[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]