[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]