. So I appreciate
    the leadership of Chairman Manchin. We talk about a lot of
    subjects these days, and I will look forward to visiting with
    you about this one too.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Marshall.
        Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman, and welcome again to
    our guests. My first question is going to be for Chief French.
        We are proud to co-sponsor Senate bill 2836, America's
    Revegetation and Carbon Sequestration Act, and I hope you have
    had a peek at that. What I am interested in is just your
    concept of what we might do to help as we try to streamline
    voluntary carbon credits to be used by the Forest Service. How
    do you see that working? What are some of the positive things?
    Any concerns about it?
        Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. I think there is a lot of
    opportunity for us to look at carbon management across all our
    nation's forests, and we have been looking hard at it within
    the national forests. I think that there is some pretty
    innovative thinking in your proposal. I know that we have some
    concerns in terms of how to implement. Well, let's sit down and
    talk through that. We are working with a number of partners
    right now to look at how you either create carbon claims or
    carbon credits or other approaches for management across
    forests in general. So that is something we would love to sit
    down and talk some more about.
        Senator Marshall. I hope you also take the time to visit
    with agriculture. I think there are lots of opportunities for
    agriculture producers to get those same types of carbon credits
    and I am just concerned we will be doing it 20 different ways,
    20 different methods. How do we measure the carbon? How do we
    value it? All those types of things that I would add that
    basically we are paying for that--for the service of using
    carbon as opposed to a commodity. I think we are paying someone
    to store the carbon as opposed to the carbon is not a
    commodity. So please keep working with agriculture.
        A quick question for everybody in the audience or on the
    panel here. Chief French, is there a labor shortage issue in
    the Forest Service?
        Mr. French. There are two issues that we have right now. We
    are--and specifically in wildfire--we are losing a number of
    our skilled wildfire specialists to other agencies--states--and
    I would say, as a whole, we do not have enough resources or
    capacity to address the needs in front of us right now.
        Senator Marshall. Okay. I will probably need a yes or no
    from the rest of you.
        Mr. Rupert, do you have a labor shortage issue in your
    world?
        Mr. Rupert. In wildland fire, yes.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        Mr. Crapser, do you have a labor shortage challenge?
        Mr. Crapser. Yes, both on the forestry side and the fire
    side.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        Mr. Johansen, do you have a labor challenge at the West
    Virginia DNR?
        Mr. Johansen. We do, sir.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        And Mr. Bertone-Riggs, do you have a labor problem?
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. I would say yes, generally.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        Does anybody have any guess on how many of your employees
    are not vaccinated yet? Does anybody want to range a guess?
        Seeing none, I will say it will be 20 to 30 percent. And my
    question for each of you is, will the vaccine mandate make your
    labor shortage problem even worse?
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs.
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. I couldn't speak for some of the
    organizations within our group.
        Senator Marshall. In rural America, do you think it would
    impact rural America?
        Mr. Bertone-Riggs. Certainly, you will probably have some
    folks that feel hesitant about that.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        Mr. Johansen, will the vaccine mandate impact West Virginia
    DNR?
        Mr. Johansen. Sir, I am not sure about that answer. I could
    not fathom to guess.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        Mr. Crapser.
        Mr. Crapser. As a state, we don't have a vaccine mandate,
    but I believe the federal mandate will impact our federal
    partners, which will impact our ability to respond to wildfire.
        Senator Marshall. Mr. Rupert.
        Mr. Rupert. I don't know, sir.
        Senator Marshall. Okay.
        Chief French.
        Mr. French. We don't know yet, we are currently assessing
    those numbers.
        Senator Marshall. Okay. Thank you so much, Chairman. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you for this important hearing, and I appreciate my colleagues
    bringing this issue up, which we have tried to advocate for,
    which is changing the time of year when we can do these burns.
    I think originally people thought, ``Oh well, let's limit it to
    August or limit it to these particular times of the year.'' I
    think we learned five or six years ago that we could not do
    prescribed burns very well during that time because they were
    so explosive. Things just got out of hand. So I am supportive
    of changing and making clear that we have a little more
    flexibility there.
        Originally, I think we told the public we are trying to not
    have smoke in March. Well, I think people would trade the smoke
    in March for the voluminous amount of smoke that we are seeing
    in August and September and even October in some parts of the
    country. So we have to get that done.
        I wanted to ask you, Deputy Chief, if we could talk about
    what we have been able to get done with the tools that we have
    given you, as far as technology, forecasting, and obviously,
    fuel reduction. What, for this fire year, do you think we were
    able to accomplish that had a measurable impact, given the
    decision we made on the last big fire bill?
        Mr. French. Okay, thank you for the question, Senator. I
    think significant impact. So on the prescribed fire side of
    things, you know, leveraging much of the technology that we
    have right now, we are able to much better predict when and how
    to do those fires in the ways that have less impacts to
    communities and people. I know on our suppression side of
    things, we are putting teams specifically with each incident
    management team that are specifically using satellite
    technology and other technology that we have right now to
    predict and understand the effects of smoke and where it is
    going to go, and it has been a game changer for us this year.
        We are better informing the community. It is better
    informing tactics that we have and how we do things. So it has
    been significant.
        Senator Cantwell. How has it been a game changer?
        Mr. French. I think it provides real-time information and
    predictive services at the time we are making decisions, and it
    allows you to adjust, and I think that has been super helpful.
        Senator Cantwell. Adjust where you are putting resources?
        Mr. French. Individual tactics, but also upfront, where you
    are going to target communities to talk about the impacts or
    how you might need to mitigate some of those impacts. It has
    been functions like that.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, we certainly want to continue to
    enhance. Part of our reconciliation efforts are to create even
    more accurate weather forecasting information because we know
    that that is critical to developing maps of areas of the
    biggest potential threats, which then means you can cache
    resources there and be better prepared, obviously. But we
    definitely want NOAA and weather forecasting to have more
    supercomputing power so they can analyze storms more correctly
    and these conditions more correctly. Well, I would just say on
    smoke, you know, I mean, I know everybody across the nation is
    concerned about it. There was a story in the Washington Post
    about it. People were getting the smoke here. In the West, I
    know my colleague from Nevada can tell you, we have already had
    it. We want even an international effort with, in our case,
    British Columbia and other parts, you know, of--we want these
    same practices to be done on a large basis because one, there
    is no border that stops the smoke from coming over and those
    practices can--just as we are seeing, it impacts the whole
    nation--we see an impact. And so we would like to see
    communication between us and Canada on what we can do together
    effectively.
        Also, the issue of a diversified workforce: (1) we need a
    workforce. (2) we need it to be more diversified. There are
    stories about people not having the right PPE equipment and
    questions about the culture within the Forest Service. Can you
    give us an update on what you feel that you have been able to
    achieve in that area?
        Mr. French. It is an absolute focus of ours in both areas
    and it has been for years. The leadership of the agency has
    very specifically focused on how to change the workplace
    culture and environment to one that is inclusive, supportive,
    that allows folks that are experiencing either harassment or
    adverse--to be able to come forward, and they are supported,
    and we are seeing real differences with that. It is not
    universal. There is a lot more where we need to go, but it was
    an absolute focus of our leadership under Chief Christiansen
    and continues to be under Chief Moore.
        The focus on diversifying our workforce, and especially in
    the fire workforce, to increase our gender diversity continues
    to be an emphasis. We have a lot more work to do though, but
    you know, we are only going to be better as an agency if we
    have an environment that attracts folks and people want to
    stay.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes, well, I definitely think making sure
    they have the right equipment is very important too.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to follow up with you, Chief, thank you so much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Risch.
        Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. French, back to the conversation you had with the
    Chairman regarding the budget. Was the number $540 million, was
    that the number you talked about?
        Mr. French. So he specifically--the Chairman--was referring
    to one budget line item, I believe, that we received that is
    our land management planning and monitoring line item. That
    funding is used to pay for NEPA, resources across the agency
    for delivering projects, for monitoring after projects and land
    management planning monitoring, and for revising and amending
    land management plans.
        Senator Risch. One of the reasons I ask that question is to
    put this in proper perspective. We really need to have a good,
    clear understanding of what role, financially and otherwise,
    that litigation plays in this. Have you got any idea what
    percent of that winds up being used in the litigation process?
    What percentage of that number?
        Mr. French. I think that the easiest way, I mean, there are
    a number of factors that you could look at that look at that.
    The easiest way to look at it is probably the cost per acre it
    takes us to deliver work in places where we have a lot of
    litigation versus where we don't--the cost per acre to deliver
    projects and the length of time that it takes for us to
    conceptualize and do a project versus when we implement it.
    Generally, in regions where we have higher litigation, that is
    generally Regions 1, 5 and 6, so that is California, Oregon,
    Washington, Idaho, and Montana, it takes us longer to produce
    projects. They tend to cost more and they--it takes longer from
    inception to placement and costs us more per acre, in general.
    And there are a lot of factors that drive that. One of them is
    the work that we have to do to ensure that we are defending
    ourselves from litigation.
        Senator Risch. I appreciate that. I think people are
    stunned when they hear that it takes all those years to crank
    out a plan for a forest, but I get that, and I think most
    people do, and a lot of it goes to defensive things that you do
    so that you would be able to defend it in court.
        It can be done quicker than that. When I was Governor, we
    wrote a roadless rule for the nine million acres in Idaho that
    were roadless and we wrote that in less than six months,
    defended it in front of an environmental judge in Boise, and
    believe it or not, it was affirmed in the 9th Circuit. And as
    you know, we have one of the only two roadless rules in the
    country that are on the books. But we did all of that in
    relatively short order. The litigation is what took the
    longest. I was no longer Governor by the time we finished up
    the litigation, but I get that. I understand these things take
    time and as I think probably you know, we have tried around
    here to do something about the NEPA process and to try to
    streamline it and do things better, but so far, we have been
    unsuccessful on that. And until that happens, we are going to
    continue to get these kinds of delays, it would seem to me.
        Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you to you and
    Senator Barrasso for holding this hearing. You know, I have
    been coming to these hearings as long as I have been on this
    Committee and the fires get worse instead of better. You know,
    the rubber meets the road in this Committee and we are the
    overseers of the public lands and it is important that we
    continue to make the efforts that are necessary. We continue to
    try to do a ``one size fits all'' in a lot of areas and we all
    know that when it comes to fire on public lands, it is very
    different in different--even within states--for instance,
    Northern California versus Southern California. Forest thinning
    and that sort of thing may be very helpful in Northern
    California. When the brush is burning in Southern California,
    they do not do much thinning in the brush down there. And that
    is understandable.
        But in any event, we need to keep this up. It is stunning
    that we had 6.5 million acres of land burned--6.5 million acres
    of land burned across the U.S. this year. In Region 1 alone,
    there were 35,000 acres. Well, that is actually the litigation
    number that is tied up in litigation, but all of these things
    contribute to the forest health projects that can be helpful to
    helping this end. I introduced the FIRESHEDS Act with Ranking
    Member Barrasso and Senators Daines and Crapo to address the
    fireshed landscapes that are at extremely high risk of
    catastrophic fire. The bill will allow states to work with
    federal agencies across boundaries to conduct management
    projects on these landscapes to protect communities, wildlife,
    and water quality. Thank you for putting that on the hearing
    today. These projects would cut through red tape while
    requiring a collaborative process ensuring proactive and
    responsible management. Our forest health issues are dire and I
    look forward to working with my colleagues on it.
        This is an important issue. The smoke that Senator Cantwell
    referred to--we in Idaho get everybody's smoke. If Washington
    is on fire, we get it from them. If Oregon's on fire, we get it
    from them. If California or Nevada is on fire, we get it from
    them. So we are interested in this and we are on the front line
    of that fire that really is not--or smoke that is not really
    our smoke. So we are interested in seeing that things are done
    right there, too. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. First of
    all, let me say thank you to you and Ranking Member Barrasso
    for holding this important hearing today, and I really
    appreciate you including my bill, S. 2404, the Western Wildfire
    Support Act, on the agenda. We have heard it over and over
    again, and I know Mr. French and Mr. Rupert know this. We are
    continuing to see devastating fires in the West. It is no
    longer fire seasons. They are happening all the time, and no
    one is immune from these fires, including Mr. Chairman, who
    tried to come out to Nevada when a wildfire was happening and
    had to be turned back because of the air quality and how bad it
    was. But we need a meaningful, holistic look at how we combat
    the growing and longer wildfire seasons. That is why I
    introduced this bill.
        Specifically, my bill would direct the Interior Department
    and the Forest Service to create wildfire plans for federal
    lands to include pre-fire planning, wildfire response
    management, and post-fire recovery. It also provides funding to
    help communities, homeowners, and businesses prepare for
    wildfires by increasing their defensible space and implement
    community cleanup efforts. It expedites the placement of
    wildfire detection equipment, including cameras and sensors and
    creates a grant program to help local agencies acquire
    firefighting equipment, including slip-on tank units and air
    tankers and it also provides funding to help communities
    impacted by wildfires conduct long-term rehabilitation
    projects, and creates a program to reduce the spread of
    invasive species.
        So I hope my colleagues will take a look at this bill and
    join me.
        Mr. Rupert and Mr. French, you well know, I do not even
    have to tell you about the Dixie, Tamarack, and Caldor Fires.
    You are very familiar with what is happening in the western
    states with these wildfires back home and we do need a holistic
    approach for prevention, for suppression, and for recovery. So
    my question to both of you is, I am hoping you can comment on
    what more Congress can be doing to invest in--let's just talk
    about post-fire rehabilitation, if you would, please? Mr.
    French, we will start with you.
        Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
        You know, the scale that we are seeing is nothing I have
    seen before, I mean, the post-fire effects. I am used to seeing
    fires that burn in mosaics. My recent tour of some of the fires
    in California is just, it's just mile and mile of just
    moonscape. The post-fire recovery work that we have is
    tremendous and so, to answer your question directly--one, you
    know--recognize it is a growing issue, that there is as much of
    an effect to these landscapes and communities post-fire as
    there is in preventing fire. Our ability to create more
    flexible approaches for emergency recovery and long-term
    recovery that allows us to work collaboratively with states and
    communities--that is really critical right now. And then the
    final thing is probably just funding, you know, because, you
    know, we're losing bridges, we're losing cover, we're watching
    public watersheds that are drying up, providing water to
    communities. It's a critical need.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Mr. Rupert.
        Mr. Rupert. Thank you.
        Just to build on Deputy French's response, I think, scale
    and scope. Scale is incredibly important. Landscape scale,
    watershed scale, it necessitates cross-jurisdictional, multi-
    jurisdictional collaboration, leveraging, coordination. I feel
    like in the wildland fire community, you know, we have a very
    solid foundation built for how we integrate and provide an
    interagency leveraged response. Increasingly, I feel like in
    the pre-fire--fire risk reduction engagement--we have an
    increasing sort of framework in integration and collaboration
    and leveraging. I think, as Chris points out, we need to bring
    more focus to post-fire.
        I think we can also think of post-fire as, you know, really
    the first step to pre-fire, right? We can start to prepare
    ourselves for the next big fire to come through. I know another
    aspect of post-fire, certainly in Interior that we're focused
    on and trying to bring attention to through a science lens is
    improving our ability to forecast the post-fire impacts--you
    know, flooding, flash flooding, erosion--to again prepare
    ourselves to provide that more effective post-fire response.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        I know my time is up and I really appreciate this hearing.
    One thing I want to put on your radar, and this is what I heard
    from our firefighters in the state. Maria Cantwell talked a
    little bit about the air quality piece of it. The equipment
    that is necessary for our firefighters to keep and breathe
    safely while they are putting out these fires does not exist
    with respect to the air quality. They are burning hotter, and
    we do not know what the particulate is--how damaging it can be,
    and my understanding is from our firefighters, the equipment is
    just not there. Are you seeing the same thing or having
    concerns about the same thing?
        Mr. Rupert. Yes, absolutely. The concern exists for sure,
    and there needs to be attention to that issue for sure.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Deputy Chief French, one of the bills before us is S. 1734,
    the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2021, and it relates to
    expanding controlled burns. In my state, we have the national
    grasslands, and obviously use the controlled burns. Tell me, do
    you feel it is important to engage local stakeholders well in
    advance of any prescribed burns in the Dakota Prairie
    Grasslands? And tell me, if you do think it is important, how
    you are making sure that you do it adequately?
        Mr. French. In general, any prescribed fire that we are
    using--there should be a lot of close coordination and
    collaboration locally and we should be communicating that. I
    don't know the specifics happening on the grasslands, but I can
    certainly follow up.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. Would you commit to do that and make
    sure that there is strong coordination with the ranchers out
    there?
        Mr. French. Absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. Also, in the Great American Outdoors Act,
    it included funding for deferred maintenance on federal lands,
    including in the national grasslands. And so, in North Dakota
    in our Dakota Grasslands there, it is about $15 million per
    year for deferred maintenance. That involves a lot of things
    because you have multi-use out there. You have the ranchers.
    You have the energy industry. You have tourism. You know,
    wildlife, hunting, all that kind of stuff. So how do you--one
    of the things that we try to do is make sure that that deferred
    maintenance is used in a way that helps everybody. And I have
    set up a task force, if you will, with the grazing
    associations, our State Department of Agriculture, my office,
    and with the representatives out there of the Forest Service to
    make sure that that money is coordinated and, in fact, the
    State of North Dakota is providing funding as well to leverage
    those dollars.
        Number one, how does that sound to you in terms of a way to
    coordinate and work with people on the ground? And are you
    willing to commit to help work with that group to use that
    deferred maintenance money as well as we possibly can?
        Mr. French. Yes, I mean, we specifically have asked our
    four supervisors across the country to be engaging with their
    counties and with local communities about where the right
    projects are and how to leverage funds to get there. So that
    makes a lot of sense to me.
        Senator Hoeven. And we are coordinating with the counties
    as well, if I didn't mention the counties, as well. And again,
    trying to leverage state dollars and local funding, pair it up
    with the deferred maintenance in the Great American Outdoors
    Act, and use those dollars really well in a way that helps
    everybody. But it needs a commitment from your level to
    empower, you know, those folks down at the state level in your
    agency to work with our folks.
        Mr. French. So I will re-emphasize, because we have already
    given guidance like that, Senator. So I will re-emphasize that
    that is how we are asking folks to look at that and I will
    follow up specifically on your issue.
        Senator Hoeven. I would appreciate that very much.
        And then, regarding the grazing associations, they have
    concerns about some of your proposed changes in some of your
    rangeland directives. And so, would you commit to ensure that
    you give serious consideration to the comments that those
    grazing associations provide to you and direct your staff to
    work with those grazing associations collaboratively?
        Mr. French. Yes, absolutely, and I know I have a standing
    invitation from you to go out and meet with some of those
    associations, and I am looking forward to when our travel
    restrictions of COVID change a little bit and we can get out
    and start doing those things.
        Senator Hoeven. That would--it has been very helpful. Any
    time I have gotten representatives out and, you know, we get
    the various groups together, they get a chance to ask you
    questions. You get a chance to tell them what you are doing and
    why.
        Mr. French. Yup.
        Senator Hoeven. It really is--it is helpful. I think it is
    certainly helpful to our folks. I think you will find it very
    helpful and worthwhile.
        Mr. French. I will, and I look forward to when we can do
    that.
        Senator Hoeven. I Appreciate it.
        Director Rupert, what tools or partnerships does BLM
    utilize to manage prescribed burns and so forth out on BLM
    lands to make sure that you are working with the locals as
    well?
        Mr. Rupert. Specifically toward prescribed fire, and I
    think it is important to note--and this is definitely a
    consideration for BLM--not every single acre of land that is
    being administered by a land management agency, perhaps, should
    be receiving prescribed fire. There are lots of examples of
    that, particularly through the Great Basin. And so, BLM isn't
    always perhaps focused exclusively on prescribed fire. In those
    places, though, where we do have that focus and they do have
    that focus, certainly our federal partners, I am not sure that
    there are many examples where anyone in Interior, or any of the
    Bureaus, including BLM, conducts a prescribed fire that we
    don't have federal partners on, or depending on what part of
    the country--tribal partners, local partners, NGO's, state
    partners. It is a collaborative approach in almost every case.
        Senator Hoeven. And the same point I want to make as well
    with you on BLM lands, as I did in regard to our national
    grasslands, would you commit to directing your folks at the
    local and regional level to work as collaboratively as possible
    with our folks that live and work out in those areas? We have
    had some of your local and regional people that have been just
    fantastic, and then others not as good at working with our
    folks on the ground.
        Mr. Rupert. Yes, I appreciate the point. I'll echo Deputy
    French's point that, you know, I think we have that emphasis in
    place in Interior already, but absolutely, it's easy to say,
    ``Yes, we will.'' I will re-emphasize that and I think that
    goes for leadership across Interior.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I Appreciate it. Yes, thanks to
    both of you gentlemen.
        The Chairman. Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
    everybody.
        Mr. French, I know this hearing is about pending
    legislation, but we have a pressing matter in Arizona involving
    the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, or 4FRI. 4FRI is the
    Forest Service's first large-scale forest stewardship project
    in the nation, and it is vital to reducing the severity of
    wildfires in our state, and its success or failure has
    ramifications for forest management policy across the West.
    4FRI would mechanically thin more than 500,000 acres to return
    our forests to their natural, fire-adapted state. Now, last
    month, the Forest Service canceled a long-awaited contract
    solicitation to mechanically thin 30,000 acres per year over a
    20-year term, and this cancellation is devastating to Arizona's
    forest communities that spent years--they spent years helping
    the Forest Service build the stakeholder support for the
    contract.
        We have been waiting on the Forest Service to ramp up 4FRI
    for a decade now. Secretary Vilsack, when he served under
    President Obama, traveled to Arizona and participated in the
    launch of 4FRI. That was in 2011. In June, testifying before
    this Committee, Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen assured
    me that an award would be issued in July. She said that in
    June. This is not the first time that Arizona has had the rug
    pulled out from us. Senator McSally, Senator Kyl, Senator
    Flake, and the late Senator John McCain, each of them were
    promised by one chief after another that 4FRI was a priority.
        Mr. French, I know that the Forest Service is discussing
    next steps with Arizona stakeholders, but we will be holding
    your agency accountable every step of the way. And Mr. French,
    my question to you is, you know, one idea being floated is the
    issuance of a brand-new RFP. I am not convinced that that is
    realistic. Is the Forest Service confident that industry will
    come back to the table once again?
        Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
        I share your concerns, and you should hold us accountable.
    You know, I grew up in Arizona. My family lives in Arizona. I
    understand the importance of this project to Arizonans. I also
    understand the importance of us getting it right. I am--myself
    and the Chief are personally engaged with leadership as we go
    forward in the region and what they are doing right now to come
    up with a solution that will make this successful. We are
    working really closely with our partners, the Governor's
    office, and we are being transparent about that with our
    Congressional staffs. I am confident from what I see right now
    that we are going to have a solution that is better than what
    was in the RFP in a way that will better serve industry that is
    already there and attract industry in places where it has been
    lost. We are looking to be able to announce some of that in
    November, and I will leave it there.
        Senator Kelly. Are you hearing anything positive from
    industry about coming back to the table?
        Mr. French. Am I hearing personally? I can't say that I am,
    Senator, but I am hearing from the folks that are working on
    this locally that we are being more responsive to their needs.
        Senator Kelly. So we have lost, as you know, we have lost
    years of lead time to thin these forests. What is the Forest
    Service doing now, right now, to strategically prioritize acres
    in the 4FRI footprint when we get this underway?
        Mr. French. It is the highest priority for long-term funds
    that we have as part of our strategic approach to reducing
    wildland fire risk. And so, as we look at the potential
    appropriations that are coming from Congress, whether through
    our regular appropriations or the potential of the bipartisan
    infrastructure deal or the reconciliation bill, we look at
    those potential funds that are coming through those as a first
    priority to drive toward 4FRI.
        Senator Kelly. Okay, so it sounds like you are tracking the
    infrastructure bill----
        Mr. French. We are.
        Senator Kelly [continuing]. Which I think is a very
    positive thing.
        And finally, Mr. French, Senator Sinema and I would like
    Chief Moore to travel to Arizona and meet with some of the 4FRI
    stakeholders. Can you look into that for us?
        Mr. French. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. French. You're welcome.
        The Chairman. I want to thank all of you for appearing
    today. We will have until 6:00 tonight for any questions to be
    submitted for the record.
        Does anybody have anything else they would like to say
    before we close out? If not, thank you. I appreciate it very
    much. Let's protect this great country of ours and all the
    great outdoors that we have.
        The meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]