[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 188; H.R. 934; H.R. 1450; H.R. 1726;
H.R. 3389; H.R. 3396; H.R. 3499; H.R. 3522; AND
H.R. ____, ``FOREST SERVICE FLEXIBLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS ACT OF
2023''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-385 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO
Robert J. Wittman, VA
Tom McClintock, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ
Garret Graves, LA
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Daniel Webster, FL
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Russ Fulcher, ID
Pete Stauber, MN
John R. Curtis, UT
Tom Tiffany, WI
Jerry Carl, AL
Matt Rosendale, MT
Lauren Boebert, CO
Cliff Bentz, OR
Jen Kiggans, VA
Jim Moylan, GU
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
CNMI
Jared Huffman, CA
Ruben Gallego, AZ
Joe Neguse, CO
Mike Levin, CA
Katie Porter, CA
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Kevin Mullin, CA
Val T. Hoyle, OR
Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Seth Magaziner, RI
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Ed Case, HI
Debbie Dingell, MI
Susie Lee, NV
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Pete Stauber, MN CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 23, 2023............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 2
Panel I:
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Moore, Hon. Blake D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 5
Issa, Hon. Darrell, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 9
Tokuda, Hon. Jill N., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 10
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Heithecker, Troy, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest
Service, Washington, DC.................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 20
Dugan, Robert, Chairman, Placer County Water Agency, Auburn,
California................................................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Desautel, Cody, President, Intertribal Timber Council,
Portland, Oregon........................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Johansson, Jamie, President, California Farm Bureau,
Sacramento, California..................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Panel III:
Duncan, Riva, Fire Chief, Umpqua National Forest, U.S. Forest
Service (Retired); Vice President, Grassroots Wildland
Firefighters, Asheville, North Carolina.................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Goddard, Rick, Managing Director, Caylym Technologies
International, Fresno, California.......................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Godes, Jonathan, President, Colorado Association of Ski Towns
(CAST); Glenwood Springs City Councilor, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado................................................... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Crabtree, Laurence, U.S. Forest Service (Retired), Bieber,
California................................................. 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 188, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY
CONCERNED TO COORDINATE WITH IMPACTED PARTIES WHEN CONDUCTING A
FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PROVEN
FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2022''; H.R. 934, TO REQUIRE THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CARRY OUT ACTIVITIES TO SUPPRESS
WILDFIRES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1450, TO AMEND THE
AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014 TO MODIFY THE TREATMENT OF REVENUE
FROM TIMBER SALE CONTRACTS AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY
COUNTIES TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR UNDER GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, ``TREATING TRIBES AND COUNTIES AS GOOD NEIGHBORS
ACT''; H.R. 1726, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
PARTNER AND COLLABORATE WITH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
THE STATE OF HAWAII TO ADDRESS RAPID OHIA DEATH, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, ``CONTINUED RAPID OHIA DEATH RESPONSE ACT OF 2023'';
H.R. 3389, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ACTING
THROUGH THE CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE, AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT AN EVALUATION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF THE CONTAINER AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM (CAFFS), AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``EMERGENCY WILDFIRE FIGHTING TECHNOLOGY ACT OF
2023''; H.R. 3396, TO REQUIRE THE STANDARDIZATION OF RECIPROCAL
FIRE SUPPRESSION COST SHARE AGREEMENTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``FIRE DEPARTMENT REPAYMENT ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 3499, TO AMEND
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE DIRECT HIRE AUTHORITY
TO APPOINT INDIVIDUALS TO FEDERAL WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING AND
FIREFIGHTING SUPPORT POSITIONS IN THE FOREST SERVICE OR THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``DIRECT
HIRE TO FIGHT FIRES''; H.R. 3522, TO AMEND THE HEALTHY FORESTS
RESTORATION ACT OF 2003 TO ESTABLISH EMERGENCY FIRESHED
MANAGEMENT AREAS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FIRESHEDS ACT'';
AND H.R. ____, TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2018
TO REAUTHORIZE FOREST SERVICE FLEXIBLE PARTNERSHIPS, ``FOREST
SERVICE FLEXIBLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS ACT OF 2023''
----------
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, McClintock, Fulcher,
Stauber, Bentz, Moylan, Westerman; Neguse, Porter, and Leger
Fernandez.
Also present: Representatives Boebert, Issa, Moore of Utah,
Valadao; and Tokuda.
Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on nine
forest management and fire suppression bills: H.R. 188 and H.R.
934 by Mr. McClintock; H.R. 1450 by Mr. Fulcher; H.R. 1726 by
Representative Tokuda; H.R. 3522 by Mr. Moore; H.R. 3499 by Mr.
Issa; H.R. 3389 by Representative Valadao; H.R. 3396 by
Representative Harder; and Ranking Member Neguse's Forest
Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 2023.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais; the
gentlemen from California, Mr. Valadao and Mr. Issa; the
gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert; the gentleman from
Utah, Mr. Moore; and the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Tokuda.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made a part of the hearing
record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule
3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Tiffany. Last week, an article appeared in Politico
arguing that the progressive left should get behind permitting
reform because delay is a form of climate denialism. In making
this case for speeding up our country's environmental analysis,
an official was quoted as stating, ``Yes, we can respect our
environmental laws and we can move quickly at the same time.''
You may be surprised to learn this official was not a
Republican governor or Member of Congress, but rather Democrat
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.
While this Committee has had some productive conversations
on forest management this year, there is still too often a
disconnect between what my friends on the other side of the
other side of the aisle say about permitting reform versus
Democrats in their own White House.
The reality is this isn't just a funding and staffing
issue; we must reform laws like NEPA, and we have to do it now.
We need to speed up the bureaucracy that has been slowing down
forest management projects for decades if we want to truly
confront the wildfire crisis.
What is true for clean energy projects is also true for
forest management. We can streamline reviews for these projects
and still respect our nation's environmental laws. For too
long, we have been told that streamlining like categorical
exclusions undermine bedrock environmental laws. This catch
phrase of the left has lost virtually all meaning because it is
often said without providing any evidence that these reviews
will actually lead to worse environmental outcomes.
If anything, the opposite is true. We have seen time and
time again that streamlining the bureaucracy has led to better
environmental outcomes and better outcomes for local
communities. Lake Tahoe is a prime example of this. Just 2
years ago, the Caldor Fire was bearing down on the Lake Tahoe
Basin when it entered a hazardous fuels treatment area that was
made possible by a Tahoe-specific categorical exclusion. These
treatments dramatically slowed the fire and gave wildland
firefighters the ability to fight back and save over 600 homes.
Nearby Grizzly Flats, which is less than 100 miles from
this area, was ineligible for this 10,000-acre categorical
exclusion. The result? A planned hazardous fuels project was
delayed for nearly a decade and incomplete when the Caldor Fire
occurred. The community was virtually wiped from the map.
The Tahoe categorical exclusion was the difference-maker in
these two situations, and it is the type of tool that should be
afforded to all of our national forests. That is why I am
supportive of Congressman McClintock's Proven Forest Management
Act, which would expand the use of categorical exclusions that
has inarguably saved communities without compromising any level
of environmental analysis.
We will also be considering Congressman Moore's FIRESHEDS
Act, which builds upon cutting-edge Forest Service research to
prioritize landscape-scale fuels reduction treatments to
protect the most at-risk communities across the West. Anybody
who supports the Forest Service's 10-year confronting-the-
wildfire-crisis strategy needs to support this legislation,
which complements it by using the same fireshed research.
The Forest Service has often called the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law a downpayment on the funding for the 10-year
strategy, but it is far past time for us to put a downpayment
on the streamlining necessary to actually complete this work.
We are over a year into the implementation of this strategy,
and without addressing our permitting challenges we will never
meet the lofty goals set by the Forest Service.
I am also supportive of Representative Fulcher's Treating
Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act, which would improve
the co-stewardship of Federal lands with our tribal partners.
This bipartisan bill, which recently passed out of the House Ag
Committee on a 59 to 0 vote, should be a no-brainer. My home
state of Wisconsin is a leader in the use of Good Neighbor
Authority, and I am excited to see legislation moving that will
help improve this vital tool.
In addition to these forest management tools, we will be
considering some thoughtful wildfire suppression legislation,
including Congressman Issa's Direct Hire to Fight Fires Act;
Congressman Valadao's Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology
Act; and Congressman McClintock's fire suppression legislation.
These bills are the first step in fulfilling key guiding
principles for this Subcommittee that we must put wildland
firefighters into winnable situations, and we must address
their challenges in a fiscally responsible manner.
As is the case with forest management, we must remember
that this is not simply a funding issue. While we need to
ensure better and equitable pay for our wildland firefighters,
we must also cut the unnecessary red tape that is preventing us
from hiring these men and women in the first place. We must
also make sure our current fire suppression practices aren't
needlessly putting firefighters into harm's way.
I would like to thank all the Members on both sides of our
dais for their leadership on the important bills before us
today.
I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here and
traveling long distances to provide your expert testimony. I
look forward to hearing from each of you.
We will hear from Ranking Member Neguse when he arrives.
But now, I would like to recognize Representative McClintock
for 5 minutes in regards to two bills, H.R. 188 and H.R. 934.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have done such
a good job of describing them, I am not quite sure what I have
left, but I will give it a try here.
H.R. 188, the Proven Forest Management Act, extends an
existing law passed with bipartisan support and signed by
President Obama in 2016. That is the law that provided a
categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy
Act for forest thinning projects up to 10,000 acres under
certain conditions within the Tahoe Basin.
Under NEPA, a simple forest thinning project now requires
an average of 4 years of environmental studies that produce
reports often exceeding 800 pages. They cost millions of
dollars to produce, often more than the value of the timber
that we are removing. Federal timber auctions that once
produced millions of dollars to the Federal Government and to
the local communities affected now end up costing money. So,
not a lot of it gets done. Federal timber harvests in the
Sierra have declined 80 percent as a result.
The Lake Tahoe categorical exclusion has now been in effect
for 8 years. It has taken the review time for thinning projects
from 4 years down to less than 4 months. It has cut the reports
from 800 pages down to a few dozen. Under this authority, the
Tahoe Basin Management Unit has increased the removal of excess
timber from 1 million board feet a year to an average of 9
million board feet. Treated acreage in the Tahoe Basin has
tripled.
Mr. Chairman, you very clearly laid out what I like to call
the tale of two cities from the Caldor Fire: one that was
subject to this authority, saved from the fire; and the other,
Grizzly Flats, which was not covered by this authority, utterly
and completely destroyed.
The other bill, H.R. 934, requires the Forest Service to
aggressively attack all fires as soon as they are spotted, and
it provides authority for local fire departments to initially
attack all fires on Forest Service land. This used to be known
as the 10 a.m. Rule. Its abandonment has led to many instances
of small fires that could have been easily extinguished
exploding out of control instead. Perhaps most famous was the
Yellowstone fire in the 1980s. In response, Reagan immediately
reinstated the 10 a.m. Rule, only to have that order later
abandoned.
The policy of allowing fires to burn is based on the
premise that active suppression of fires leads to a buildup of
excess fuel, and that is right as far as it goes. If you are
not going to remove excess timber from a forest, you are going
to have a lot of fires. And if you put those fires out, yes,
you are going to have bigger fires. But that is the whole point
of forest management: to remove excess timber before it can
burn. Nature doesn't mind waiting a century for a forest to
regrow. We mere mortals don't have that luxury.
A few years ago, the Tamarack fire began from a lightning
strike and it smoldered for 10 days on a quarter acre of forest
land. The Forest Service sent helicopters over it every day to
take pictures for its Facebook page, but it never bothered to
drop a single bucket of water to put the fire out. Worse, it
forbade local fire agencies from putting out the fire
themselves. On the 10th day, the Tamarack Fire burst out of
control. It ended up destroying 17,000 acres of forest land and
about 80 homes. Their excuse was, well, it wasn't doing
anything, so they decided to just monitor it.
Well, I put the question to them, ``If you found a
rattlesnake curled up in a corner of your bedroom that wasn't
doing anything, would you simply monitor it until it did?'' The
Forest Service recognized how dangerous this policy was after
the Tamarack Fire, and at least temporarily ordered initial
attack on all fires in the Sierra. This bill simply makes that
policy permanent.
Mr. Chairman, remember, only you can prevent forest fires.
Maybe not all of them. But I can say with confidence that these
two bills that restore proven forest management policies will
prevent many forest fires and save many communities from the
catastrophe visited on towns like Grizzly Flats. So, let's not
waste any more time.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative McClintock. Next, I
recognize Mr. Moore from Utah. His bill, the FIRESHEDS Act.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE D. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and other distinguished members of the Committee. It is
always great to be back. Thank you for welcoming me and for
keeping this really, really important piece of legislation on
the forefront.
My team and I, and the entire state of Utah, and once all
Americans learn about it, which I am sure they are going to
study it all tonight, they are going to appreciate it, as well.
This is simply a bill that is geared toward taking good data,
good process, and trying to implement it across our country.
So, I appreciate the opportunity to join you today. And. again,
this is called FIRESHEDS Act, and I appreciate the
consideration.
I introduced this bill with my friends, Congressman Cuellar
in the House and Senator Risch in the Senate. And as the summer
season approaches, we stand on the brink of another wildfire
season that will threaten communities, lands, family
businesses, and more across our nation.
And I want to put it into context. Utah has had significant
drought in the last few years, and we just experienced our
highest snow totals ever. All of our communities in the Wasatch
Front are under flood right now. We had an incredibly wet
winter. And guess what? Even that leads to higher brush totals
and higher potential risk of wildfire. So, this occurs in a
drought. This occurs in high-water years. We have to be able to
sincerely look at what we are doing in our forests.
Like I mentioned, fires form an integral part of our
ecosystems. Their rate and severity, though, have increased in
recent years. As a result, their impact in our lives and our
environment has grown to levels that demand a new management
approach.
The financial toll of uncontrolled wildfires is staggering.
Each year, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars to
combat fires, a figure projected to rise consistently.
The economic and emotional impact are significant, as well.
Last year, a fire in Parleys Canyon threatened and forced the
evacuation of my constituents, which made this a personal issue
for many of us.
Furthermore, the environmental consequences of wildfire
cannot be overlooked. In 2020, researchers estimated that
nearly 112 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to
the emissions from approximately 24 million cars driven for
just 1 year, were expelled into the atmosphere due solely to
California's wildfires in that very year. Twenty-four million
cars driven for just 1 year from wildfires. I hope that we all
can recognize this is something that we all need to be able to
address and get ahead of.
Our current mitigation efforts are falling behind in the
intensity of these fires. And without provocative approach,
this gap will continue to expand. I introduced the FIRESHEDS
Act to instigate a comprehensive shift in our approach to
wildfire management that will help us better prevent fires
before they even begin. The FIRESHEDS Act does this by
leveraging modern technology to map and manage firesheds, areas
that are particularly susceptible to wildfires, to undertake
landscape-scale management projects ranked in the top 10
percent for wildfire exposure. It uses data to target the
biggest areas of risk, to put it simply.
This targeted, science-based strategy will help us mitigate
the likelihood of fires within these regions. By facilitating
efforts to create fuel breaks to slow or halt fires, implement
prescribed burns to rejuvenate ecosystems dependent on fire,
and remove unhealthy tree stands to reduce burn risks in the
fire-prone areas, we can ensure that our ecosystems are healthy
and our communities are safe.
Because wildfires do not acknowledge state boundaries, the
FIRESHEDS Act encourages shared stewardship agreements,
promoting collaborative partnerships among states and with
Federal Government. This approach has worked well in Utah, and
I was honored to join Governor Cox, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack,
and others for the signing of an updated shared stewardship
agreement.
As catastrophic wildfires predominantly afflict specific
regions, their repercussions reverberate across our nation,
underscoring the importance of a unified effort. Republicans
and Democrats are united in our interest in safeguarding our
natural resources for future generations. As a member of this
Committee in the 117th Congress, I saw this firsthand, and
appreciated learning from each of you. The FIRESHEDS Act will
further the shared goal by modernizing the way we manage lands
and breaking down barriers between Federal and state
governments.
I just want to re-emphasize the point. Wildfires don't care
if you are a red or a blue state. We, in Utah, have engaged the
Federal Government and the partners that we have there to truly
look at a data-driven approach and entered into shared
stewardship agreements that we think so many states could
partake and actually benefit from, and we strongly encourage
that to be recognized as the emphasis of this bill.
Thank you again, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse
for the opportunity to join you today. I hope the sense of
urgency we feel can unite us behind this bipartisan, bicameral
bill.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Now, I would like to
recognize Representative Issa in regards to H.R. 3499, the
Direct Hire to Fight Fires bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member. I don't have
to tell you that California is the home of wildfires. Because
of our size and the nature of our breakdown, there is no region
in California that doesn't see a fire. Whether it is eastern
San Diego County or western Riverside counties, including the
Cleveland National Forest, we have enjoyed over 12 wildfires in
my district in my 18 years of service. The Cedar Fires, the
Harris Fires, the Witch Creek Fires were all devastating. Three
times during my tenure the President of the United States has
come out to look at the devastation.
That devastation can be mitigated, and you are working on
many solutions. However, we cannot change the weather and we
will not be able to change the reality that there will be
wildfires. Governor Newsom and the state of California simply
haven't done this kind of protection, and they won't do it as
it happens again.
The time to plan and prepare isn't after a fire. It is
before, when conditions are calm, when winds are tame, when
fires are in the future. Just months ago, Governor Newsom
bragged about his record budget surplus, and I and others
encouraged investments in our future, including fire
prevention. That opportunity, pun intended, went up in smoke.
Now the state is saddled with a record budget deficit. Make no
mistake, Governor Newsom and his team didn't plan to fail, but
so far they failed to plan.
So, now that the budget is in deficit, we need to have a
consensus on some solutions. One of those solutions is my bill,
Direct Hire to Fight Fires. The bill provides the fire service
with direct hire authority it needs to swiftly hire skilled
personnel.
Fifty-eight percent of California's forest lands are owned
and managed by the Federal Government: the U.S. Forest Service,
the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service.
In 2022, a combined 2,122 wildfires burned nearly 10,000 acres
of land in our state. Yet, the Forest Service has limited
ability to use direct hire authority. In 2022, the Forest
Service was able to use direct hire, and it hired 4,860 people
using direct hire, and only hired 16 without it.
It is clear that Congress must delegate direct hire
authority to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
fast-track firefighters appointments. Wildfire emergencies
demand immediate action, and the bureaucracy and red tape
should not tie our hands at a time in which our communities are
burning. By streamlining the hiring process, this will ensure
the ability to get the skilled firefighters who exist quickly,
which will transform the firefighting service in a way that it
never has before.
Fires need to be stopped from burning sooner. Every minute
you stop a fire is a dramatic amount less fire that you have to
stop.
With that, I thank the Committee for consideration and
yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Issa. Next, I would
like to turn to the Ranking Member for his opening statement of
5 minutes.
And I understand congratulations are in order.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. It is exciting.
Mr. Tiffany. Share the information.
Mr. Neguse. Oh, sure. Well, thank you, first Chairman
Tiffany, for your courtesy. And my apologies for delay in
getting to the hearing.
As you mentioned, we had some news in our family. The
Neguse family grew by one. My wife and I had our second child,
a son, Joshua.
[Applause.]
Mr. Neguse. Yes, over the weekend. It is exciting. I will
accept that applause on behalf of my wonderful wife, who
deserves all of the applause. It is not my applause----
Mr. Moore. It wasn't intended for you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Neguse. Exactly, so I will relay that back to Andrea.
But we are over the moon and very blessed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. Thank you all to the witnesses for joining us
today, for being a part of this important Subcommittee hearing.
Of course, a pleasure to have Jonathan Godes, in
particular, from the Colorado Association of Ski Towns
testifying today.
Today's hearing follows last week's important oversight
hearing on forest management, wildfire suppression, and
wildland firefighters, and includes several Forest Service
bills, as the Chairman articulated previously, dealing with
some of these issues. Today's bill list, in my view,
demonstrates the complexity of topics which we have been
discussing thus far this session, and the variety of issues
that the Forest Service manages.
We have seen the devastating impacts of climate change in
our forests and our communities as fire seasons continue to
increase in frequency and severity. We have to recognize the
need to do everything that we can to promote healthy and
resilient forests and prioritize community safety.
Ensuring that wildland firefighters, who put their lives at
risk each and every day to protect our constituents, are paid a
fair salary, receive lifesaving benefits, and have access to
affordable housing should be at the top of our list, and that
is exactly why we are pursuing that path with my bill, Tim's
Act.
First and foremost, my bill would sustain a well-deserved
pay raise to ensure that the reforms that we secured in the
last Congress are made permanent. Now, I realize that the bill
is not on today's agenda, but I hope we can find a way to work
together to get this done before we reach the projected pay
cliff later this year.
I am delighted to see that one of my bills is included in
today's agenda, the Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnership
Act of 2023. This bill, by way of background, would extend a
program first authorized under the 2018 Agriculture Improvement
Act to allow the Forest Service to lease administrative
properties to counties, municipalities, or other public
entities to provide additional housing resources or address
other local needs.
It is a great bill. Of course, I am biased, but I believe
that it would cut red tape and administrative burdens and
ultimately create opportunities for effective collaboration
that will help address some of the housing challenges in rural
communities. It is by no means a panacea, but as we will hear
today from Mr. Godes, who serves on the Glenwood Springs City
Council, it is an important tool already being put to good use
to provide affordable housing for first responders in my state,
in Colorado, like wildland firefighters, and to address Forest
Service and other workforce housing capacity needs in our
mountain communities.
We need to have an all-hands-on-deck approach to support
our rural communities and the wildland firefighting workforce,
which is why I am so encouraged also to see Representative
Harder's Fire Department Repayment Act is included in this
agenda. My colleague from California's bill establishes
standard operating procedures for fire suppression cost share
agreements to ensure reviews are done in a timely manner, and
local fire departments continue to receive the support that
they need and deserve.
Like I said at the top of my remarks, the Forest Service
has a broad cross-section of responsibilities, which ranges
from supporting local communities to protecting our forest and
grasslands from the threat of invasive species. Representative
Tokuda's Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act will help
support ongoing efforts to address the fungal disease attacking
native Ohia trees in Hawaii.
And I want to thank Representative Tokuda for her
leadership. And I understand this is her first legislative
hearing, and the only freshman or new Member, I should say, on
our list of bills today. So, we are grateful to have her here,
and to be able to hear her important bill, which will have a
profound impact on her state.
I want to say thank you to our Chairman. I am encouraged
that today's hearing includes three bills sponsored by
Democratic Members. I think that is a significant step in the
right direction that moves us closer to the balance that I
worked really hard to try to achieve last Congress when I
served as Chair of this Subcommittee. So, I want to thank the
Chairman for his demonstrated interest in considering
bipartisan and Democratic-led legislation.
I think we can all agree that our national forests are
vital for water conservation, critical habitat, and public
recreation. And as we continue this important discussion, I do
hope that we can reflect on what many of our witnesses in the
past have said before this Committee regarding the biggest
challenge to our shared forest management priorities, and that
is staffing and agency capacity. I suspect we are going to have
a robust discussion on those issues and more today, and I hope
we can work toward bipartisan solutions to address our shared
concerns regarding reduced wildfire risk.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. Next, I would
like to recognize Representative Tokuda in regards to H.R.
1726.
Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JILL N. TOKUDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Tokuda. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
congratulations to you and Andrea on your new bundle of joy,
and distinguished members of the Federal Land Subcommittee,
thank you for including the Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response
Act of 2023 in today's hearing, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak in support of this important bill.
I want you to imagine stepping into a lush native forest,
hearing the birds, honeycreepers singing in the canopy. And
then, with a Thanos-like snap of your fingers, 50 percent of
that forest disappears because of what is on the bottom of your
shoe. Now, that sounds like science fiction, but that is
exactly what is happening to one of Hawaii's most iconic trees
that makes up 50 percent of all native forests, and covers
nearly 1 million acres of forest land throughout Hawaii.
Ohia Lehua is foundational to our native ecosystems and is
endemic to six of Hawaii's eight major islands, making it one
of the most prolific of all native trees. Ohia Lehua is well
adapted to Hawaii's unique climates. It is the first tree that
you will see spring up from a recent lava flow along the coast,
and it is vital to the creation of new fertile lands. Growing
from the coast to 8,000 feet above sea level, it keeps our
mountains from eroding, prevents runoff, and protects the
watershed for agriculture, drinking water, and other endemic
plants and animals. Furthermore, Ohia Lehua provides critical
habitat for birds and many other species, including many of
Hawaii's federally endangered forest birds.
Ohia Lehua also has an important role in Native Hawaiian
culture. Its wood was traditionally used to beat bark into
clothing, serve as pounding boards to process taro into food,
and make weapons in defense of lands. Its leaves were also used
for medicinal teas and its flowers used to make lei and as
adornments in traditional practices like hula. Because of the
role these trees play in maintaining our forest canopy and
watershed, Rapid Ohia Death, or RAD, poses a lethal threat to
ecological balance in our islands.
Initially reported in 2010, RAD has already spread to tens
of thousands of acres and killed over a million trees on Hawaii
Island alone. Individual trees can die very quickly, their
leaves turning brown within a few days and falling off in a
matter of weeks.
Large swaths of dead Ohia trees pose extreme fire risk,
especially in today's unstable climate, and are more prone to
habitat-modifying noxious weeds and trees like miconia and
strawberry guava, all of which are known to greatly impact
watershed health and alter ecosystem function.
In April 2018, researchers finally determined that the
cause of Rapid Ohia Death was two fungal species previously
unknown to science. The RAD fungi is transmitted through wood,
live plants, and soil, and it is thought to have originally
come to Hawaii and spread throughout our islands on the shoes
of visitors. Despite efforts to contain the spread of RAD to
Hawaii Island through restrictions on the movement of plant
material and increased sanitation programs, RAD has now been
found on the islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Maui.
Because there is no known cure for RAD, it has the
potential to kill off Ohia trees statewide and devastate our
precious island ecosystems.
While RAD poses a critical threat to our native forests,
watersheds, critically endangered forest birds, and natural
beauty, support for combating RAD has been extremely limited.
For example, the Lyon Arboretum, a local research facility on
Oahu, has had to rely on funding through a GoFundMe campaign to
further the vital seed banking of Ohia Lehua.
This is why I am proud to introduce the Continued Rapid
Ohia Death Response Act of 2023, alongside Senator Hirono,
which would require the Secretary of the Interior to partner
and collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the state
of Hawaii to address RAD. It also supports ongoing detection,
prevention, and restoration efforts to combat RAD, including
Federal resources to support critical research and staff.
We cannot stand to lose half of all of our native forests
in Hawaii. This bill is critical in turning the tide in the
fight against Rapid Ohia Death and protecting Ohia Lehua and
Hawaii's unique ecosystems for future generations.
And in case you are wondering what Ohia Lehua looks like,
my dress actually has the patterns of the flowers on it now. It
is very much a part of our local culture and heritage.
So, mahalo for all of your support for this important piece
of legislation.
Thank you again, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Representative
Tokuda.
Next, we are going to move on to our second panel, and this
will be in regards to the forest management bills. We have Mr.
Troy Heithecker, who is Associate Deputy Chief of the U.S.
Forest Service; Mr. Robert Dugan, Chairman of the Placer County
Water Agency; Mr. Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal
Timber Council in Portland; and Mr. Jamie Johansson, President
of the California Farm Bureau.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee rules you
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the
microphone.
We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I
will ask you to please complete your statement.
Mr. Heithecker, we will let you kick things off. You have 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF TROY HEITHECKER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Heithecker. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for this
opportunity to testify on the fire and forest management-
related legislation being considered before the Subcommittee
today.
I currently serve as Associate Deputy Chief of the National
Forest System for the USDA Forest Service. I started my career
on the Tongass National Forest, working in forest management,
and prior to this assignment, I served as the forest supervisor
on the Ouachita National Forest, one of the most productive and
actively managed forests in the country. I have either directly
or indirectly been involved with forest management for my
entire 25-year career with the Forest Service.
In my current position, I am responsible for policy
oversight and direction for natural resource and public service
delivery programs across 193 million acres of national forests
and grasslands in 44 states and territories that make up the
National Forest System. This includes our forest management
programs, which are among the focus areas of the bills you are
considering today.
Before we start the discussion on the bills on today's
agenda, I want to call attention to the urgency to invest in
our wildland firefighters. As you know, critical
infrastructure, homes, communities, structures, and natural
resources are at grave and growing risk of catastrophic
wildfire. Across the country, more than 12,000 Forest Service
wildland firefighters benefited from the temporary pay increase
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Investing in our Federal firefighters means averting the
pay cliff that thousands of Federal wildland firefighters will
soon face. The President's budget request builds on the
temporary pay increase, and it addresses what we desperately
need: a permanent fix to increase Federal wildland and tribal
firefighters pay; increased investments in their mental and
physical health and well-being; improvements to their housing
options; and an expanded number of permanent firefighters. The
permanent pay reforms require authorizing legislation, and we
are committed to working with you on advancing a comprehensive
legislative proposal.
In addition to investing in our wildland firefighters, it
is critical that we address work on the ground, which
ultimately addresses the wildfire crisis. We are now in our
second year of carrying out our 10-year strategy for
confronting the wildfire crisis in the West. Our strategy aims
to increase science-based fuels treatments by up to four times
the previous treatment levels, especially in those areas most
at risk.
The Forest Service is very grateful to Congress for
providing the resources to seed our initial work and put the
wildfire crisis strategy in motion. While we appreciate every
effort that Congress is making to advance the wildfire crisis
strategy, we have significant concerns about additional
procedural and process requirements. For this reason, we cannot
support H.R. 3522, the FIRESHEDS Act, as written.
We are also concerned that the FIRESHEDS Act could
substitute a science-based approach to fire management with a
specific state or governor's interest for a region, over-riding
existing land management objectives.
USDA supports H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as
Good Neighbors Act. Expanding the authority to retain receipts
to tribes and counties would significantly increased county and
tribal participation in the Good Neighbor Authority and, in
turn, help us increase the pace and scale of needed forest
management activities.
USDA supports many of the goals of H.R. 188, Proven Forest
Management Act, but would like to work with the bill's sponsors
to address the concerns noted in our written testimony.
In addition, USDA recognizes the importance of the Ohia
tree, and supports the intent of H.R. 1726, Continued Rapid
Ohia Death Response Act.
I want to take a moment to discuss fire suppression, the
topic of the second panel and the five remaining bills. By
Forest Service policy, every fire receives a strategic, risk-
based response that is appropriate for the circumstances. Each
strategy uses the full spectrum of management actions to
consider fire and fuel conditions, weather, values at risk, and
resource availability. The Agency has serious concerns that
H.R. 934 would remove critical resource management and
firefighting tools and tactics from the interagency responders
who have to make life-and-death decisions. Therefore, we cannot
support the bill as written.
USDA appreciates the intent of Emergency Wildfire Fighting
Technology Act, but does not support the incorporation of
containerized systems into our suppression response, given
safety and operational concerns.
USDA supports the intent of the Forest Service Flexible
Housing Partnerships Act and the Fire Department Repayment Act,
and would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors
on them.
USDA would also like to work with the Subcommittee and bill
sponsors on the Direct Hire to Fight Fires bill.
In closing, I want to reiterate the Agency's commitment to
addressing the wildfire crisis. We greatly appreciate the
significant resources Congress has provided to help us take the
initial steps. We look forward to continuing to work with you.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heithecker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Troy Heithecker, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
on H.R. 188, ``Proven Forest Management Act of 2022'';
H.R. 934, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out
activities to suppress wildfires, and for other purposes;
H.R. 1450, ``Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act'';
H.R. 1726, ``Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2022'';
H.R. 3389, ``Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023'';
H.R. 3396, ``Fire Department Repayment Act of 2023'';
H.R. 3499, ``Direct Hire to Fight Fires'';
H.R. 3522, ``FIRESHEDS Act'';
and H.R. ____, ``Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of
2023''
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on several
bills that include provisions related to the USDA Forest Service.
In addition to the bills on today's agenda, the agency would like
to call attention to the urgency to invest in our wildland
firefighters. Critical infrastructure, homes, communities, and natural
resources are at grave and growing risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Across the country, more than 12,000 Forest Service wildland
firefighters benefited from the temporary pay increase provided by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), including more than 4,400 across
California and Washington. Investing in our federal firefighters means
averting the pay cliff that thousands of federal wildland firefighters
will soon face when funds from BIL are exhausted later this year.
To continue to advance wildland firefighter pay reforms, and
improve recruitment and retention rates, the President's FY 2024 Budget
request increases Federal wildland and tribal firefighters' pay,
invests more in their mental and physical health and wellbeing,
improves their housing options, and expands the number of permanent
firefighters. These reforms build on the temporary pay increase
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The permanent pay
reforms require authorizing legislation, and the Administration is
committed to working with congressional leaders on advancing a
comprehensive legislative proposal.
We offer the views below on behalf of USDA regarding the fire and
forest management related legislation being considered before the
subcommittee today, and we defer to DOI on those provisions that relate
to DOI administered lands.
H.R. 188, ``Proven Forest Management Act of 2022''
H.R. 188, the Proven Forest Management Act, includes several
provisions affecting forest management.
Section 2(a) directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA), when
conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land,
to coordinate with impacted parties to increase efficiency and maximize
the compatibility of management practices across such land. This aligns
with the requirements of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960
(MUSYA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the 2012 Planning
Rule which are the basis of our Land Management Plans. The MUSYA calls
for the harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources,
and NFMA similarly calls for development of land management plans
through extensive public involvement as well as coordination with other
local, State and Tribal planning efforts. USDA is unclear on how this
provision is intended to alter or improve the coordination and public
engagement which the Forest Service already conducts.
Section 2(b) directs USDA to conduct forest management activities
on National Forest System land in a manner that attains multiple
ecosystem benefits, so long as the costs associated with attaining such
benefits are not excessive. The Forest Service manages National Forest
System lands for multiple ecosystem benefits and impacts in compliance
with the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA). As the MUSYA already directs that
the renewable surface resources of the National Forest System are to be
managed for sustainable multiple use goods and services, with
consideration being given to the relative values of the various
resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give
the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output, we are not sure
what this provision is intended to change. In addition, we are
uncertain how we would apply the exception for excessive costs, as
``excessive'' is not defined and the intent of this provision is
unclear.
Section 2(c) directs USDA to (1) establish any post-program ground
condition criteria for a ground disturbance caused by a forest
management activity required by the applicable forest plan, and (2)
provide for monitoring to ascertain the attainment of relevant post-
program conditions. Forest Service Land Management Plans and project
plans incorporate standards and guidelines designed to limit the
potential adverse impacts of ground-disturbing activities, and
monitoring is provided for at the plan and project level. The
Department would like to work with the bill sponsor to understand the
intent of this provision and to clarify the language.
Section 2(d) categorically excludes certain forest management
activities for reducing forest fuels from the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The Department would like to work with the bill
sponsor to understand the intent of this provision and its alignment
with the agency's existing authorities to conduct hazardous fuels
reduction projects under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
Section 2(e) allows USDA, in conjunction with land adjustment
programs, to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with a
qualified entity to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control,
reforestation, Stream Environment Zone restoration, and similar
management activities on federal lands and nonfederal lands within such
programs. Recognizing the importance of cross-boundary work, the
Department supports the intent of this provision, but would like to
work with the bill sponsor to clarify the scope and parameters of this
provision.
USDA supports many of the goals of this bill including public
engagement, managing for multiple ecosystem benefits, and cross-
boundary management. USDA would like to work with the bill sponsors to
address the concerns noted in our testimony.
H.R. 934, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out
activities to suppress wildfires, and for other purposes
In January 2022, the Forest Service launched a robust, 10-year
Wildfire Crisis Strategy. The strategy is designed to invest in places
where wildfire poses the most immediate threats to communities and
infrastructure. The strategy combines a historic investment of
Congressional funding with years of scientific research and planning
into a national effort that will dramatically increase the scale and
pace of forest health treatments over the next decade. Through the
strategy, the agency will work with states, Tribes and other partners
to addresses wildfire risks to critical infrastructure, protect
communities, and create more resilient forests.
H.R. 934 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Chief of the Forest Service to use all available resources to suppress
wildfires and to extinguish them no later than 24 hours after a fire is
detected on National Forest System lands. It also requires immediate
suppression of any prescribed fire that exceeds prescription and
dictates that fire may only be used as a resource management tool if
the fire is a prescribed fire that complies with applicable law and
regulations; and that the agency may only initiate a backfire or
burnout during a wildfire by order of the responsible incident
commander to protect the health and safety of firefighting personnel.
By Forest Service policy, every fire receives a strategic, risk-
based response that is appropriate for the circumstances and the
associated threats and opportunities. Each strategy uses the full
spectrum of management actions that consider fire and fuel conditions,
weather, values at risk, and resource availability. Fighting fire
effectively requires all the current tools available to the agency,
particularly in lifesaving scenarios such as firefighter and public
safety, the protection of life and property, and efforts to protect
communities and infrastructure (such as electricity, bridges, and
roads), cultural sites, watersheds and other natural resources.
Our goal is to minimize the number of devastating, destructive
large wildland fires. Federal and non-federal resources work together
whenever possible to safely and effectively contain these fires.
Approximately ninety-eight percent of all reported fires are caught
during initial attack. Fires that escape initial attack continue to
receive full suppression action with support from available aviation
assets.
For more than a century, policies that favor fire suppression have
contributed to fuels buildup and dense forests that are more likely to
burn. The agency also recognizes that prescribed fire can play an
essential role in restoring the health of forests if they are closely
managed in the right place, at the right time and for the right reason.
These fires are only used in carefully selected circumstances and with
assurances of no undue risk to life, property or communities, and with
the appropriate resource availability to safely manage for resource
benefits. By policy, these fires must also be consistent with
interagency policy and Land and Resource Management Plans. Lightning
ignitions help with fuels reduction, support renewal of wildlife
habitat, restore ecosystem and forest health and can prevent larger,
more destructive fires in the future, particularly in fire-prone and
fire-adapted ecosystems. To support decision making, the agency uses
the best available science and weather data to develop strategies and
tactics that reduce smoke production, and secure and protect
communities.
Prescribed fire is a key component of the hazardous fuels
management and forest health. Prescribed fires may be ignited to reduce
hazardous fuels to decrease wildfire risk to communities and critical
infrastructure and to improve forest health. A burn window occurs when
the prescription parameters for temperature, wind, relative humidity,
air quality and other factors are met, and the necessary firefighting
staff, including contingency resources are available. By policy, at the
initiation of prescribed fire operations, ignitions must cease if the
prescription parameters are not met and sustained. If the fire escapes,
the project is declared a wildfire and receives fire suppression
actions.
Backfire is a firefighting tactic and emergency action used to
consume forest fuels in advance of an approaching wildfire and can
change the direction of the fire. Backfire operations are conducted to
reduce wildfire threats to life and property and firefighter safety.
Burnouts strengthen firelines by consuming fuels to widen the fireline
for containment. Burnouts are approved through Incident commanders in
collaboration with agency administrators.
The Forest Service is taking serious actions to address the
wildfire crisis and we appreciate the support provided through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and through the Inflation Reduction Act
for this critical work. The agency must continue to use every tool
available to reduce the current and future negative impacts from
wildfire, consistent with agency policy and interagency response.
The agency has serious concerns that the bill language would remove
critical resource management and firefighting tools and tactics from
interagency responders who have to make life and death decisions, and
therefore we cannot support this bill as written. Nonetheless, we are
committed to working with Congress on how we effectively respond to
wildfires and the resources and capacity needed to do so. We would be
glad to discuss our concerns with the Committee.
H.R. 1450, ``Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act''
H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act,
revises the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) to require tribes and
counties to retain and use revenue generated from timber sales to carry
out authorized restoration work under a good neighbor agreement that
generated the revenue or under other good neighbor agreements. In
addition, this bill also allows states, counties, and Tribes to use
retained revenue for authorized restoration projects on non-federal
lands under a good neighbor agreement. Under current law, only a state
is permitted to retain the revenues, and the revenues must be used for
restoration projects on federal land.
GNA has been a key authority for the Forest Service to accomplish
critical forest management to keep our forests healthy and productive.
In FY22, 306 million board feet were sold under the Good Neighbor
Authority, and 47,412 acres treated. This work has been completed
through agreements with state forestry agencies, tribes, and counties.
To date, the Forest Service has completed 398 Good Neighbor Agreements,
with more than 85% of the agreements with state forestry agencies.
There have been 19 Tribal GNA agreements, and 24 agreements with
counties.
We believe expanding the authority to allow tribes and counties to
retain receipts, as proposed in the bill, would significantly increase
county and tribal participation in GNA, and in turn help us increase
the pace and scale of needed forest management activities. On projects
where a commercial timber sale is needed as a tool for hazardous fuels
reduction to reduce wildfire risk to a community or infrastructure,
retained receipts can be an important incentive in attracting partners
to engage in this work.
Proposed language in the bill would also allow the revenue for
authorized restoration projects to be used on non-federal lands under a
good neighbor agreement. The ability to use this revenue on non-federal
land would facilitate important cross-boundary restoration treatments,
such as fuels reduction projects within a priority fireshed, as well as
cross-boundary watershed restoration. This change would also allow for
more strategic landscape-scale restoration activities in areas of the
Wildland Urban Interface.
USDA supports H.R. 1450; however, we would like to work with the
Subcommittee to fine tune language to ensure compliance with laws
regarding forest product removal prior to utilizing revenue derived
from timber harvested on federal lands.
H.R. 1726, ``Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2022''
This bill directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to partner
and collaborate with the USDA and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid
`Ohi`a Death (ROD). In addition, the bill directs DOI to continue
research on Rapid Ohia Death (ROD) and to partner with State and local
stakeholders to manage ungulates in ROD Control Areas. Finally, the
bill directs the Forest Service to continue to provide financial
assistance to prevent the spread of ROD and to restore the native
forests of the State; and to continue to provide staff and necessary
infrastructure funding to the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry to
conduct research on Rapid Ohia Death.
The Forest Service is active in the prevention, detection, and
treatment of ROD in Hawaii. The agency has been a collaborative partner
in addressing ROD, providing technical assistance since its early
detection in 2014 and financial assistance annually since 2016. We
expect to continue to support local and state agencies, university, and
Indigenous communities in protecting valuable forest commodities on the
islands.
Ceratocystis lukuohia and Ceratocystis huliohia are two newly
recognized fungi that have arrived in Hawai`i and are causing a serious
vascular wilt and canker disease, respectively, on `Ohi`a trees
(Metrosideros polymorpha). The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR), with support from Forest Service and USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) as well as university researchers,
leads response efforts. When potentially affected areas are identified,
a response team follows up with ground surveys and takes samples of
symptomatic trees. ROD remains a priority for natural resource
management agencies in Hawaii.
Researchers are investigating a wide array of topics to develop
science-based methods for controlling the disease, identifying
resistance to the disease, and restoring `Ohi`a forests. Community
outreach is an integral part of the project, including consistent
messaging on the importance of `Ohi`a forests and how residents and
visitors can help protect them. Limited detections on Oahu and Maui
with regular surveillance indicate that the combination of strategies
deployed by the ROD working groups are making a difference in
protecting `Ohi`a forests across the state.
The USDA supports the intent of the Continued Rapid Ohia Death
Response Act of 2022.
H.R. 3522, ``FIRESHEDS Act''
The FIRESHEDS Act would amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
of 2003 to establish emergency fireshed management areas.
This Act would, upon the request of a governor of a State, require
the Secretary to designate a landscape scale fireshed in the state,
within 90 days. The establishment of the fireshed would be an activity
exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act. The Act also sets
forth criteria for designating fireshed management areas under an
agreement. USDA is concerned that these criteria are unnecessarily
restrictive and may limit the ability to designate firesheds where they
are needed. USDA is also concerned that this process could substitute a
scienced based approach to fire management with a specific state or
governors' interests for a region, overriding existing land management
objectives. It could also create a scenario where states could
designate all areas as firesheds, in an effort to determine management
or attract funding, reducing the effectiveness of the tool.
The Act would also require the Secretary and governor to jointly
develop a fireshed assessment for each designated fireshed. Fireshed
assessments would identify community risk and management projects for
reducing threats to public health and safety. Implementation would
occur through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Secretary
and other federal, state, private, and other organizations. USDA is
concerned that Tribes were not included in the list of collaborators
that can sign the MOU with the Secretary. The Act also requires that
management activities in designated firesheds be proposed by a Resource
Advisory Commission. USDA has concerns about these additional
procedural and process requirements, including that restoration and
protection work could be delayed or slowed.
This Act also establishes a broad Categorical Exclusion for
fireshed management projects. USDA, in coordination with the White
House Council on Environmental Quality, would like to work with the
sponsor to better understand concerns about the applicability of NEPA
in hazardous fuels treatments and fire preparedness to ensure any new
tools will be effective in facilitating our work.
Finally, this Act also makes changes to the Good Neighbor Authority
to allow states to use revenue for authorized restoration projects on
non-federal lands under a good neighbor agreement. The ability to use
this revenue on non-federal land would allow for cross-boundary
restoration treatments such as fuels reduction projects within a
priority fireshed and watershed restoration that might cross land
ownership boundaries under the Good Neighbor Authority.
USDA is committed to working with States, Tribes, fire
associations, non-government organizations, and other federal agencies
at the landscape level to prioritize fuels reduction treatments and
forest restoration projects that are the right size and in the right
location to protect life, property, critical infrastructure, and
natural resources.
The Forest Service's Wildfire Crisis Strategy, launched in 2022,
combines a historic investment of Congressional funding with years of
scientific research and planning into a national effort that is
intended to dramatically increase the scale and pace of forest health
treatments. As part of this effort, 21 priority landscapes, comprised
of 250 high-risk firesheds, have been identified; our work in these
areas is mitigating wildfire risk to around 200 communities in the
West. Working with States has been critical to our efforts. We have
entered into 31 Shared Stewardship Agreements covering 49 states to
address urgent forest management challenges, and many have established
landscape-scale firesheds which are jointly assessed by the Regional
Forester and the Governor. We have also established 398 Good Neighbor
Agreements with States in 38 states. USFS also has over fifty CEs under
NEPA available to carry out work, in addition to other administrative
flexibilities.
We appreciate every effort that Congress is making to advance the
Wildfire Crisis Strategy, however we have significant concerns about
additional procedural and process requirements involved in this bill.
We cannot support this bill as written and would be glad to discuss our
concerns further with the Committee.
H.R 3499, Direct Hire to Fight Fires
H.R. 3499, Direct Hire to Fight Fires, provides Direct Hire
Authority to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior for purpose of filling agency wildland firefighting positions,
including support positions.
Direct Hire Authority is a limited, expedited hiring authority that
currently may be granted administratively by the Office of Personnel
Management to employing agencies to fill positions in the competitive
service for which there is a critical hiring need or severe shortage of
candidates. This authority bypasses standard statutory veterans'
preference, rating, ranking and public notice requirements, as well as
re-instatement rights for individuals with prior Federal service under
the competitive service for Federal civilian hiring, and can support
streamlined hiring actions. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
may issue such authority to agencies upon written request, and
justification, or upon an independent assessment that there is a
critical hiring need or severe shortage of candidates for specific
positions.
OPM granted the Forest Service Direct Hire Authority in 2019 to
fill critical fire positions in a very defined list of fire job titles,
job series and pay grades. As of May 10, 2023 the agency has filled
over 16,600 positions using the Direct Hiring Authority and has an
additional 3,200 currently in process for a total of over 19,800 hired
personnel. Although Direct Hire Authority has some limitations, the
agency has benefited from its temporary use of DHA.
The USDA would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors
further to best guide longer-term hiring for wildland firefighters and
support staff.
H.R. 3389, ``Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023''
The Forest Service collaborates with many partners to accomplish
wildfire suppression across the nation and deliver aerial suppression
support in the safest manner possible to our aviators, our
firefighters, and the public we serve.
H.R. 3389, Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023
directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior, in consultation with the National
Interagency Aviation Committee and the Interagency Airtanker Board, to
jointly conduct an evaluation of the container aerial firefighting
system to assess the use of such system to mitigate and suppress
wildfires and to share the results of the evaluation.
The Forest Service continues to research technology to improve the
effectiveness and safety of aerial firefighting including, but not
limited to, fire imaging, use of uncrewed aircraft systems, wildfire
detection cameras, modern aircraft, aerial firefighting simulators
using virtual reality, and aerial delivered retardant and water. The
agency employs the most advanced and capable equipment available to
meet the interagency firefighting mission.
In recent years, several companies with Container Aerial
Firefighting Systems have approached the Forest Service requesting a
review of their equipment for use in wildfire suppression operations.
These systems deliver retardant or water in large containers, such as
large cardboard boxes that are dropped by aircraft to provide a
concentrated amount of retardant or water along the fireline. This
technology is also referred to as Precision Containerized Aerial
Delivery Systems.
The Forest Service evaluated Container Aerial Firefighting Systems
and documented its observations in the Forest Service San Dimas
Technology and Development Center's 2011 Precision Containerized Aerial
Delivery Systems Forest Service Report. Testing, evaluation, and
approval of retardant delivery systems are conducted under the
authority of the National Interagency Aviation Committee, in accordance
with methods and standards established by the Interagency Airtanker
Board. The evaluation occurred in 2010 during a U.S. Army test of the
technical feasibility of Precision Container Aerial Delivery Systems at
the Yuma Proving Grounds. Through this evaluation, the agency
determined that this delivery system does not meet retardant delivery
standards for coverage level, consistent delivery, delivery time,
ground firefighter safety or environmental impacts. It also has an
inconsistent, non-continuous drop pattern which would allow fire to
burn through fuels with thin or no retardant coverage, unlike
conventional airtankers that can provide consistent coverage.
Specifically, the evaluation stated that ``using containerized
delivery systems as a method of firefighting is a safety concern for
firefighters and the public in the wildland-urban interface where we
fight many of our fires.'' Additional concerns were raised regarding
the extensive debris that is scattered over a large area upon impact.
Leaving this material on the ground anywhere is an environmental issue.
The debris would be combustible and would add fuel to the fire
environment. The debris is not natural to the landscape; removal would
create additional cost, time, and personnel exposure concerns; debris
may not be removed due to inaccessible locations; and debris may raise
public and environmental concerns. There is also high risk of severe
injury and/or damage to the public, firefighters, facilities and
vehicles due to falling debris.
Our current system of retardant loading and delivery has an
operationally effective infrastructure. Introducing a completely new
system and process would add to cost, complexity, logistics, and
possibly disrupt the synchronous operational tempo, both from the air,
and for firefighters on the ground, which is critical to protecting
lives, property, and valuable resources. Our current capabilities align
very well with our requirements and modernization strategy.
The USDA appreciates the bill's intent to pursue new ideas in
wildland fire suppression but does not support the incorporation of
containerized systems into our suppression response given safety and
operational concerns.
H.R. 3396, ``Fire Department Repayment Act of 2023''
The Forest Service takes seriously its responsibility to work with
many partners to accomplish wildfire suppression across the nation. The
Forest Service negotiates and maintains many State Cooperative Fire
Protection Agreements to ensure reciprocity for wildland firefighting
services rendered on behalf of the Forest Service or that the agency
provides to States and local governments.
H.R. 3396, Fire Department Repayment Act of 2023 requires the
standardization of reciprocal fire suppression cost share agreements.
It directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the Department of the Interior to establish standard operating
procedures related to fire suppression cost share agreements
established for suppression cost share, to ensure they are in alignment
with Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements, and that each agreement is
reviewed and modified as necessary with State and local fire
suppression organizations.
Forest Service policy FSM 3170 Cooperative Fire sets forth agency
direction for the development of Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements
which require approval by the Deputy Chief of State, Private and Tribal
Forestry. These agreements are developed following the guidance
provided in the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements statewide
template. The guidance also establishes the methodologies that
signatory parties may use for cost shares agreements.
The Forest Service supports the intent of the bill and looks
forward to working with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors to address
our concerns.
H.R. ____, ``Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 2023''
Availability of housing for employees doing necessary and critical
work on federal lands is increasingly challenging as the already high
costs of housing continue rising quickly in many areas. This is
particularly true in communities that serve as gateways to our national
forests and house our employees. In fact, the Forest Service has
identified lack of quality and affordable housing as a major barrier to
recruiting and maintaining our workforce, and to fully address the
wildfire crisis. While the bill applies only to USDA Forest Service,
DOI is working cooperatively with USDA to more broadly address the
issue of affordable housing in certain geographic areas where housing
is unavailable or unaffordable.
Section 8623 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known
as the 2018 Farm Bill, provided the agency with some essential tools to
address affordable housing for our employees. Specifically, the 2018
Farm Bill provided the authority to enter into lease agreements with
non-Federal entities in exchange for cash and non-cash consideration in
the form of construction of new facilities, maintenance of existing
facilities, other services, or any combination of the three. Despite
some limitations, Section 8623 has been a unique and valuable authority
that aids the Forest Service's mission by supplying valuable in-kind
resources, all while limiting long-term risk by providing the option to
return lands to the public domain at lease expiration. In addition, the
use of a lease agreement, as opposed to a permit, offers opportunities
to our non-federal partners through an arrangement that is more
attractive to new capital, encouraging economic development in
communities that border National Forests.
The Forest Service has been developing several pilot projects under
the 2018 Farm Bill since this authority was enacted, most notably on
the White River National Forest in Colorado, where at least one project
plans to deliver 162 proponent-financed, affordable housing units to
support the local workforce, some of which will be reserved for Forest
Service employees. These early efforts are very encouraging, and we
expect to expand the use of this authority into other areas if it is
extended.
H.R. ____ would extend and amend the leasing authority in section
8623 of the 2018 Farm Bill. Specifically, it would expand in-kind
consideration application flexibility to areas beyond the specific site
being leased; set an allowable maximum lease term of 100 years; provide
an explicit mechanism for lease renewal; and extend the authority for
an additional 5 years.
USDA appreciates and supports the intent of this bill to enhance
and extend this much needed authority. We would like to work with the
Committee and bill sponsors to refine some of the new provisions to
ensure that we will be able to meet the legislative intent and the
focus of the bill on housing shortages while minimizing any unintended
consequences or allowing for a broader range of activities than
envisioned.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may
have for me.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Troy Heithecker, Associate
Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service
Mr. Heithecker did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. You mentioned the Forest Service puts out 98% of the
wildfires reported within 24 hours, with only 1% allowed to burn for
resource benefits. Will you provide a list to the Committee of fires
determined to burn for resource benefits in the past five wildfires
seasons and the outcome of each fire? Specifically sharing if those
fires allowed to burn escaped the planned area or destroyed homes and/
or caused loss of human life.
Question 2. In the last five years, please provide the number of
helicopters and aircrafts available for delivery of water and/or fire
retardant. Have there been requests for airtanker support during a fire
season in the past five years where the agency has not been able to
fill due to a lack of helicopter and airplanes?
Question 3. The Forest Service testimony notes safety and
operational concerns on container aerial firefighting system (CAFFS)
stem from a 2011 testing and subsequent report. Why has the agency not
tested this technology in recent years? It appears the industry has
demonstrated the newest versions of CAFFS address many of the initial
concerns.
Question 4. For the 2023 wildfire season, how many wildland
firefighters have been hired to date? How many wildland firefighters
have completed the onboarding process? How many of these were hired
through a direct hire authority?
Question 5. Will you provide a breakdown of the fifty categorical
exclusions (CEs) under NEPA the Forest Service currently has to carry
out work? How many of these are related to treating firesheds, reducing
hazardous fuels, or harvesting timber?
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Heithecker. Now, I would like
to recognize Mr. Robert Dugan, the Chairman of the Placer
County Water Agency, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dugan.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT DUGAN, CHAIRMAN, PLACER COUNTY WATER
AGENCY, AUBURN, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dugan. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse--congratulations--and members of the Subcommittee.
PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American River
Project that provides water supply and generates hydroelectric
power in Northern California, and supports recreational
opportunities for millions of citizens from Placer County into
the Bay Area. I am pleased to be here to testify in support of
H.R. 188, legislation that builds on lessons learned on the
ground from the last decade of catastrophic wildfires in the
West.
H.R. 188 would establish a categorical exclusion for select
hazard fuel reduction projects up to 10,000 acres that have
been developed collaboratively, and are consistent with an
approved forest plan. H.R. 188 is necessary to meet the 10-year
strategy set by the Forest Service to significantly increase
the pace and scale of fuel and forest health treatments to
address the crisis of wildfire and to protect critical
watersheds, at-risk communities, and habitats.
I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to
thank Congress and the Forest Service for the hard work they
put into bringing those strategies into the modern reality.
H.R. 188 will also help realize the critical investments
provided by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
reduce wildfire risk and restore healthy, productive forests
for the benefit of everyone and everything dependent on them.
Next slide.
[Slide.]
Mr. Dugan. Showing the footprint here of the wildfires in
our forest and our watershed will illustrate why H.R. 188 and
the other legislation you are considering is so critical. I am
going to give you a little perspective on our experience on the
ground.
Since 2014, the American River watershed has suffered three
major wildfires that you are looking at here: the King, the
Caldor, and the Mosquito Fires, which collectively burned some
400,000 acres to the ground, predominantly on Federal forest
lands.
Next slide.
[Slide.]
Mr. Dugan. Last year, the Mosquito Fire alone burned some
76,000 acres. It destroyed power lines that deliver energy to
the grid, disrupting critical power supplies for the north
state grid throughout our past winter when we needed them
desperately. Tens of millions of dollars were lost in revenue
and significant restrictions in power supply were experienced
in that region.
Further, PCWA estimates that approximately 1.3 million tons
of topsoil from the forest is eroding into our Oxbow Reservoir
as a result of the Mosquito Fire severity and its impact
subsequently on water storage.
And finally, two major Federal roads providing access to
the Tahoe and El Dorado National Forests suffered catastrophic
damage from the Mosquito Fire, severely restricting public
access to Federal lands, access to PCWA's water and water and
power infrastructure, and limiting entire communities access to
critical public health and safety services. Those wildfires
caused dramatic changes in forest vegetation structure, soil
conditions, and altered stream flows.
In 2014, the King Fire led us into a collaboration with the
Forest Service, the state of California, and the Nature
Conservancy along with local environmental organizations to
develop our own 30,000-acre restoration project in French
Meadows to address this very item.
I want to thank the Forest Service for their strong
commitment, from the Chief all the way down to the folks in the
forest. That partnership has been tremendous.
Next slide.
[Slide.]
Mr. Dugan. As was already illustrated by the Chair and in
your briefing packet, the genesis of H.R. 188 was the
successful use of a categorical exclusion in the South Lake
Tahoe Basin. And without repeating what has already been said,
I will tell you that firefighters, forest managers, and land
managers agree that that project reduced the Caldor Fire
intensity to the point that they were able to knock the fire
down and save countless acres of habitat and the devastation
that would have ensued in the Tahoe Basin had we not done that
project.
Next slide.
[Slide.]
Mr. Dugan. This is our watershed. Yours, ours, all of ours.
This is indicative of watersheds throughout the forested lands
in the United States.
We look forward to working with the Committee as you
advance these forest management strategies.
Two additional requests, we are looking for clear policy
for short- and long-term mitigation for post-fire impacts, and
we are also asking for interagency coordination amongst the
Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and Federal
Highways so that we can address the issues of infrastructure
access and egress throughout those forests.
In closing, I wish to restate our support for H.R. 188,
which is necessary to address fuels and forest health
treatments. And we are available to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dugan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Robert Dugan, Chairman, Board of Directors,
Placer County Water Agency
on H.R. 188
Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of
the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands for the opportunity to testify
in support of H.R. 188 that would reduce wildfires' adverse economic,
social and environmental impacts to our communities and water
resources. I request that this formal statement be entered into the
hearing record, and I will summarize my testimony for the subcommittee.
I am Robert Dugan and appear before the subcommittee as Chairman of
the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) Board of Directors. PCWA has led
the effort to develop sustainable approaches to address wildfire
impacts. Of direct importance, PCWA's General Manager, Andy Fecko, is
currently a member of the federal Wildland Fire Mitigation and
Management Commission working to develop recommendations on how this
nation can better address wildfires. This hearing is especially timely
given the Commission's ongoing work that collectively will steer the
country in a direction that enhances our mutually shared goal of
protecting communities and reducing the costly impacts of wildfires.
PCWA is also an active member of the Association of California Water
Agencies, National Water Resources Association and National Hydropower
Association; groups that are working diligently in support of effective
federal, state and local policies and programs to advance wildfire
suppression efforts.
About PCWA
PCWA constructed the Middle Fork Project in the 1960s to ensure a
reliable local water supply. PCWA`s management of the project is
grounded in a belief that headwaters management is essential to the
watershed's health. PCWA operations are located in the Middle Fork
American River watershed and our headquarters are three hours east of
Sacramento, California. PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American
River Project that provides water supply, generates hydroelectric
power, and supports recreational opportunities for the 250,000 citizens
of western Placer County. Integral to these activities is PCWA's
commitment to support the ecosystem of our watershed. I would further
add that our environmental stewardship and commitment to sustainable
uses of our natural resources has allowed us to work with inter-
regional stakeholders to deliver supplemental water supplies during the
past several years of extraordinary drought conditions in California.
Our Experiences--Major Wildfires
Since 2014, the American River watershed has suffered three major
wildfires: 1) King, 2) Caldor, and 3) Mosquito. These fires devastated
nearly 400,000 acres, predominantly on federal forest lands. However,
the impacts of these fires were not limited to federal lands. The
spillover effects directly compromised our agency's ability to carry
out its core missions.
These high intensity wildfires compromised water quality. This
occurred during active burning and for months and years after the fires
ended. The impacts from the wildfires include blackened watersheds,
increased flooding and erosion due to the denuded environment, water
quality impairments to water-supply reservoirs, limitation of
hydropower generation facilities' operation, and impairments to
fisheries and other natural resources.
The effects of these large catastrophic wildfires linger for
decades. The impact on forestry health can last for centuries as nature
seeks to come back from the devastation. From a public services
perspective, water and hydroelectric utilities that operate in these
watersheds must grapple in the aftermath of wildfires with
circumstances that are often worse than the active wildfire event. For
example, when wildfire debris enters lakes and reservoirs, the volumes
can be so significant that they overtake the body of water, rapidly
decreasing valuable water storage capacity. Operationally, the debris
blocks spillways, damages water conveyance equipment and hydro-electric
generation equipment. This imposes substantial costs on our ratepayers
and increases threats to water supply reliability.
Allow me to highlight wildfires consequences that we have
experienced and how PCWA proactively worked to mitigate the impacts:
King Fire
In 2014, the King Fire burned 97,717-acres, fueled by
extremely low humidity and high winds that drove the fire
into the remote and densely forested Rubicon River canyon,
an important tributary to the American River. Once it
reached the Rubicon canyon, the fire exploded overnight,
devastating the watershed with high-severity incineration.
Complete loss of vegetative cover has exposed soils to
erosion on thousands of acres of steep, sloping river
canyons.
The U.S. Forest Service estimates that over 300,000 tons
of topsoil have eroded into Rubicon River the first year
after the King Fire. In the resulting years, PCWA spent
nearly $3 million to remove sediment and debris transported
and deposited into Oxbow Reservoir. The sediment removed
was only that necessary to recover operations of our
equipment, most of the sediment remains to date. Sediment
removal requires PCWA's Ralston Powerhouse to be taken
offline, therefore producing no hydropower.
Following the King Fire, PCWA led a nationally recognized
collaborative watershed restoration effort, the French
Meadows Forest Restoration Project, to restore forest
health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity
wildfire in this critical watershed. PCWA collaborates with
the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, Placer County
and local conservation NGOs to facilitate this successful
project.
Mosquito Fire
This fire burned 76,788 acres in Placer and El Dorado,
California counties. It was California's largest wildfire
in 2022. The fire occurred in the heart of the American
River watershed and threatened to destroy the communities
of Foresthill and Georgetown and potentially spread into
the Lake Tahoe Basin.
PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American River
Project, which supplies water to western Placer County and
provides clean energy to the California grid. The Mosquito
Fire destroyed powerlines that deliver this energy to the
grid, making this source of energy unavailable during the
winter cyclone of December 2022 and January 2023. This
downtime resulted in tens of millions of dollars in lost
revenue, but more importantly, starved the nation of clean
energy during this extreme weather event and forcing
greater use of petroleum energy sources.
PCWA estimates that 1.3 million tons of topsoil may erode
into our Oxbow Reservoir because of the Mosquito Fire. This
volume of topsoil is more than 10 percent of Oxbow
Reservoir and will have crippling effects on hydropower
operations. The work to recover from the Mosquito Fire's
impacts will be significant, long-term and costly.
Two major federal roads providing access to the Tahoe and
Eldorado National Forests suffered major damage from the
Mosquito Fire, eliminating public access and severely
restricting PCWA's access to its hydropower system. If
these roads become impassable, PCWA will not have winter
access to its reservoirs and powerplants. These roads are
critical to public health and safety for firefighting and
other emergency response.
These examples vividly document the dramatic impact of wildfires
and the priority that must be addressed to mitigate future wildfire
events. Today's review of proposed solutions is an important first step
and PCWA hopes that Congress will move expeditiously to pass
legislation to provide us, and water agencies across the west, with the
tools to meet the new normal of wildfires.
Support for H.R. 188, the Proven Forest Management Act
PCWA supports H.R. 188, which would expand, across all National
Forest System lands, a wildfire mitigation tool that was successful in
the Lake Tahoe Basin. Specifically, it provides that hazardous fuel
reduction project up to 10,000 acres, developed collaboratively with
local governments and consistent with the forest plan, may be
categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact
statement or an environmental assessment under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
This administrative flexibility would deliver the U.S. Forest
Service immediate benefits for two specific forest health management
activities:
1. Pre-Wildfire Mitigation--National Forest System lands that have
been identified as in need of treatment to reduce the
threat of insect and disease infestations and catastrophic
wildfires to protect communities and the environment is
imperative; and,
2. Post-Wildfire Forest Restoration--The protection of the natural
and man-made infrastructure of our watersheds post fire
must be addressed. Excluding the requirement for an
Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement would streamline post-fire management activities
to improve the long-term health of the landscape.
The 2021 Caldor Fire, which burned 221,835 acres, provides a case
study on this type of use of categorical exclusion, as provide for in
Public Law 114-322 for the Lake Tahoe Basin, helped mitigate the
impacts of the wildfire and protected the Tahoe Basin communities.
When the Caldor Fire entered the Lake Tahoe Basin, it
entered Christmas Valley, an area where the U.S. Forest
Service, the State of California and local governments had
completed several forest thinning projects. In addition,
the South Tahoe Public Utility District, in collaboration
with the U.S. Forest Service, expediated the installation
of water infrastructure (upsized water lines, hydrants,
water tanks). Local fire agencies also led a concerted
fire-adapted communities effort to fire-hardened homes and
businesses.
The combination of investing in water infrastructure for
fire suppression, community wildfire preparedness and
hazardous fuels treatments reduced the Caldor Fire
intensity and enhanced suppression efforts to protect the
Lake Tahoe Basin.
After the fire, the Forest Service has used the
categorical exclusion to expediate a Tahoe Basin Caldor
Hazard Tree Fuels Reduction Project to exclude the need for
either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental
Impact Statement to carry out the project.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate PCWA's support for H.R.
188 and present brief recommendations to address identified gaps
specific to pre- and post-wildfire mitigation and response policies.
The reauthorization of the Farm Bill and the anticipated
recommendations by the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management
Commission present additional responses to enhance forest management
and post-fire mitigation. We believe that it is important to report
legislation through this committee and to secure House passage before
the next wildfire season inflicts new public health, economic
dislocation and natural resources losses. In addition, the U.S. Forest
Service's 10-year strategy to implement strategic restoration projects
on 50 million acres of federal, state, and private land provides an
ambitious goal to protect our communities and critical watersheds. This
is an important step.
There needs to be a clear policy for short and long-term mitigation
for post-fire debris flow impacts to receiving waterways and to public
water and hydroelectric facilities on federal lands. These impacts have
historically been under-invested in and are costly. Mitigation measures
include stabilizing topsoil before ensuing winter storms, sediment
traps in the waterways, and sediment removal once in the waterways.
It is vital that interagency coordination among the U.S. Forest
Service, Department of the Interior and Federal Highways Administration
must be improved to provide for an expediated repair or replacement of
federal roads damaged by wildfire. This would include the ability for
federal agencies to contract with local governments to facilitate
repairs utilizing existing contractual relationships with local-
regional construction companies.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Dugan. Now, I would like to
recognize Mr. Cody Desautel, the President of the Intertribal
Timber Council, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CODY DESAUTEL, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER
COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Desautel. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking
Member Neguse. On behalf of the Intertribal Timber Council and
its more than 60 member tribes, I appreciate this opportunity
to testify on H.R. 1450 and other legislation today.
All of America's forests were once inhabited, managed, and
used by Indian people. Today, only a small portion of those
lands remain under direct Indian management. On a total of 334
reservations in 36 states, 19.3 million acres of forest and
woodlands are held in trust by the United States and managed
for the benefit of Indians.
Tribes actively manage their forests to provide the
subsistence, cultural, and spiritual values important to their
tribal membership, while also providing economic revenue, jobs,
and forest products that support both tribal and local
economies. Catastrophic wildfire can negatively impact all of
these benefits for multiple generations.
The risk of wildfire to Indian lands is compounded by the
thousands of miles of shared boundary with Federal agencies,
primarily the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management. There are countless examples of wildfire spilling
over from Federal lands onto tribal forests, causing
significant economic and ecological losses. These fires
regularly pose a risk to human life on Indian lands and have
resulted in fatalities.
Congress recognized the need for tribes to work closely
with their Federal neighbors to reduce the threat of fire
across shared boundaries. The result was the Tribal Forest
Protection Act of 2004, which allows tribes to petition the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to perform stewardship
activities on their lands adjacent to Indian lands.
The 2018 Farm Bill not only expanded TFPA authorities, but
also gave tribes and counties the authority to enter into Good
Neighbor Agreements with Federal agencies. Unfortunately, a
drafting error in the final text precludes tribes or counties
from retaining revenue generated from GNA projects for
planning. This is a key component of building successful GNA
stewardship programs, as states have done since 2014.
The disparity in funding between tribal forests and other
Federal forests continues to grow. Without an ability to retain
revenue to support tribal capacity, it is unlikely tribes will
contribute already limited tribal revenue sources to conduct
work on adjacent Federal land.
After expansion of the authority in the 2018 Farm Bill, the
Colville Tribe attempted to use the Good Neighbor Authority on
the Sanpoil Project, which shared approximately 10 miles of
boundary with the reservation. However, without the ability to
use timber sale revenue to accomplish restoration services, the
project was cost prohibitive, and the Tribe was forced to
abandon its plan.
GNA provides tribes and Federal agencies an additional tool
for improving forest health across boundaries. While the scope
of GNA projects is slightly narrower than what tribes may
accomplish with TFPA and 638 authorities, GNA provides greater
latitude in retaining project revenues and building additional
capacity.
I would also like to make some brief comments on other
legislation that is being considered today.
For H.R. 188, this legislation would provide a 10,000-acre
categorical exclusion for fuels treatment projects if those
projects are developed in cooperation with various entities.
The ITC supports the intent of this legislation, and
appreciates the requirement to consult with Indian tribes. One
technical suggestion is to define the term ``qualified entity''
as it applies to the contracting of fuels reduction work. We
would also recommend that TFPA and GNA projects automatically
qualify for the categorical exclusion if they meet the other
criteria.
Also, on H.R. 3522, ITC supports the intent of this
legislation, which would categorically exclude certain fuels
reduction projects from NEPA evaluation and limits judicial
review if those projects are developed through a collaborative
process, a community wildfire protection plan, or a resource
advisory committee.
The bill also authorizes the use of GNA to perform covered
projects. The ITC recommends the bill be amended to include
TFPA projects as eligible, and to align the amendments of the
underlying GNA statute reflected in H.R. 1450 to ensure that if
GNA were used under this bill, tribes are fully eligible to
participate.
With that, I thank you for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Desautel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cody Desautel, President, Intertribal Timber
Council & Executive Director, Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation
on H.R. 1450
I am Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal Timber Council
(ITC) and Executive Director for the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation in Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its
more than 60 member Tribes, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on
H.R. 1450 and other legislation today.
All of America's forests were once inhabited, managed and used by
Indian people. Today, only a small portion of those lands remain under
direct Indian management. On a total of 334 reservations in 36 states,
19.3 million acres of forests and woodlands are held in trust by the
United States and managed for the benefit of Indians.
Tribes actively manage their forests to provide the subsistence,
cultural, and spiritual values important to their tribal membership,
while also providing economic revenue, jobs, and forest products that
support both tribal and local economies. Catastrophic wildfire can
negatively impact all of these uses for multiple generations.
The risk of wildfire to Indian lands is compounded by the thousands
of miles of shared boundary with federal agencies, primarily the U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. There are countless
examples of wildfire spilling over from federal lands onto tribal
forests, causing significant economic and ecological losses. These
fires regularly pose a risk to human life on Indian lands and have
resulted in fatalities.
Congress recognized the need for tribes to work closely with their
federal neighbors to reduce the threat of fire across shared
boundaries. The result was the Tribal Forest Protection Act (``TFPA''),
which allows tribes to petition the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to perform stewardship activities on their lands adjacent to
Indian lands.
The 2018 Farm Bill not only expanded TFPA authorities but also gave
tribes and counties the authority to enter into Good Neighbor
Agreements with federal agencies. Unfortunately, a drafting error in
the final text precludes tribes or counties from retaining revenue
generated from GNA projects for planning. This is a key component of
building successful GNA stewardship programs as states have done since
2014.
The disparity in funding between Tribal forests and other federal
forests continues to grow. Without an ability to retain revenue to
support tribal capacity, it is unlikely Tribes will contribute already
limited tribal revenue sources to conduct work on adjacent federal
land. After expansion of the authority in the 2018 Farm Bill, the
Colville Tribe attempted to use the Good Neighbor Authority on the San
Poil project, which shared approximately 10 miles of boundary with the
reservation. However, without the ability to use timber sale revenue to
accomplish restoration services the project was cost-prohibitive, and
the Tribe was forced to abandon its plan.
GNA provides tribes and federal agencies an additional tool for
improving forest health across boundaries. While the scope of GNA
projects is slightly narrower than what tribes may accomplish with TFPA
and 638 authorities, GNA provides greater latitude in retaining project
revenues and building additional capacity.
Other Legislation
I would like to make brief comments on other legislation that is
being considered in today's hearing:
H.R. 188, ``Proven Forest Management Act'' (McClintock):
This legislation would provide a 10,000-acre Categorical
Exclusion for fuels treatment projects, if those projects
are developed in cooperation with various entities. The ITC
supports the intent of this legislation, and appreciates
the requirement to consult with Indian tribes. One
technical suggestion is to define the term ``qualified
entity'' as it applies to the contracting of fuels
reduction work. We would also recommend that TFPA and GNA
projects automatically qualify for the Categorical
Exclusion, if they meet other criteria.
H.R. 3522, ``FIRESHEDS Act'' (Moore): ITC supports the
intent of this legislation which would categorically
exclude certain fuels reduction projects from NEPA
evaluation, and limits judicial review, if those projects
are developed through a collaborative process, community
wildfire protection plan, or resource advisory committee.
The bill also authorizes the use of GNA to perform covered
projects. The ITC recommends the bill be amended to include
TFPA projects as eligible, and to align the amendments to
the underlying GNA statute reflect H.R. 1450--to ensure
that if GNA were used under this bill, tribes are fully
eligible to participate.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Desautel. I would like to
recognize our final panelist on this panel, Mr. Jamie
Johansson, President of the California Farm Bureau.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE JOHANSSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Johansson. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jamie
Johansson, and I am a first generation farmer producing olives
and citrus fruit in Oroville, California. I also serve as the
President of the California Farm Bureau, California's largest
farm organization, representing nearly 30,000 members. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the
FIRESHEDS Act.
California's wildfires are very personal to me. As
president of my organization, I have witnessed and heard the
numerous stories of loss and frustration from our members, in
addition to I, myself, and my employees and my family have been
wildfire evacuees.
With the presence of 18 national forests in California,
nearly half of the 100 million acres in our state are managed
by the Federal Government. Given the extensive number of
wildfire-related impacts California's ranchers are facing,
California Farm Bureau has a vested interest in quality and
quantity of forest management activities.
Recognizing the need for robust financial resources,
California Farm Bureau supported the inclusion of forest
management funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. While the recent influx in
forest management funding is encouraging, we remain concerned
about the expediency in which treatments on federally owned
lands are being performed.
To address backlog and achieve landscape-scale management,
we must enhance capacity and speed up collaborative processes
by empowering multiple jurisdictions and partners. Partnerships
that assist the Forest Service with permitting, NEPA processes,
and on-the-ground work should be expanded.
Private industry, including foresters and ranchers within
our own membership, are highly skilled, trained, and operate
equipment that could assist the Forest Service with vegetative
removal, as well as fire suppression activities. In many cases,
these individuals are also personally knowledgeable about the
local communities, lands, and landscapes, bringing additional
contributions to projects.
It is also important that forest management activities
utilize the best available data so that resources are
effectively utilized. For these reasons, we are pleased to
offer comments in support of the FIRESHEDS Act, H.R. 3522,
which would allow governors to enter into joint agreements with
Federal land management agencies and designate landscape-scale
emergency fireshed management areas in areas of highest risk.
We especially like that this legislation provides
flexibility, allowing agreements to be updated as new wildlife
threats emerge.
The bill also smartly allows fireshed areas to contain both
Federal and non-Federal land, furthering collaboration and
partnership.
For each emergency fireshed management area, the Secretary
and the Governor would complete a joint assignment. We strongly
support these assignments, including timelines and long-term
benchmark goals for the completion of identified projects.
Additionally, the inclusion of memorandums of understanding
in the bill will allow for the assessments to be continually
updated. This will help ensure that the best available data
from private entities, research or education institutions, and
state sources, is applied.
We are also appreciative that the bill seeks to align
fireshed management projects in accordance with fireshed
management plans, and allows for utilization of existing
statutory and administrative authorities.
The FIRESHEDS Act also correctly recognizes livestock
grazing, an often overlooked hazardous fuels reduction
strategy. Grazing can be an effective management tool for
Forest Service to improve range condition, manage for fire, and
control invasive species.
In addition to the FIRESHEDS Act and other legislation
being discussed today, we believe that the 2023 Farm Bill
presents an opportunity to build upon the successes of the 2014
and 2018 farm bills. We encourage Congress to include a robust
forest title that enhances the Good Neighbor Authority,
addresses inadequate markets and infrastructure for low- to no-
value materials, enhances fuel break cross-boundary
collaboration, removes barriers to increasing pace and scale,
increases contracting and procurement efficiency, and
prioritizes reforestation and post-fire rehabilitation.
The unfortunate reality is we are playing catch-up with a
situation that has been worsening for decades, further
exacerbated by drought, disease, and changing climate.
California's private landowners are unable to increase the pace
and scale of forest management on their own. Collaboratively,
we must remain committed to finding solutions if we want to
achieve fire resilient landscapes.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these
critical issues, and I am pleased to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johansson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jamie Johansson, President, California Farm
Bureau
on H.R. 3522
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Jamie Johansson, and I am a first-
generation farmer producing olives and citrus fruit in Oroville,
California. I also serve as President of the California Farm Bureau,
California's largest farm organization, comprised of 53 county Farm
Bureaus currently representing nearly 30,000 members. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee on the FIRESHEDS
Act on behalf of the California Farm Bureau and our members across the
state of California. California's wildfires are very personal to me. As
President of my organization, I have witnessed and heard the numerous
stories of loss and frustration from my membership. In addition, I
myself, my employees and have been wildfire evacuees.
WILDFIRE IMPACTS ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE
Wildfires have caused numerous direct and indirect impacts on
California's $50 billion agriculture industry. In addition to being a
significant public safety threat, many farms, ranches, wineries,
employee housing, equipment, livestock, and commodities have been
directly damaged or completely destroyed. For those only partially
impacted, they are faced with the reality of rebuilding what remains of
their operation. Because many farmers and ranchers live on their
farming operation, some have also lost their home simultaneous to
losing their farm.
Wildfire Smoke & Ash
California agriculture has faced many challenges related to
wildfire smoke and ash. For example, the 2020 LNU Complex Fires that
burned over 360,000 acres, covered much of Northern California's wine
region in a weeks-long blanket of smoke and ash. The Glass Fire, which
burned over 65,000 acres in Napa and Sonoma counties immediately
following, resulted in such severe smoke taint that many wineries
looking to produce a 2020 vintage were unable to harvest their crop.
Monterey County, and many of California's central coast counties, as
well as the winegrape growing regions of the Central and Sacramento
Valley, also experienced weeks of smoke and ash coverage.
Wildfire smoke and ash has also affected availability, and at times
exacerbated shortage, of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) needed by
farmers and agricultural employees. According to California Division of
Occupational safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) workplace regulations,
employers are required to protect outdoor workers with N95 masks or
respirators when the Air Quality Index is 151 or greater. Particularly
during the COVID-19 pandemic, our producers were faced with significant
challenges related to providing our employees with Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE). Prior to the 2020 wildfires, California Farm Bureau
and other groups worked with the California Department of Food and
Agriculture to acquire about 1.5 million respirators that were released
to county agricultural commissioners from state supplies. But, as the
wildfires began, people who needed the respirators couldn't get them.
This prevented even the most usual agricultural activities such as
harvest, plantings, and cultivation at a time when domestic food
production was exceedingly critical.
Insurance Availability and Affordability
Wildfire has also created many residual impacts for California
farmers and ranchers in the areas of insurance, energy certainty, and
livestock safety and evacuation. In addition to homeowners' inability
to renew policies or affordably insure their homes due to wildfire
risk, California farmers and ranchers have experienced the same
challenges. In one instance, a member reported their premium had
increased from $8000 to $36,000. Meanwhile, many southern California
counties, as well as Napa, Sonoma, El Dorado, Calaveras, Placer,
Nevada, Shasta, Trinity, Mendocino, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and San
Luis Obispo counties, have seen policies terminated entirely due to
wildfire risk.
Until California State Senate Bill 11 was signed into law in 2021,
California farmers and ranchers did not have access to California's
insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, which provided basic
property insurance only to homes and commercial properties at highest
risk. This left commercial agricultural infrastructure, wineries, farm
equipment and other components uninsured. SB 11 authorized these
operations to access the California FAIR Plan for basic property
coverage and provided a necessary property insurance backstop for
agricultural infrastructure. Currently, California Farm Bureau is
sponsoring state legislation that would allow for commercial insurance
policies under the FAIR Plan to move back to the admitted commercial
market, therefore providing opportunities for agricultural producers to
move back to the competitive market with affordable commercial policies
protecting farming and ranching operations.
Public Safety Power Shutoffs
With utility infrastructure in California found to have caused some
of the most catastrophic damage in California history, the California
Legislature and California Public Utilities Commission have required
California's investor-owned utilities to better safeguard their
infrastructure to prevent those catastrophes. One tool that has been
implemented is the use of public safety power shutoffs (PSPS). These
shutoffs simply de-energize electrical grids when certain climatic
risks, such as wind and low humidity, could potentially result in a
wildfire should the infrastructure fail or an object come into contact
with the infrastructure sparking fire. While PSPS implementation can
serve as a valuable public safety tool, farms and ranches can be
greatly impacted by these wildfire mitigation efforts as lack of energy
availability creates added uncertainties for agricultural operations.
Livestock Evacuation Protocols
Our farmers and ranchers need the ability to safely and responsibly
cross into evacuation zones to relocate imperiled animals during a
wildfire incident. Historically, hired vendors working with CALFIRE or
the United States Forest Service on an active wildfire incident,
including water tender operators, heavy equipment and dozer operators,
crew bus drivers, vehicle drivers, mechanics, fallers, swampers, and
chain saw operators, have been required to complete the Fireline Safety
Awareness course, a one-day, 8-hour course of instruction. Farmers and
ranchers have the resources and experience to safely, humanely, and
efficiently transport livestock to safety. Wanting the same opportunity
as incident vendors, agriculture organizations supported state
legislation, Assembly Bill 1103, which established a statewide
framework for county ``Livestock Pass'' programs to safely provide
livestock producers access to their ranches during wildfires and other
emergencies. While prior to the legislation some counties had already
developed emergency ranch access programs, other counties lacked the
resources to develop and implement Livestock Pass programs. AB 1103
required CAL FIRE to establish a statewide training program for
Livestock Pass holders, codified a requirement that law enforcement and
emergency responders grant ranch access to Livestock Pass holders, and
established certain minimum standards for administration of the
programs, facilitating and streamlining adoption of county Livestock
Pass programs throughout the state.
INCREASING FOREST MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
With the presence of 18 National Forests in California, nearly half
of the 100 million acres in our state are managed by the federal
government. Given the extensive number of wildfire-related impacts
California farmers and ranchers are facing, California Farm Bureau has
a vested interest in the quality, and quantity, of forest management
activities. Recognizing the need for robust financial resources,
California Farm Bureau strongly supported the $1.4 billion included in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), providing the Forest
Service with implementation resources for the Wildfire Crisis Strategy,
a 10-year strategy for confronting the western wildfire crisis. Two
California landscapes, the North Yuba and the Stanislaus, were included
within the ten initial landscapes. California Farm Bureau also
supported the additional $1.8 billion in funding provided in Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) for hazardous fuels funding in the wildland-urban
interface. Within the additional eleven landscapes for treatment that
were identified, three California landscapes were included in the
second round of investments. These include the Southern California
Fireshed Risk Reduction Strategy, the Trinity Forest Health and Fire-
Resilient Rural Communities project, and the Plumas Community
Protection project.
While recent funding provided by Congress in the IIJA and IRA to
address fire risk should be celebrated, we remain concerned about the
expediency, or pace and scale, in which treatments on federally owned
lands are being performed given the quantity of treatment work that
needs to be done and the fire threat our state is facing. We also
remain concerned about whether or not the necessary financial resources
will continue to be allocated so that current forest health investments
are maintained in the longer-term.
To address management backlog and achieve landscape scale
management, we must do more to enhance capacity and modernize technical
expertise. To accomplish this, we must find a way to speed up the
collaborative process and empower multiple jurisdictions and partners.
Partnerships that assist the Forest Service with permitting and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, as well as on the
ground work, should be expanded. Private industry, including foresters
and ranchers within our own membership, are highly skilled, trained,
and operate equipment that can assist the Forest Service with
vegetative removal as well as fire suppression activities. In many
cases, these individuals are also personally knowledgeable about the
local communities and landscapes, bringing additional contributions to
a project. We strongly believe that by leveraging such partnerships,
more treatments would be able to be performed on federal land, around
rural communities, and along shared property lines resulting in a more
wildfire resilient environment.
Additionally, both the federal government and the State of
California have expressed interest in seeking ways to boost investment
in new facilities where capital investments serve as a driver for
forest treatments. However, given the significant presence of federally
owned land, the challenge with this approach is that stewardship
agreements do not include an obligation that guarantees forest material
to private industry. Without some level of certainty surrounding supply
agreements with the Forest Service, it will continue to be very
difficult to spur new infrastructure investment because existing
infrastructure is set up based on the landscapes in which they serve.
In California, industry infrastructure and markets for low to no-value
wood products is a significant challenge in need of solutions. We must
work to collectively find ways to complete the NEPA processes for
forest management and low to no-value wood products, affordably
transport these materials out of the forest, and incentivize companies
that can work on biomass or develop new, marketable products out of
these forest materials.
THE FIRESHEDS ACT
As private landowners who work and live on and near forested lands,
our members also recognize that implementing forest management that
utilizes the best available data, employs strong and effective
collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries, and engages in
partnerships with industry and other partners is necessary to
ultimately change fire behavior and achieve large landscape forest
management. Including these facets in forest management will best
utilize the recent influx of federal funding while also addressing
capacity barriers. For these reasons, we are pleased to offer comments
in support of the Forest Improvements through Research and Emergency
Stewardship for Health Ecosystem Development and Sustainability
(FIRESHEDS) Act. The FIRESHEDS Act would allow a governors to enter
into joint agreements with federal land management agencies to
designate landscape scale emergency fireshed management areas
identified in the top 10% of wildfire exposure on the date of
designation. We especially like that the bill also allows for such
agreements to be updated as new wildfire threats emerge. The bill would
also recognize previously signed stewardship agreements as an agreement
are defined under the bill. The Act also smartly allows these fireshed
areas to contain Federal and non-Federal land which would further
collaboration and partnership.
For each emergency fireshed management area, the Secretary and the
governor would then jointly conduct a stewardship and fireshed
assessment that would include, but not be limited to:
An exposure risk assessment including scenario planning,
mapping, and modeling,
A strategy for reducing the threat of at-risk communities
in the wildland-urban interface within an emergency
fireshed,
Identification of fireshed management projects to be
carried out, and
A timeline and long-term benchmark goals for the
completion of projects in the highest exposure areas.
The bill prioritizes projects that seek to address the highest
threats to public health and safety with second priority given to
projects that protect critical infrastructure, habitat, watersheds or
improving water yield, or a combination. The bill also smartly
authorizes the Secretary to enter into Memorandums of Understanding
with additional partners so that assessments are continually updated
using the best available data including data from private entities,
research or education institutions, State forest action plans, state
wildfire risk assessments, and other State sources.
Following a commonsense approach, projects identified within
designated fireshed management areas would then be carried out by the
Secretary in accordance with the fireshed assessment. We are also
appreciative that the bill seeks to align these projects in accordance
with the applicable forest management plan, would develop projects
collaboratively, and prioritize the creation of fuel breaks, reducing
hazardous fuels, conducting prescribed burns, and removing dead or
high-risk trees. Fireshed management projects could also utilize
existing statutory and administrative authorities including a Good
Neighbor Agreement.
The FIRESHEDS Act also correctly recognizes livestock grazing as a
hazardous fuels reduction strategy within the fireshed management
projects included in the bill. Livestock grazing not only benefits
ranchers and rural communities, but it also provides important
management, environmental, and infrastructure benefits that should be
more fully recognized. Grazing can be an effective management tool for
the Forest Service to improve range condition, manage for fire, and
control invasive species. Livestock grazing permittees also often
provide additional services to public lands such as facility
maintenance, road maintenance (culvert clearing), and trash removal.
Additionally, livestock grazing on public lands is an essential social,
economic, and ecological component of many forested rural communities.
PRESCRIBED FIRE
One of the most vital components of reducing wildfire fuels in
overgrown forest lands is prescribed fire, a tool that has been used by
generations to promote culturally important vegetation and reduce
forest density. However, in the past century, due to altered fire
suppression practices and a hesitance to mechanically thin forest
stands, our forested landscapes are now subjects to excessive fuel
accumulation.
Prescribed fire is a crucial component in forest resilience
efforts, as properly managed burns can provide numerous ecosystem
benefits including reducing excess brush, shrubs and small-diameter
trees, encouraging new growth of native vegetation, and maintaining
plant and animal species whose habitats depend on natural, episodic
fire. Additionally, when used as part of a larger fuels reduction
treatment plan, regular, planned use of prescribed fire has also been
shown to prevent the kinds of catastrophic wildfires that can set back
particulate matter (PM) emissions reductions goals.
Due to California's tremendous fuels treatment needs, we must
express our concern with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for Particulate Matter as proposed. Currently, the proposal
seeks to reduce the primary annual average PM2.5 NAAQS from 12
micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) to between 8-10 ug/m3. This
proposed change would significantly limit the number of windows
available in California for land managers to conduct essential
prescribed burns to prevent future catastrophic wildfires at a time
when state and federal land managers, including the Forest Service, are
acknowledging the dire need to increase prescribed fire on the
landscape.
While we understand that EPA considers prescribed burns covered
under the Exceptional Events Rule, the 2016 regulatory process that
codified the conditions under which prescribed fires could qualify as
exceptional events is not sufficient enough to enable a robust
prescribed fire program. Exceptional Events filings are also resource-
intensive and often denied by local air boards. Without explicit
regulatory allowances for prescribed fire to cause NAAQS exceedances,
we fear that the proposal could reduce potential burn windows by as
much as 80 percent. For this reason, we have written EPA urging them to
develop regulations that enable greater use of prescribed fire in
tandem with the NAAQS in order to prevent future emissions from high
severity wildfires. Should EPA finalize the proposed rule as written,
we urge Congress to consider legislation that creates an exception to
EPA's requirements.
2023 FARM BILL
The 2023 Farm Bill presents an opportunity to build upon the
successes of the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills in a way that better equips
federal agencies to manage forests, incentivize more public-private
partnerships, grow new markets for forest products, and support rural
communities. The 2023 Farm Bill should also encourage the Forest
Service to utilize all of its authorities, including new authorities
provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). As work
on the 2023 Farm Bill continues, we urge Congress to consider the
following:
Good Neighbor Authority
Consider amendments to the Good Neighbor Authority that will
leverage more partnerships that increase landscape-scale restoration
projects.
Allow States, Counties, and federally recognized Tribes to
retain revenues generated through Good Neighbor projects
for reinvestment in conservation and management activities.
Allow for restoration activities to take place on non-
Federal lands pursuant to conditions specified in Good
Neighbor agreements. Direct the Forest Service to update
existing Good Neighbor Master Agreements and Project
Agreements to use revenue from existing projects for this
work.
Allow for both new road construction and reconstruction
under Good Neighbor Authority contracts on a limited basis
for the purposes of water quality, vegetation removal, and
safe and efficient use.
Market Investments
The work being done on both federal and private lands to reduce
catastrophic wildfire risk creates a large amount of low-value woody
material. Unfortunately, there are not adequate markets and
infrastructure currently available to remove this material from the
forest and put into the marketplace. Depending on truck availability
and infrastructure locations, transporting this material can also be
very expensive.
Expand current programs, such as the Wood Innovations
Programs and Community Wood Grant Program, to encourage
more market development for woody, low-value material.
Consider cost share mechanisms to assist with transport of
low-value woody materials to processing facilities.
Enhance Fuel Break Cross-Boundary Collaboration
Connected fuel breaks provide multiple benefits, including
naturally reducing the wildland fire behavior, providing safer
opportunities for firefighters, and providing tactical advantages for
aerial deployment of fire retardant. Fuel breaks near roads can also
improve egress for those evacuating from wildfire and ingress for first
responders. Although there has been significant federal investment in
such work, it is essential that similar work conducted on private lands
is coordinated and connected so that the benefits of these actions is
maximized for forest health and public safety.
Authorize and fund wildfire reduction actions to assist
private landowners in connecting, completing, and
maintaining fuel breaks on their land with priority given
to projects that link with fuel breaks on other lands in
high-priority areas.
Authorize and fund the Forest Service to enter into
agreement with private sector entities to construct and
maintain connected fuel breaks on federal lands in
coordination with State and private landowners.
Provide authorities, including cost share instruments,
that enable USDA to partner with adjacent landowners to
reduce wildfire risk.
Seek ways to connect fuel breaks on federal lands with
similar activities on state and private lands.
Remove Barriers to Increasing Pace and Scale of Forest Management
The 2018 Farm Bill added a new ``rural'' requirement to the Forest
Service's Landscape Scale Restoration Program, greatly restricting the
ability to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects in areas with
populations greater than 50,000, including areas within the Wildland
Urban Interface.
Amend the Landscape Scale Restoration Program to remove
the rural requirement established in the 2018 Farm Bill.
The National Association of State Foresters reports that the USDA
Forest Service has designated approximately 74 million acres nationwide
as insect and disease treatment areas yet only a fraction of those
acres has been treated.
Amend the existing Forest Service Categorical Exclusion to
increase the number of acres which can be treated for fuels
reduction and pest treatment from 3,000 to 15,000+ acres or
larger.
Each National Forest is governed and guided by a legally binding
Forest Plan. Plans are developed through a collaborative process with
many opportunities for public involvement and specifically designate
which acres within a national forest are suitable for timber
production. In addition, when a management action is proposed, the
Forest Service must also initiate a separate National Environmental
Policy Act process. Currently, there is lack of legal clarity about
whether individual Forest Plans are an ongoing action under federal
law.
Clarify that Forest Plans are not ongoing actions under
federal law and that consultation under Endangered Species
Act Section 7 is not required at the forest plan level.
Additionally, clarify that projects on acres deemed
suitable for timber production in individual forest plans,
be subjected to reduced analytical requirements.
Ranchers who graze livestock on federally managed lands serve as a
primary caretaker of those lands in many ways. Grazing permittees
should be empowered as partners in conservation and leveraged as a
landscape management tool to help address buildup of wildfire fuels.
Recognize grazing as a wildfire management tool in fuels
management programs, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program, and other collaborative stewardship
programs.
Despite dozens of additional authorities intended to increase the
pace and scale of restoration, there are still millions of NEPA-ready
acres waiting for implementation. While significant increases in
funding should increase implementation, challenges with the Forest
Service utilizing existing authorities to their fullest extent still
remain. There should be a path of recourse for stakeholders, or
Congress, to compel options such as management, long-term stewardship
contracts, Good Neighbor Authority, and others.
Create an avenue where stakeholders and Congress can
elevate and/or approve specific actions on NEPA-ready
projects, especially on lands identified as priority
watersheds, high risk firesheds, or identified in a
wildfire crisis implementation plan.
Increase Flexibility And Efficiency Of Contracting And Procurement
Inflexibility in Forest Service contracting, procurement processes,
and rules continues to be an impediment to forest restoration at the
pace and scale needed to address the problem. Shorter-term contracts or
longer contracts that are interruptible, request for proposals (RFPs)
that have minimum bids, or other conditions that don't reflect current
realities or the cost of doing business, issues with liability for
participating agencies, and prohibitions on allowing knowledgeable
stakeholders having interaction during RFP development are among the
issues that are commonly slowing progress.
Direct the Forest Service to revise contracting and
procurement policy, guidance, and implementation of
existing authorities.
Prioritize Reforestation And Post-Fire Rehabilitation Of Federal Lands
Millions of acres of forestland have been lost to wildfire.
According to American Forests, a substantial portion of the over 4
million acres of potential reforestation needs on national forests
stems from 2020-2021 wildfires when more than 2.5 million acres burned
at high severity, adding to the 1.54 million acres of previously
identified needs. While the recent passage of the REPLANT Act is
expected to provide significant resources, more will need to be done.
The current rate of loss is outpacing the nation's public and private
nursery capacity and seedling supply.
Prioritize reforestation of federal lands and increase
investment for public and private nurseries for the
purposes of reforestation.
In addition to investing in wildfire prevention, post-fire
reforestation and recovery investments are also critically important
for the health of our national forests and rural communities. While
wildfire causes the majority of reforestation needs on national forest
lands, extreme weather conditions including drought and insect and
disease infestations also drive reforestation needs.
Direct agencies to utilize all tools for post-fire
rehabilitation, including livestock grazing, and provide
funding for prompt post-disturbance forest recovery and
restoration activities to prevent the spread of invasive
species and protect water quality. Authorize agencies to
utilize post-fire recovery funds for rebuilding of
operational infrastructure, including federal and non-
federal facilities, and direct agencies to allow
streamlined access, approval, and clearing and removal of
wildfire damaged trees impacting the recovery of
infrastructure function.
CONCLUSION
With the presence of 18 National Forests in California and
significant landownership from other federal and state entities,
California's private landowners are unable to solely increase the pace
and scale of forest management. The reality is we are playing catch-up
with a situation that has been worsening for decades and has been
exacerbated by drought, disease, and even climate change. Collectively
and collaboratively, we must remain committed to finding solutions to
change fire behavior and achieve fire resilient landscapes. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide testimony on these critical issues. I am
pleased to respond to questions.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Johansson. I am now going to
recognize Members for 5 minutes for questions, and I will begin
the process.
Mr. Johansson, what I am hearing you say in your testimony
is that you can help, that your members can help in the
California Farm Bureau. Do you want to elaborate on that a
little bit?
Mr. Johansson. Yes, in any sort of disaster or natural
disaster, the first responders are often the landowners or
neighbors. I mean, historically, there would be smoke on the
horizon, and everyone would respond.
I think right now we are seeing devastating floods in
Tulare Lake now re-emerging down in Tulare and Kings County. It
is farmers, it is ranchers who are responding to shore up those
levees. The same happens also in wildfire situations. But most
importantly, too, as we grow upon the Good Neighbor Authority
is including those locals, those counties who understand those
firesheds. And perhaps it has burned before, maybe on a smaller
scale, but understand how it responded 30 to 40 years ago. So,
certainly, the front lines there can be your locals on the
ground and your farmers and ranchers.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
Mr. Heithecker, in my opening remarks, I said we can
respect our environmental laws and we can move quickly at the
same time. From your time as a forest supervisor, would you
agree that the Forest Service can utilize categorical
exclusions to respect environmental laws and move quickly at
the same time?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. The Forest
Service has internally made concerted efforts to streamline our
processes, and that includes a nationwide monitoring program,
an effort started a while ago. Environmental analysis and
decision-making helped us look at ways to be more efficient
internally.
As you know, as we have testified prior, 85 percent of our
NEPA decisions are made through categorical exclusions. That is
about 1,400 a year, and that is up from 70 percent around 10
years ago. All of those categorical exclusions comply with all
statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements to implement
that work on Federal lands.
Mr. Tiffany. Do you believe that categorical exclusions
undermine bedrock environmental laws?
Mr. Heithecker. They do not. They have to comply with all
of those environmental laws. They are just another category of
NEPA decisions. It is just excluded from analysis due to the
fact that they have been determined with CEQ to not have a
significant impact to the human environment.
Mr. Tiffany. With your first answer, this is something this
Committee and Subcommittee is going to be watching very
closely, that we are getting the treatments done because that
is something that is very concerning, with all the additional
money that has been going out, that there are a significant
number of treatments that are getting done.
One more question. Is the 10,000-acre categorical exclusion
that is currently only available for the Tahoe Basin an example
of where the Forest Service has been able to move quickly while
respecting environmental laws?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes. I think if we look across our
landscapes and how we operate, the size of our decisions is
often in excess of 10,000 acres, 30,000 or 40,000, where we
find that there are no significant impacts. And having tools to
help us do that work at scale faster is a benefit to us.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Desautel, you commented about how the
drafting error in regards to the Good Neighbor Authority, I
believe it was in the 2018 Farm Bill, it is my understanding
you were forced to abandon a project on the Colville National
Forest. Is that accurate?
Mr. Desautel. That is accurate. Congress expanded the
authority for tribes and counties to enter into the agreements,
but later in the Act, in the section that would have allowed
them to expend revenues generated from forest products, the
tribes and counties were not included in that section, and this
bill would address that.
Mr. Tiffany. How many acres of fire-prone Federal lands do
you estimate you would have been able to treat if that would
have been in place?
Mr. Desautel. That project area was roughly 40,000 acres.
But the west quarter of that burned in the 2015 fire season for
us. So, that is something we are currently working on under a
Tribal Forest Protection Act Agreement. But we have seen
significant fires all around that area since the 2015 fire
season.
Mr. Tiffany. So, if the 2018 law would have allowed that
treatment, how many acres would that have helped not succumb to
fire?
Mr. Desautel. It is hard to predict how much we would have
stopped it because 2018 was a significant year, worst fire
behavior than I had seen at any point in my career. But almost
certainly it would have reduced the fire effects. And I think
it falls into one of those scenarios where we just aren't
moving fast enough, that we are seeing projects burn during the
planning process because the planning processes are lengthy.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Johansson, can we address this wildfire
crisis without some reforms of NEPA?
Mr. Johansson. Well, I mean, I think----
Mr. Tiffany. Can you do it solely with funding, or is it
going to take some reforms?
Mr. Johansson. No, it does take reforms. I mean, in
California, we enjoyed a $100 billion surplus in our state
budget. It is easy to throw money at a project, and we have
thrown a lot of money at trying to address this in California.
But as I have said before, just throwing money at a problem
such as wildfire and forest thinning doesn't work unless you
are actually doing the project and the project gets finished.
It has to be expedited.
We see, locally, if you are doing a mechanical thinning
project, it can take up to 3 years to get approval in the
forest, 4 years if it is a controlled burn. But, theoretically,
those are averages. We hear stories and I get phone calls of
frustrations from people in Murphys, California and Calaveras
County who are on their 7th and 8th year.
So, the expedited process has to go into effect in terms of
how we rely on those forest plans that our foresters put
together, and they are thorough and extensive, and take a very
long time. That should ultimately be what drives and moves
forward projects, and not just----
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much. My time is expired,
and I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Chief, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I
have introduced the Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnership
Act, along with my colleague, Senator Bennet in the Senate,
which extends an existing authority that I know is being
utilized right now in my district in Colorado, in the White
River National Forest. That particular project, as you may
know, plans to develop 163 affordable housing units in a
community adjacent to the country's most visited national
forest. The project includes a set-aside for Forest Service
employees.
In your testimony, you mentioned that the lack of
affordable housing is a major barrier to recruiting and
retaining your workforce, including the wildfire workforce. And
I wonder if you might be able to provide some insight or
perhaps expound a bit on how your agency works with project
proponents to strike an appropriate balance between supporting
both Federal employees and the general housing needs.
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. I am
familiar with that project. I have worked closely with the
forest supervisor, Scott Fitzwilliams, down there on the White
River, and we do appreciate the authority given to us in that
Act.
It has given us an opportunity that, while it has taken
some time to figure out the nuances, as you can imagine, it is
a complicated process, but the ability to partner in areas,
especially in neighboring national forests, where in Summit
County, for instance, the housing prices are exorbitant, there
is not land available to develop homes--we have the land, we
are able to work with these partners and through this leasing
authority, provide affordable housing to their employees and
our employees. It is a great opportunity, and we are looking
forward to working on expansion of it and continuing to build
more in the housing world.
Mr. Neguse. Well, I thank you for your remarks, and I
couldn't agree more. And it underscores why the Forest Service
Flexible Housing Partnership Act is so important in terms of
ensuring that the Forest Service has these authorities into the
future.
Ultimately, the bill is about collaboration and
cooperation, and that is something that we take great pride in
in Colorado. And I think this is an example of a way in which
the Forest Service can apply that same model perhaps in other
communities across the country.
I suspect the Agency has given some thought internally as
to what other potential sites might exist, to the extent that
this legislation is enacted and the authority is extended.
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, absolutely. We have. As you know,
affordable housing and firefighter pay are two of the biggest
barriers to getting more firefighters on, retaining
firefighters, investing in their health and well being. And as
I mentioned earlier, the number of communities that are in or
adjacent to National Forest Systems that have housing costs
that are just not affordable to people is a challenge that we
are trying to overcome.
And we have a couple other pilot opportunities that we are
looking at, and really looking forward to successfully
implementing the project on the White River.
Mr. Neguse. Again, I thank you for your testimony. I think
this is a program worth supporting and extending, so I am
hopeful that my colleagues will support it.
With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. I would like
to turn to the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for
his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dugan, the provisions of H.R. 188 have been in place
for nearly 8 years now in the Tahoe Basin Management Unit. And
it has already been noted that when the Caldor Fire hit a
treated tract as it barreled down on the city of South Lake
Tahoe, it laid down, and the firefighters were able to stop it.
Meanwhile, in the adjacent El Dorado Forest, U.S. foresters had
been trying to treat the trestle project for more than a
decade. They knew it was critical to protecting the town of
Grizzly Flats, but the laws and the litigation arising from
those laws had stalled the project, and it was still pending
when the Caldor Fire hit the tract, exploded, and utterly
destroyed the entire town.
So, I guess the first question is, why shouldn't we extend
that to the 193 acres of the U.S. Forest Service? Can you think
of any reason not to?
Mr. Dugan. Well, I would submit to you this reference.
There are significant sufficient environmental safeguards, even
under a categorical exclusion, where we have compliance built
in. So, I see no reason why we wouldn't want to expand that
categorical exclusion to all of these areas that we need to
treat. We have shown it works. Environmentalists are happy.
Mr. McClintock. As soon as possible, before we lose another
town of Grizzly Flats or, a few years back, a town of Paradise.
Have you observed a difference between the private forests
in the Sierra and those under the care of the Federal
Government?
Mr. Dugan. Well, the reality is, yes, the private forests
are able to respond. The private forests are also able to
reforest quicker. There are a lot of issues there. But when it
comes to the topic for today's hearing, absolutely, and that is
why we need the categorical exemptions because we know the
system works so slow in permitting.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Johansson, what have you observed
regarding the condition between the private forests and the
Federal forests in the Sierra?
Mr. Johansson. I mean, I agree with Mr. Dugan. It can be
quite obvious, even traveling on Interstate 80 there in
California, going into Nevada, into the Tahoe Basin, and you
can definitely tell there is a difference in terms of active
management of those private forest grounds.
Mr. McClintock. You know, when they say, well, it is
climate change, I think how clever of the climate to know
exactly the boundary line between the private and Federal
lands, and only devastate those on the Federal side of the
boundary line.
Mr. Heithecker, I am wondering about something. Half of
California's forests are privately owned, the other half are
administered by the Forest Service. And as has just been
pointed out, you can tell the boundary lines between the
private and Federal lands just by the condition of the forests.
Private lands are usually healthy. They are well managed. Tree
density is matched to the ability of the land to support it,
and they actually make money doing that. The Federal lands, the
lands that you are responsible for, are densely overgrown,
stressed, and dying, and you lose money doing that.
Five years ago I toured the footprint of the of the King
Fire. The private lands owned by Sierra Pacific Industries, in
this case had been completely salvaged, and the funds generated
from that salvage had been used to suppress brush growth, and
you could see new, young, healthy trees that were already
planted and growing. The Federal lands--again, the lands that
you are responsible for--had been abandoned. Six feet of brush
had grown up on those forest lands. No trees had been salvaged.
All you could see was dry brush and dry, rotted trees falling
on top of that dry brush, a perfect fire stack. In fact, the
firefighters in the Caldor Fire told me when the fire hit the
King Fire footprint, it literally exploded because of the
neglect of your agency.
So, private landowners make money keeping their forests in
healthy condition, and you somehow manage to lose money keeping
our forests in decrepit condition. Would you care to explain
yourself?
Mr. Heithecker. I will give it a shot. Thank you for that.
I would say that we are working currently with the National
Alliance of Forest Owners on a couple of agreements to help
streamline some of that work across boundaries. We recognize
the importance of that.
Mr. McClintock. How do you explain the difference? You lose
money keeping our forests in decrepit condition. Private
landowners make money keeping their forests in healthy
condition.
I mean, why should anybody listen to your agency on matters
of forest management, given that record?
Mr. Heithecker. Well, I would like to think that the Agency
has a very stout and educated group of scientists supporting--
--
Mr. McClintock. Well, would you like to explain why the
difference?
Mr. Heithecker. Well, our agency is guided by different
rules and standards than those private lands, I think you are
aware of that, which is National Forest Management Act,
Multiple-Use Sustained Act, the National Environmental Policy
Act, and others.
Mr. McClintock. Well, those laws were supposed to improve
the condition of the forest. We have lived with them for 50
years now. I think we are entitled to ask how are the forests
doing? And the answer is absolutely damning. And for your
agency to stand in the way of any legislation designed to
remediate that problem I find appalling.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I turn to the
Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
St. Louis County, Minnesota is the largest county east of
the Mississippi River, as well as my home county. St. Louis
County is a checkerboard of Federal and non-Federal land. It is
also one of the best examples of an area where all parties need
to work together, be it the Bureau of Land Management or the
U.S. Forest Service that manage our Federal lands, or the local
tribes and counties that manage our non-Federal lands.
Given this necessary collaboration that I have seen in
northern Minnesota, I support enabling our leaders to work
together and expanding Good Neighbor Authority. I am proud to
support H.R. 1450, the Treating Tribes and Counties as Good
Neighbors Act, which has been introduced by my good friend and
colleague, Congressman Fulcher.
Congressman Fulcher has been a leader in our conference on
forest management, and I want to thank him for introducing this
important piece of legislation that builds upon the success of
Good Neighbor Authority.
Mr. Heithecker, in 2018, Congress expanded the Good
Neighbor Authority in the Farm Bill, expanding the program to
counties and federally recognized Indian tribes. Can you speak
to how participation in Good Neighbor Authority agreements
increased following the changes made in the 2018 Farm Bill?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you. I think, as it has been
pointed out here, it is important to note that it was an
oversight or an omission from that language to not have
revenues retained by the tribes and the counties has been a
barrier.
With that said, we still have worked with numerous states,
including the state of Arkansas, where I came from, to leverage
that capacity to work across boundaries to implement
restoration treatments that do include timber value, as well as
prescribed fire. Critical to collaborate with multiple agencies
within each of those states, whether it is Fish and Wildlife to
protect critical habitat, to work with them on administering
the timber sales, allow them to generate the revenue to help
them do that work and build capacity to support that work.
So, I absolutely think that we will benefit if we can get
the retention of revenues for tribes and counties and allow us
to expand that opportunity, as was already shared today. And as
you know, the opportunities exist. And where we can make those
more effective and more accessible, it is going to benefit all
of us.
Mr. Stauber. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Desautel, you represent over 60 tribes that make up the
Intertribal Timber Council. And in your testimony, you noted
the benefits that you have seen under the Good Neighbor
Authority program. Would you say that the tribes that you
represent have missed out on the potential added benefits of
Good Neighbor Authority since the 2018 Farm Bill only allows
states to utilize funds from timber sales?
Mr. Desautel. Yes, sir. I think if the authority had been
expanded or the language had been corrected early, that tribes
would have utilized that authority early to take advantage of
the funding that is available in the infrastructure bill to
help support Good Neighbor Agreements. Because for the states
that I am familiar with, Washington State, where I live, being
one of them, the state had to put in, essentially, seed money
to stand up the program to establish staffing and develop the
project planning and NEPA analysis on the first projects to
generate enough revenue to support that work going forward.
So, with this funding, it would have given tribes the
opportunity to generate that revenue, stand up that program,
build that capacity, to utilize that authority for an extended
period of time to do that treatment that is needed on adjacent
Federal land.
Mr. Stauber. With the hopeful passage of this legislation,
they will be able to do exactly what you just stated: invest
more, and the money comes directly to them.
It is clear that since its introduction over two decades
ago, the Good Neighbor Authority program has facilitated co-
stewardship of our Federal and non-Federal lands, and has
brought Federal land managers, states, counties, and our tribes
together. Over these past two decades, Congress has taken great
steps to improve and expand Good Neighbor Authority, and I
commend the provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill.
However, we have a great opportunity right now to continue
this success story and make changes that fully take advantage
of the Good Neighbor Authority in Mr. Fulcher's legislation. I
strongly support allowing counties and tribes to utilize
proceeds from timber sales to take additional steps to work
together and protect our Federal and non-Federal lands. And I
look forward to supporting Mr. Fulcher's bill that will make
this fix.
It is important to recognize that the three entities,
states, counties, and tribes can take advantage of this and
allow healthy forests and conservation along with financial
security, with those funds returned back to those same
entities.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Stauber. Next, I would like to
turn to the gentlewoman from New Mexico for 5 minutes for
questions.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chairman Tiffany
and Ranking Member Neguse, and the Members on this
conversation.
As you know, I always look forward to it when we have the
bipartisan support for, including tribes, recognizing them as
sovereign nations, and that we must include them in our various
legislation to ensure that they are able to take care of and
participate as sovereign nations in our many programs that we
have on the Federal level. Thank you so very much for your
testimony.
I am also really pleased to have in today's hearing the
inclusion of the Ranking Member's Forest Service Flexible
Housing Partnership Act because affordable housing is important
everywhere I go in my district. As we know, the issue of
affordable housing is important across this country. Workforce
housing is very, very important. I focused on that both before
I got to Congress and then, when I am able to, through our
community projects, through our congressionally-supported
projects.
And in places that are really gorgeous and beautiful, it is
sometimes even harder because the market prices regular folks
out of the market. So, in places like Santa Fe and Taos, we
really see that as very important.
Mr. Heithecker, can you discuss a little bit more about the
ability to lease administrative sites that would benefit the
Forest Service, and what that looks like on the ground?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. It is a
unique authority for us. I mean, just think about it. If you
are a private landowner and you want to lease part of your
property, let somebody else build a house for you, have other
people live there, the complexities of working that out, it is
an interesting arrangement. So, the authorities given within
that Act are new. We are trying to figure those out, and we are
learning as we go.
But that exact situation is what we are working on in
Dillon, Colorado, which is we have a chunk of administrative
land that is being under-utilized. We have both the city, the
county, the state, and the Forest Service who have employees
that can't afford housing there. So, through that authority we
are allowed to lease the land to the city, in this case, and
have them build housing. To basically offset the cost of that
lease, they allow us to have our employees stay there. So, it
is a really beneficial, mutually agreeable arrangement that
provides affordable housing to both the city of Dillon and the
Forest Service.
And also in Colorado we are working with another group to
look at another model to work directly with the state on how we
can accomplish that in other communities throughout that area
and others in the country.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right, and I look forward to you
looking at sites in New Mexico because I think the ability to
utilize lands that are available to their best purpose is part
of that.
Mr. Heithecker. Absolutely.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. You talked about the complexities of
doing it. What does it do in terms of being able to recruit and
retain employees to know that they will have housing close by?
Because if they don't have it there, what would a commute look
like?
Mr. Heithecker. Well, that is really one of the biggest
challenges we have, as I mentioned, in addition to firefighter
pay. But if you are a firefighter coming in, you are working
these really long and grueling shifts, really risking your life
in many cases, and folks can't afford, I mean, folks live in
their cars. That is what they are up against in some of these
communities.
The community of Dillon in itself, Summit County in
general, is one of the more expensive areas that we have
employees. And the fact that we can create at least some
solution to allow folks across these other sectors to live
there and be able to afford to live there, I mean, it is a
night-and-day experience for them, a game-changer, from my
perspective.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I think that touching upon that,
we are asking somebody to risk their lives to help protect our
forests because there are lots of important reasons to
suppress, to address wildfires. But they are sleeping in their
cars?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And this is the same thing in
terms of when we were looking at pay, right, and making sure
that we have presumptions with regard to the illnesses that
they cover.
So, I think that recognizing there is a wide range of needs
that those who are put at greatest risk need, ranging from
housing, to pay, to the presumptions with regards to illness is
very important. So, thank you for answering those questions,
and thank you for introducing the bill.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields. Next, the gentleman
from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses,
for being here. I will start with Deputy Chief Heithecker.
H.R. 934 proposes to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to carry out the activities to suppress wildfires. In meeting
with various timber companies back in Oregon, they asked me if
I would just do one thing when I got here, and that is to
convince the Forest Service to put out the fire the moment they
see it, as opposed to allowing it to burn. This legislation
would do exactly that. Would you suggest that this legislation
is not necessary right now?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. As we
stated in our testimony, the concerns that we would have is
that we would lose tools that are critical for us fighting
fires.
And if you look at our data, it is 96 or 98 percent of all
of our fires are caught within the first 24 hours. So, you have
a very small percentage that are not, and I think it is 1
percent that we currently either monitor or manage for
resource----
Mr. Bentz. Let me just suggest that when I was out on the
side of the various mountains, we drove around spending a
couple of days looking at where the fires had not been put out
as soon as they could have been. I will share with you that the
damage was horrific, and it wasn't just the forest public land
that was damaged. So, I think the bill is absolutely necessary.
Let's go to another question. I know that there in your
budget for this year, 2023, there is $321 million allocated to
management of hazardous fuels. And I am very happy for the
effort to clean up, if you will, the forests that under your
10-year plan you are working on. But I just want to know who is
doing the work. Who is out there actually reducing fuel loads
in the forest?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. It is
going to be a mix. I mean, we are approaching this as all-
lands, all-hands approach. And as you know, we work with the
states, as I mentioned before, Good Neighbor Authority. We
hopefully work with counties and tribes on----
Mr. Bentz. Let's stop there.
Mr. Heithecker. OK.
Mr. Bentz. When I have gone out and looked and seen who is
doing the work, I see contract laborers doing the work. Most
speak Spanish, and it looked to me like they were doing great
work, working pretty hard, but they were working under a labor
contractor, generally, or someone else of like nature. And I am
happy they are out there doing the work. I just want to know,
is that your observation? Is that who is actually out there
doing the work?
Mr. Heithecker. In some cases, that is an observation, yes.
It is not an observation I have made. Again, I came from
Arkansas, working on the Ouachita National Forest. That was
primarily Forest Service employees out there, both full-time
firefighters, as well as what we call the militia, reserve
firefighters, working hand-in-hand with the state and counties
to do that work.
Mr. Bentz. That would not be the case on the West Coast.
And we have 90 million acres of forest now. It is not all
Federal, but the work that is getting done in significant part
is being done by folks that are not what I will call anxious to
do that kind of work. There is the problem.
I have fought fire before very badly, very poorly. And I
realized really quickly it was hard, dangerous, dirty work.
Mr. Heithecker. It is.
Mr. Bentz. I have also gone out and cleaned up forests,
believe it or not, when I was in high school. And it is hard,
boring, hot, and most people don't want to do it. That is why I
became a lawyer, so that I wouldn't have to do it. And I am
just saying that it appears to me that the actual work that is
being done to clean up the forest right now is primarily being
done by immigrants. And I just wanted you to comment on that
one more time. But if you don't know, that is fine for you to
say.
Mr. Heithecker. I don't have that in front of me. And I
could talk to you about our wildland firefighter hiring numbers
and those sorts of things, but I would just offer that it is a
mix of contracts. It is partners through agreements and our own
employees.
Mr. Bentz. The last thing I will mention, and sorry to have
focused on you this entire time, but a huge part of Oregon is
controlled by the Forest Service. There was a prescribed burn
done not too far from where one of my brothers has a ranch and
has a grazing permit. And it was badly managed, and there was
an absolutely clear lack of respect by the Forest Service for
the private landowners. Can you comment on that?
Is there someone overseeing these folks' activities?
Because there seems to be an arrogance level and a lack of
respect that does not bode well for prescribed fires.
Mr. Heithecker. I am surprised to hear that. Certainly,
there is a level of oversight. The District Ranger is a local
line officer. You have your burn bosses that are qualified
through our rigorous process, as well as forest supervisor, and
on up from there. So, if that is the case, we have, escapes in
New Mexico drove us to pause our prescribed fire activities, do
a comprehensive review of that program, and have made changes
as a result of that.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Bentz. Next, I would like to
recognize Mr. Moylan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Heithecker, it is good to see you again. I hope you
enjoyed the informational trip we had to the Yale School of
Forestry and the Yale Forest as much as I did. Of course, it
was very interesting to hear about the Yale forest managers and
the response to this complex challenge they have in their
forest.
And for yourself, Troy, as someone who has spent time in a
lot of different national forests across the country, can you
just expand and talk about how important it is to empower
individual Forest Service units to meet the unique needs facing
their forests?
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. It is good
to see you again, too. It was a great trip. I enjoyed just the
time together to talk forest policy and think about where we
are heading with how we manage these great public lands that we
are entrusted to steward.
Trying to answer any question in the Forest Service with
one answer is really challenging. I mean, we have forests from
Florida all the way up to central Alaska. So, having the
ability to shape management and activities based on those
specific ecosystems, what the local public and the communities
need in terms of resource management and benefits is, I
wouldn't say it is a challenge, it is an opportunity for us. We
have to be flexible. We have to understand what each of those
ecosystems, each of those forest types needs. And like I said,
working across boundaries with the partners and being as
collaborative as we can is really critical for us to get that
work done.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you for that. The next question is for
Mr. Johansson.
I believe the best solutions come from the ground up and
are locally led. The FIRESHEDS Act allows states and local
entities to address firesheds on both Federal and non-Federal
land. How would this state and local knowledge help the Forest
Service in treating more wildfire-prone areas?
Mr. Johansson. I think it just comes from local knowledge
and the history of the forest. And as I said before, it is true
in politics, even, right? The most responsive is always how far
down you can get to local, whether that is politics or whether
that is managing a forest or a fireshed.
When you bring in the counties and the tribes who live
there, because it is their home you are going to have a much
more responsive push to address the situation that the forests
need, in terms of managing them.
I think, ultimately, too, you have another partner, you
have another partner at the local level to assist because we
know that the Forest Service, in terms of acreage that they
have to manage, is overwhelmed. We can see that in terms of
even after a fire we can only re-seed up to 8,000 acres a year.
So, I think it is imperative that you start looking locally
and look down for more assistance for the Forest Service, and
then even at the state level.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you for your response.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Moylan. Now, I would like to
recognize Mr. Westerman, the Chairman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. It seems like I have been
out in the field with all of you at some point, and I
appreciate your commitment to forest stewardship and the good
things that come from that.
Troy, thank you and Under Secretary Wilkes for joining us
on the field trip last week. And we saw how difficult managing
that forest in Connecticut can be with the various species and
the management objectives. But they don't have to do NEPA, they
don't have any regulatory requirements they have to go through.
They are not concerned about litigation. Throw all that on top
of what your folks at the Forest Service experience, and it
makes your job very difficult.
And that is why, as policy makers, we get frustrated
because what we are looking at are results. We want to see
results on the ground. We want to see acres treated. We want to
see CEs like Mr. McClintock got passed that show great results
on the ground. We want to expand those policies.
I just have to ask, did CEQ review your testimony before
you were able to submit it?
Mr. Heithecker. Our testimony goes through a review
process, yes.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, that is enough said about that. I have
been around you in the field. I know you know how to manage
forests. You did a great job on the Ouachita National Forest,
and I know that you are a forester and you understand what
needs to happen on the ground. But you are also working in this
framework and this environment that we have created here in
Congress, and that is why we want to change that.
Can you speak a little bit about how, when you can do your
job, how successful it can be? I know the Ouachita has been one
of the most productive forests in the country. It still needs a
lot of work done on it, but talk about the short leaf pine
bluestem grass restoration project, and how that has benefited
the red cockaded woodpecker, plus generated timber revenues to
do more work on the forest.
Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
the trip. It was a great opportunity, as I previously
mentioned, for us to talk about those shared interests and how
we can help better steward these lands.
And in my opening remarks I did refer to the Ouachita as
being one of the most productive and actively managed forests
in the country, and I was surprised that Chairman Tiffany
didn't come back at me with Chequamegon-Nicolet or one of those
others. It is always a back and forth.
But I think the work in the pine bluestem is just a shining
example. If you look at how we accomplish the work through
CFLRP, a collaborative process, looking across landownerships
and working with partners literally hand-in-hand on prescribed
fire, and also being able to deliver commercial timber products
to restore critical habitat for a threatened and endangered
species.
As a result of that work and the ability to do that work at
pace and at scale, it led, I believe, in no small part to the
downlisting of the red cockaded woodpecker. And just again,
balancing the needs of those ecosystems, the frequency of the
treatments that is needed out there, while delivering
commercially viable products----
Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to cut you off there. It
is a great example of how you can have a healthy environment
and a strong economy at the same time. The two go hand-in-hand.
And it is a great example of how the intent of the Endangered
Species Act was followed. When you read the Endangered Species
Act, it talks about conservation, conservation, and
conservation. And that is how the Forest Service and other
agencies get their hands tied by Fish and Wildlife when they
start listing species and saying leave their habitat alone. But
we need to do more projects like that.
Cody, I had a chance to spend some time on the Colville
Forest last summer, and I know the great work the tribes are
doing all across the country, and I am a huge supporter of more
Good Neighbor Authority. We talked about New Mexico earlier. I
was down on the Lincoln National Forest. The Mescalero Apache
Tribe has some of the most beautiful Ponderosa pine stands that
you will see anywhere. And just down the road in Lincoln
National Forest, it is a moonscape, where tens of thousands of
acres burned and they don't even regenerate. It is so bad.
But talk about how important it is to grow Good Neighbor
Authority to get tribes more involved, and what we can do to
help make that happen.
Mr. Desautel. Right. The legislation proposed today, I
think, will accomplish that.
But, I mean, tribes are a great proving ground. We have the
ecological knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge of what
the landscape should look like, and how we accomplish that. And
I think because we fall under different regulatory frameworks,
we can be examples and testing grounds for land management
policies. And I think most folks that work with tribes
recognize the great work that happens in Indian Country, and we
can use that blueprint in our adjacent Federal lands and
partner with them to make sure we accomplish those same
management goals.
Mr. Westerman. Well, I look forward to working with you,
and all the tribes are doing great work to hopefully greatly
expand that Good Neighbor Authority.
I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your questions.
And I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today.
It is greatly appreciated. And we are going to move on to our
third panel now.
And while the Clerk resets our witness table, I will remind
the witnesses that are coming for our third panel that under
Committee Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5
minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing
record.
I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
As with the first panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before Member questioning.
Our witnesses for the third panel are Ms. Riva Duncan, Mr.
Rick Goddard, Mr. Laurence Crabtree, and Mr. Jonathan Godes.
We are going to start with Ms. Riva Duncan, who is the Vice
President of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.
We look forward to your testimony in the next 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RIVA DUNCAN, FIRE CHIEF, UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST,
U.S. FOREST SERVICE (RETIRED), VICE PRESIDENT, GRASSROOTS
WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Chairman
Westerman, Ranking Member Neguse, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee for allowing me to appear here today. My name
is Riva Duncan, and I am currently the Vice President of the
Grassroots Wildland Firefighters advocacy non-profit, which is
made up of current and former Federal wildland firefighters.
On December 31, 2020, I retired from the U.S. Forest
Service after 31 years with the agency. My position upon
retirement was Fire Chief for the Umpqua National Forest and
Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM districts in southwest Oregon. Over
the course of my career, I worked in five Forest Service
regions, on seven national forests in Pennsylvania, Florida,
Utah, California, North Carolina, and Oregon. I was an official
supervisor and directly involved in hiring from 1998 until my
retirement.
Most of you know by now that the Forest Service and the
four land management agencies under the Department of the
Interior are struggling to recruit and retain wildland
firefighters. Over the last few years, this has become a
critical issue that affects most communities in the U.S.
Wildfires are not just a California problem, nor are they a
Western problem. This past spring, numerous areas in Wisconsin,
New Jersey, and others in the East experienced serious
wildfires that threatened homes, businesses, infrastructure,
and the health of citizens. Federal wildland firefighters are
being called upon to leave their families earlier and earlier
to fight these destructive fires.
While I could go on and on about numerous issues facing our
workforce, I am here today to discuss hiring and the proposed
bill, Direct Hire to Fight Fires.
The entire hiring system needs to be critically reviewed
and modernized for the next 50 years of recruiting, hiring,
retaining, and promoting Federal wildland firefighters. The
protracted and convoluted Federal hiring process typically
affects entry-level firefighters the most, who are trying to
get their first job as a Federal wildland firefighter. However,
there are other systemic issues associated with Federal hiring
which negatively affect long-term career employees who are
denied promotions and detail assignments who, out of
frustration, stop trying to obtain different positions within
the Forest Service and DOI, or end up resigning their Federal
jobs.
Hiring became considerably more difficult and cumbersome
with the centralization of Human Resources in the Forest
Service, creating the Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) and the
Bureau of Land Management, creating the National Operations
Center (NOC). In our opinion, critical effort needs to be made
to take an objective look at these decisions and consider
whether decentralization of HR in the Forest Service and DOI
makes the most sense, moving forward.
This is not to disparage the employees working in HR for
these agencies. They are also struggling to keep up with the
workload, which is telling in the amount of turnover at both
ASC and the NOC.
Codifying direct hire authority would certainly provide
shorter hiring timelines for critical wildland fire positions.
Anything that helps expedite current hiring processes is a step
in the right direction. As data shows, DHA reduces the amount
of time from authorization to employee entry on duty. This
bill, if it becomes law, would continue to streamline the
Federal hiring process as it gives greater flexibility and
timeliness to hire more wildland firefighters in rural and
hard-to-recruit areas.
The bill also states it will address and eliminate
redundancies in the Federal hiring process for wildland
firefighters and support personnel, streamline the process for
hiring wildland firefighters and support personnel who are
employed by the agency in prior years, and reduce barriers for
wildland firefighters transferring between agencies.
One stark example of hiring redundancy is the Forest
Service does not recognize the DOI agency's employee background
checks, and the DOI does not recognize the Forest Service's.
This unnecessary barrier leads to significant delays in hiring
firefighters between agencies and departments, and is often the
last piece of red tape in the way of onboarding wildland
firefighters.
In the Forest Service and DOI, employees must still attach
a specific Standard Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action to
their resume that proves they are a current Federal wildland
firefighter. In the Forest Service, if they attach the wrong
SF-50, their application is discarded and they are
disqualified. Conversely, in the National Park Service, if an
employee attaches the wrong SF-50, they are notified to provide
the correct form and their package goes on to be evaluated
against the other factors. These are just a couple of examples
where different processes in the different land management
agencies affect pools of qualified candidates.
We would ask Congressman Issa and the rest of the Committee
to include a provision in the bill to waive the age requirement
for veterans and others, as did the Land Management Workforce
Flexibility Law. Currently, there is an age limit for permanent
employees into the special retirement system for Federal
wildland firefighters and law enforcement officers, which makes
hiring veterans over the age of 37 extremely difficult.
On behalf of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, thank you
for allowing me to be here today. I look forward to answering
the Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Riva Duncan, Vice President,
Grassroots Wildland Firefighters;
Forest Fire Chief, US Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest (Retired)
on H.R. 3499
Opening Remarks
Thank you, Chairman Westerman, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Grijalva, Ranking Member Neguse, Congressman Issa, and members of the
subcommittee for allowing me to appear before you today. My name is
Riva Duncan and I am currently the Vice President of the Grassroots
Wildland Firefighters advocacy non-profit. On December 31, 2020, I
retired from the US Forest Service after 31 years with the agency. My
position upon retirement was Fire Chief for the Umpqua National Forest
and Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM Districts in Southwest Oregon. Over the
course of my career, I worked in five Forest Service regions on seven
national forests in Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, California, North
Carolina, and Oregon. I was an official supervisor and directly
involved in hiring from 1998 until my retirement.
Most of you know by now that the Forest Service and the four land
management agencies under the Department of Interior are struggling to
recruit and retain wildland firefighters. Over the last few years, this
has become a critical issue that affects most communities in the US.
Wildfires are not just a California problem, nor are they a Western
problem. This past spring numerous areas in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and
others in the East experienced serious wildfires that threatened homes,
businesses, infrastructure, and the health of citizens. Federal
wildland firefighters are being called upon to leave their families
earlier and earlier to fight destructive fires.
While I could go on and on about numerous issues facing our
workforce, I'm here today to discuss hiring and the proposed bill
``Direct Hire to Fight Fires.''
The entire hiring system needs to be critically reviewed and
modernized for the next 50 years of recruiting, hiring, retaining and
promoting federal wildland firefighters. The protracted and convoluted
federal hiring process typically affects entry-level people the most
who are trying to get their first job as a federal wildland
firefighter. However, there are other systemic issues associated with
federal hiring which negatively affect long term career employees who
are denied promotions and detail assignments who, out of frustration,
stop trying to obtain different positions within the Forest Service and
DOI or end up resigning their federal jobs.
Hiring became considerably more difficult and cumbersome with the
centralization of Human Resources in the FS, creating the Albuquerque
Service Center (ASC), and the Bureau of Land Management, creating the
National Operations Center. In our opinion, critical effort needs to be
made to take an objective look at these decisions and consider whether
decentralizing HR in the FS and DOI makes the most sense moving
forward.
This is not to disparage the employees working in HR for these
agencies. They are also struggling to keep up with the workload which
is telling in the amount of turn-over at both ASC and the NOC.
Codifying Direct Hire Authority would certainly provide shorter
hiring timelines for critical wildland fire positions. Anything that
helps expedite current hiring processes is a step in the right
direction. As data shows, DHA reduces the amount of time from
authorization to employee entry on duty. This bill, if it becomes law,
would continue to streamline the federal hiring process as it gives
greater flexibility and timeliness to hire more wildland firefighters
in rural and hard to recruit areas.
The bill also states it will address and eliminate redundancies in
the Federal hiring process for wildland firefighters and support
personnel, streamline the process for hiring wildland firefighters and
support personnel who were employed by the agencies in prior years, and
reduce barriers for wildland firefighters transferring between
agencies. These are extremely important points that will reduce hiring
timelines.
One stark example of hiring redundancy is the FS does not recognize
the DOI agencies' employee background checks, and the DOI does not
recognize the Forest Service's. This unnecessary barrier leads to
significant delays in hiring firefighters between agencies/departments,
and is often the last piece of red-tape in the way of onboarding
wildland firefighters.
In the FS and DOI, employees must still attach a specific Standard
Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action to their resume that proves
they are ``current'' federal employees. In the FS, if they attach the
wrong SF 50, their application is discarded and they are
``disqualified'' as they cannot ``prove'' they are a current federal
employee, which I believe ASC can verify in less than a couple minutes.
Conversely, in the National Park Service, if an employee attaches the
wrong SF 50, they are notified to provide the correct form and their
package goes on to be evaluated against the other factors.
These are just a couple of examples of where different processes in
the different land management agencies affect applicant pools of
qualified wildland firefighters and support personnel.
We would ask Congressman Issa and the rest of the committee to
include a provision in the bill to waive age requirements for veterans,
and others, as did the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Law, PL
114-47. Currently there is an age limit for permanent employees into
the special retirement system for federal wildland firefighters and law
enforcement officers which makes hiring veterans over the age of 37
extremely difficult. As the agencies stand up more ``veterans'' fire
crews, it's important we honor their service in this way.
On behalf of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, thank you for
allowing me to be here today. I look forward to answering the committee
members' questions.
Other Hiring Observations and Challenges
Positive Education Requirements in the 401 Series
Many of the wildland fire support positions, namely fire
ecologists, fire planners, and fuels specialists are in the 401 General
Biology series. This series is ``professional'' and so has positive
education requirements. Across the FS, numerous wildland fire employees
in this series have been disqualified from lateral reassignments,
temporary promotions, and permanent promotions into the same series by
HR because they ``do not meet'' the positive education requirements.
Again, they are already in this series, and yet somehow don't meet
those requirements when seeking other 401 positions. Some employees are
just too overloaded or too frustrated to appeal these decisions, and
many who seek to appeal often don't find out about this oversight until
it's too late.
Antiquated Payment Processing System (tied to HR)
The FS's pay system, housed at the National Finance Center in New
Orleans, and is directly tied to the HR system, is also seriously
antiquated and in need of reform. We recently discovered that only one
personnel action can be processed at the same time. Many temporary
firefighters, those in the Not To Exceed (NTE) 1039 hours category, are
being onboarded and requiring three distinct personnel actions: 1.
actually being put into hire/pay status, 2. provided the pay supplement
authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), and 3. Being
placed into government housing and having their ``rent'' deducted from
their paycheck. These temporary employees do not see their first
paycheck for two to four weeks, their supplement isn't included until
their second or third paycheck, and often their rent isn't deducted for
several more pay periods (it is not unusual for a temporary to get a
large ``backpay'' deduction toward the end of their employment period).
We also have examples of other significant issues with the BIL
supplement for a few hundred wildland firefighters and support
personnel due to this ineffective and inefficient system.
Other Observations Regarding Centralized HR (FS)
Centralization of the Forest Service's HR at the Albuquerque
Service Center (ASC) has been a monumental failure. Yet the agency
fails to acknowledge this and seriously look at decentralization. There
are few HR specialists left who actually worked at unit and/or remember
what that was like. Those who haven't, struggle to understand the work
of all employees, not just wildland firefighters. Employees at the
field units (including the regional offices and Washington Office) are
just a ``number'' or a ``name.'' During the early days of the
transition to ASC, while I was Deputy Forest Fire Chief on the Klamath
National Forest in CA, I sent one of the dispatchers to ASC to give
presentations on what the wildland firefighter workforce was and what
they did. This was eye-opening for the HR specialists. However, the
turnover rate is so high that if someone were to do that again, they'd
have to go nearly every month in order to reach the constantly new
group of HR employees. The FS publishes a monthly report of
disciplinary actions across the agency and it is staggering to see how
many employees at ASC are receiving disciplinary action, some of them
for violating personnel practices. These extreme examples of job
dissatisfaction and poor performance/behavior have a ripple effect down
to the units. Decentralization would allow HR employees to serve
directly with the employees with whom they work every day. They would
know them as people and not just as names on a list or a voice over the
phone. We are convinced this would solve a multitude of HR issues. But
the highest level of managers within the FS seem reluctant to admit
that while centralization seemed like a good idea it has been a massive
failure since it started over 15 years ago. We would like to see an
outside, objective group take a critical look at ASC and make
recommendations on what it would take to fix the most glaring of issues
affecting efficiency and efficacy.
Grassroots Wildland Firefighters Advocacy Group Background
The Grassroots Wildland Firefighters were formed in 2019 by active
and retired federal wildland firefighters. The intent of the group is
to address the issues surrounding the everyday world of the wildland
firefighter, including: pay and classification, comprehensive health
and well-being, and OWCP claims.
The Grassroots Wildland Firefighters are focused on bringing our
diverse group of voices to bear on leadership in the land management
agencies and our elected officials, at the local, state and federal
level. Our mission is to advocate for proper classification, pay,
benefits and comprehensive well being.
We acknowledge these are complex and multifaceted issues spanning
several government agencies. Our overarching goal is to create a better
quality of life for those who sacrifice so much of themselves to
protect life, communities, and natural resources.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Duncan. Next, I would like to
recognize Mr. Rick Goddard, Managing Director of Caylym
Technologies of Fresno, California.
Mr. Goddard, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICK GODDARD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAYLYM
TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Goddard. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify in support of H.R. 3389, the Emergency Wildfire
Fighting Technology Act of 2023.
I currently serve as the Managing Director of Caylym
Technologies, a veteran-owned, California-based company that
has developed an aerial delivery system to fight the ever-
increasing destruction of wildfires globally. Prior to joining
the civilian business community, I served as an officer of
Marines specializing in aviation, and particularly close air
support and air defense missions.
Our innovative technology and a strong private partnership
have proven successful in mitigating catastrophic wildfires in
several countries. But, unfortunately, we cannot help in
fighting wildfires here in our own country due, I believe, to
bureaucracy and red tape.
Here in the United States, we are all witness of the
terrifying trend, the fact that wildfire season is now year-
round and more catastrophic. With this year's heavy rainfall
that has accelerated vegetation growth which will fuel this
year's wildfires, we are looking to another brutal and
potentially deadly year. Just look at the situation in Alberta
and British Columbia, Canada now. They have lost millions of
acres already, and it is not even summer yet.
The smoke and air pollution of these fires is already
reaching our Midwest. In California, we have already seen high
90-degree temperatures in this past week. The Forest Service
alone does not have the necessary resources to handle what is
to come. They are severely understaffed and, pending on the
ongoing court decision, the Forest Service could lose the
ability to deploy retardant from the air altogether, until the
EPA issues a Clean Water Act permit, which could take years.
Simply put, our state and Federal fire agencies need better
technologies now, more than ever.
We are here today advocating for putting another tool in
the toolbox for combating and preventing the mass destruction
we experience from wildfires today. Containerized Aerial
Firefighting Systems, or CAFFS, has already been adopted across
the globe. Currently it is being used in Romania, Peru, Greece,
Uruguay, Bulgaria, and now Israel. Still, because of the Forest
Service's refusal or inability to complete the necessary
evaluation, CAFFS is not currently approved for use in the
United States.
In 2015, the United States Air National Guard highlighted
and recommended the use of container delivery system-based
capability, and today we call that CAFFS. The Air Guard noted
that the airdrop-capable disposable containers with liquid
payloads dramatically increases the number of airlift assets
available to respond to wildfire emergencies, providing a 24-
hour capability to attack wildfires.
CAFFS can be dropped from any rear-loading cargo aircraft,
transforming the thousands of cargo planes and helicopters
currently in our inventory into aerial firefighting platforms,
and that is without any modifications to the airframes. These
systems are affordable and immediately available, and they
effectively support our country's ability to fight wildfires
day and night.
It is important to note that a CAFFS airdrop eliminates the
need, potentially, of those most harmful chemicals in
traditional airdrop retardants, and those are the anti-
corrosion chemicals currently required for direct contact with
cartons. And this is because the CAFFS-based alternative does
not require the liquid payload to come in contact with the
aircraft. This CAFFS benefit, also significantly, by orders of
magnitude, reduces the post-mission maintenance costs and
downtime on aircraft that is currently required in order to
clean off the retardant residue after each mission.
H.R. 3389 provides an opportunity for the latest aerial
firefighting technology like CAFFS to be evaluated, and the
operational protocols to be updated based on the results of the
evaluation.
California has a long history of large wildfires, which is
why the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
has the largest and most advanced wildfire fighting operations
in the nation, and yet they are still having to make the tragic
decision as to which homes and communities to save and which
are left to the ravages of a wildfire.
H.R. 3389 would provide fire crews with new wildfire-
fighting technologies like CAFFS, thus providing a rapid surge
response as they are able to battle to save lives, homes, and
businesses while battling to stop the awful destruction of our
forests and the environment.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of
this Subcommittee, I am thankful for this opportunity, and look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goddard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Rick Goddard, Managing Director,
Caylym Technologies
on H.R. 3389
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3389,
the Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023.
Introduction
I currently serve as the Managing Director of Caylym Technologies,
a veteran owned California-based company that has developed an aerial
delivery system to fight the ever-increasing destruction of wildfires
globally. Prior to joining the civilian business community, I served as
an Officer of Marines specializing in aviation and particularly the
close air support and air defense missions.
California-based Caylym is helping minimize the destruction of
wildfires across the world. Our innovative technology and strong
public-private partnerships have proven successful in mitigating
catastrophic wildfires in several countries, but unfortunately, we
cannot help in fighting wildfires here in our own back yard in
California and the United States due, I believe, to bureaucracy and
red-tape.
Caylym has made many efforts to introduce and share the immediate
benefits of Containerized Aerial Fire Fighting Systems (CAFFS) to the
United States Forest Service (Forest Service) and to top elected
officials as an additional tool for firefighters but was told by the
Forest Service that their ``current capabilities align well with
[their] requirements and modernization strategy.'' We are here today
advocating for adding another tool in the toolbox for combatting and
preventing the mass destruction we experience from wildfires. CAFFS has
already been adopted across the globe including Romania, Peru, Greece,
Uruguay, Bulgaria and Israel, but because of the Forest Service's
refusal or inability to complete necessary evaluation, it is not
currently approved and used in the United States.
Background
Here in the U.S., we are all witness to a terrifying trend--the
fact that wildfire seasons are now year round and more catastrophic.
With this year's heavy rainfall leading to high yield of vegetation
growth, that will fuel this year's wildfire season, we are looking at
another brutal potentially deadly year. Just look at the situation up
in Alberta and British Columbia Canada now. They have lost millions of
acres already and it is not even summer yet. In California we have
already seen high 90 degree temperatures this past week.
The Forest Service alone does not have the necessary resources to
handle what's to come. They are severely understaffed, and pending a
court decision in FSEEE v. USFS, Forest Service could lose their
ability to deploy aerial fire retardant altogether until the EPA issues
a Clean Water Act permit, which could take years. If the Forest Service
cannot deploy an aerial fire retardant, state agencies like CAL FIRE
will be spread far too thin to be effective.
The result of this delay of potential aerial firefighting payload
delivery alternatives would be so catastrophic it is hard to let your
mind go there, but in order to protect lives, property, businesses, and
our beautiful land, it is imperative that we do so. If the Forest
Service cannot deploy retardant from aircraft, this will leave state
agencies alone in the skies and wildfires will burn longer and hotter.
vCommunities will be ravaged by flames just like we witnessed happen in
Paradise California, in the deadly Camp Fire. Families will have empty
seats at their dinner tables because those vulnerable and less mobile
will struggle to evacuate before it is too late. People, especially
children, will suffer from asthma due to the incredibly poor air
quality as a result of prolonged smoke exposure. This will have a
generational climate impact. Mr. Chairman, the list goes on, but my
time is limited.
As we stare down the barrel of the next wildfire season, state and
federal fire agencies need better technology and private support now
more than ever.
In 2015 the United States Air National Guard released a report
highlighting the domestic-response equipping priorities forged across
the Air National Guard. They emphasized the need for a robust domestic-
response capability to support homeland emergency operations. From
their lessons learned in California Wildfires in 2008, 2010, and 2012,
particularly the Yosemite Rim Fire in 2013, there was a clear need for
new technology to allow for around the clock capability to directly
attack and extinguish wildfires and expand the number of air assets
fighting wildfires.
The United States Air National Guard highlighted and recommended
the use of a Container Delivery System (CDS) based capability which
today they call CAFFS. They noted that the airdrop capable disposable
containers with liquid payloads for aerial firefighting ``dramatically
increases the number of airlift assets available to respond to wildfire
emergencies''.
Our team has found that countries such as Romania, Peru, Uruguay,
Bulgaria, Greece and recently Israel are committed to a 24/7 rapid
response or surge in aerial firefighting capability and have adopted
CAFFS because of that commitment. If available for domestic use, these
additional resources would provide our ground crews and the Incident
Commanders with more resources and tools to protect communities, the
environment and put out wildfires more swiftly.
In 2021, the EU and Mediterranean basin experienced the 2nd worst
fire season since 2000 with 2.7 million acres burned across 39
countries, 25% of which were agricultural lands. I raise this aspect of
the global nature of what we are dealing with regarding wildfires as
this problem is not unique to the United States. We have found that
predominantly the European and Latin American view is that almost any
major wildfire could have been prevented with a bucket of water if you
were there fast enough.
H.R. 3389--Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023
This legislation provides an opportunity for the latest aerial
firefighting technology, including CAFFS, to be evaluated, and
deployment protocols to be updated based on the results of the
evaluation. With the continuous escalation of wildfires as our new
reality, the need for increased investment in new firefighting systems
that provides Incident Commanders with the ability to respond to the
ground crews calls for air.
Technologies such as CAFFS enable scores of additional aircraft to
come alongside and be responsive to wildland firefighters. Providing a
rapid surge of the full spectrum of payloads as a direct attack on the
active wildfire. This helps attack the wildfires at early detection,
even in remote areas. Using these types of systems, aircraft can
operate and drop payloads from higher altitudes and in higher wind
conditions without sacrificing safety or accuracy.
CAFFS can be dropped from any rear-loading cargo aircraft,
transforming the thousands of cargo planes currently in our inventory
into firefighting platforms. A commonly used cargo aircraft, the C-130H
& J, can carry 16 CAFFS boxes which totals over 4,000 gallons of
firefighting payload onto the target. With no aircraft modifications
needed, these systems are an affordable and immediately available tool
that effectively supports California's and our country's ability to
fight wildfires.
The CDS based CAFFS went through and passed a 2-year evaluation by
the Air National Guard at Yuma Proving Grounds Arizona. Allowing
agencies to utilize CAFFS through the standardized and proven US Air
Force CDS protocol would drastically increase the number of planes
available to combat wildfires safely and effectively.
It is important to note that using a CAFFS based system eliminates
the need for potentially the most harmful chemicals in traditional air
drop retardants. That is the ``anti-corrosion'' chemicals currently
required. This is because the CAFFS based alternative does not allow or
require the liquid payload to come into contact with the aircraft. This
CAFFS benefit also significantly, by orders of magnitude, reduces the
post mission maintenance costs and downtime on the aircraft that is
required to clean fire retardant residue from the aircraft.
Conclusion
It's well known that California has a history with destructive
wildfires, which is why the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, as well as the Forest Service have some of the largest and
most advanced firefighting operations in the nation. And yet, they are
still having to make the tragic decision as to which homes or
communities to save and which are left to the ravages of the wildfire.
While their dedication to this vital mission is unmatched, their
available resources have been stretched so thin that fire officials are
still being forced to make this choice. Regrettably, more and more
often the urgent calls from ground crews for aerial support are unable
to be filled due to lack of air resources.
According to federal data, two of California's largest wildfires in
2021 cost fire agencies more than $500 million each to suppress, and a
third of these fires cost more than a quarter-million dollars each to
fight. This doesn't include the costs in personal losses, the cost to
rebuild or the long-term costs to our environment.
H.R. 3389, the Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023
would provide the evaluation path and timeline for new technologies
like CAFFS to our firefighters and incident commanders. Thus, providing
fire crews with dependable cover from the air, providing a rapid surge
response as they battle to save live's, homes and businesses, and the
prevention of the profound and awful destruction of our forests and
environment.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you again for the invitation to appear today. I
look forward to your questions and the continued partnership to address
the pressing crisis of out-of-control wildfires.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Goddard.
And will the gentlelady from Colorado introduce our next
witness?
Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to
introduce the President of Colorado Association of Ski Towns
and former Mayor of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Jonathan Godes.
Thank you so much for being here today.
As a mayor, he and I worked together on several issues to
address challenges with living in the Western Slope, from
securing emergency funding after a mudslide in the Glenwood
Springs Canyon that closed interstate I-70 to supporting the
South Bridge project, and today discussing the critical housing
needs for firefighters and other communities containing Forest
Service land.
I am excited to continue to work with now-President Godes
in his new role, along with the gentleman and Ranking Member
from Colorado, to find creative solutions to address community
housing needs like the Forest Service Flexible Housing
Partnerships Act.
And I am also thrilled that today's legislative hearing
includes numerous pieces of legislation to advance active
forest management.
Mr. Mayor, Mr. President, I am so honored that you are here
in Washington, DC with us today, and thank you so much. You are
now recognized for your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN GODES, PRESIDENT OF COLORADO ASSOCIATION
OF SKI TOWNS (CAST), GLENWOOD SPRINGS CITY COUNCILOR, GLENWOOD
SPRINGS, COLORADO
Mr. Godes. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Boebert. Good
afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Jonathan Godes, and I am the
President of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns,
representing 41 municipalities and counties that are largely
dependent on tourism and the ski industry. I am also the former
Mayor and current City Councilor of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to be here today to
share the Association's robust support of the Forest Service
Flexible Housing Partnership Act.
Colorado's mountain communities such as Steamboat Springs,
Vail, Breckenridge, and my community of Glenwood Springs have
long been known for their natural beauty, unparalleled outdoor
recreational opportunities, and vibrant tourism industry. A
decade-long housing crisis threatens all sectors of our economy
and workforce, including seasonal and permanent employees of
the United States Forest Service.
Many essential workers, including outdoor recreation
industry professionals, healthcare workers, teachers,
firefighters, and service industry employees struggle to find
housing. This forces large proportions of our workforce to far-
flung bedroom communities up to 90 miles away, requiring long
daily commutes over high mountain passes, often during major
snowstorms, resulting in increased traffic congestion,
decreased quality of life, and a diminishing sense of
community. Businesses of all sizes and sectors struggle to fill
a long list of open positions, and high turnover depletes
public and private sector organizations of critical talent as
employees relocate elsewhere in search of an affordable place
to raise their families.
Our housing crisis is driven in part by lack of private
land available for residential development. Federal lands make
up more than 80 percent of our region's land mass. Forest
Service parcels located in or adjacent to town centers have the
potential to serve as incredibly valuable re-development
opportunities in our mountain communities. The reauthorization
of the enhanced leasing authority in the Farm Bill would allow
for continued partnership among local governments, private
industry, and the Forest Service as we work together to cut red
tape on very complicated but much-needed workforce housing
projects.
For example, Steamboat Springs, Routt County, and the Routt
National Forest are exploring residential development options
for vacant administrative parcels that could be home to 100
units of affordable housing. The town of Dillon and Summit
County, Colorado are making progress on the re-development of
an under-utilized and dilapidated work center into a 163-unit
housing project. In Eagle County, there is the potential to
build an additional 300 affordable housing units over six
parcels.
Projects like this are critical to our ability to address a
severe shortage of labor that threatens the profitability of
our small businesses and large ski industry partners alike.
They would furthermore provide sorely-needed housing
options for the U.S. Forest Service, where unfilled positions
hinder important work related to wildfire mitigation, natural
resource protection, and the administration of recreational
permits by private businesses.
For CAST member communities to pursue affordable housing
projects under this Act, in partnership with the U.S. Forest
Service, there are two elements of particular importance I
would like to speak about.
(1) and probably the most important, is the ability to do a
100-year lease term. Given the extremely high cost of
development in resort communities, this time frame on the lease
term is very necessary to secure the financing required by the
developers.
And then (2), to allow credit for off-site accommodation of
U.S. Forest Service needs. As an example, for a U.S. Forest
Service site in Aspen, construction of a warehouse, workshop,
visitor center, and administrative offices would be
incompatible with residential neighborhoods. The needs could be
better met on separate land owned by project partners,
potentially outside city limits. By receiving credit for making
these improvements for the Forest Service through a mutual
lease, the partners would have greater flexibility to develop
multiple parcels in the most efficient and effective ways.
We request that the local communities be granted the
ability to bring non-Federal lands to the table, and that
credit for U.S. Forest Service use of those lands be included
in the calculation of the local community contributions.
The Forest Service manages dozens of administrative sites
in Colorado that are vacant, under-utilized, neglected, and in
need of significant capital improvements for the purposes of
employee housing. By pursuing this renewed leasing authority,
we hope to better utilize Federal lands to address a crisis
that hobbles the public and private sector employers throughout
the region.
We respectfully request the Subcommittee's support in the
Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnership Act of 2023.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Godes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Godes, President,
Colorado Association of Ski Towns;
City Councilor, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
on H.R. ____, ``Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of
2023''
Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
members of the subcommittee. My name is Jonathan Godes and I am the
President of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns, representing 41
municipalities and counties that are largely dependent on tourism and
the ski industry. I am also the former Mayor and a current City
Councilor of Glenwood Springs Colorado. I am sincerely grateful for the
opportunity to be here today to share the association's robust support
for the Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act.
Colorado's mountain communities, such as Steamboat Springs, Vail,
Breckenridge, and my community of Glenwood Springs, have long been
known for their natural beauty, unparalleled outdoor recreational
opportunities, and vibrant tourism industry. A decades-long housing
crisis threatens all sectors of our economy and workforce, including
seasonal and permanent employees of the United States Forest Service.
Many essential workers, including outdoor recreation industry
professionals, healthcare workers, teachers, firefighters, and service
industry employees, struggle to find housing. This forces large
proportions of our workforces to far-flung bedroom communities up to 60
miles away, requiring long daily commutes over high mountain passes,
often during major snowstorms, resulting in increased traffic
congestion, decreased quality of life, and a diminished sense of
community. Businesses of all sizes and sectors struggle to fill long
lists of open positions, and high turnover depletes public- and
private-sector organizations of critical talent, as employees relocate
elsewhere in search of an affordable place to raise their families.
Our housing crisis is driven in part by a lack of private land
available for residential development. Federal lands make up more than
80% of our region's land mass. Forest Service parcels located in or
adjacent to town centers have the potential to serve as incredibly
valuable redevelopment opportunities in our mountain communities. The
reauthorization of the enhanced leasing authority in the Farm Bill
would allow for continued partnerships among local governments, private
industry, and the Forest Service as we work together on very
complicated but much-needed workforce housing projects.
For example, Steamboat Springs, Routt County and the Routt National
Forest are exploring residential development options for a vacant
administrative parcel that could be home to 100 units of affordable
housing. The Town of Dillon and Summit County, Colorado, are making
progress on the redevelopment of an underutilized and dilapidated work
center into a 163-unit housing project. In Eagle County, there is the
potential to build an additional 300 affordable housing units over six
parcels. Projects like these are critical to our ability to address the
severe labor shortages that threaten the profitability of our small
businesses and large ski industry partners alike. They would
furthermore provide sorely needed housing options for the U.S. Forest
Service, where unfilled positions hinder important work related to
wildfire mitigation, natural resource protection, and the
administration of recreational permits by private businesses.
For CAST member communities to pursue affordable housing projects
under this Act in partnership with the USFS, two elements are of
particular importance:
1. A 100-year lease term. Given the extremely high cost of
development in resort communities, this timeframe on the
lease term is necessary to secure the financing required by
developers.
2. Allow credit for off-site accommodation of U.S. Forest Service
needs. As an example, for a USFS site in Aspen,
construction of a warehouse, workshop, visitor center, and
administrative office would be incompatible within a
residential neighborhood. These needs could be better met
on separate land owned by project partners. By receiving
credit for making these improvements for the Forest Service
through a mutual lease, the partners would have greater
flexibility to develop multiple parcels in the most
efficient and effective ways. We request that local
communities be granted the ability to bring non-federal
lands to the table, and that credit for U.S. Forest Service
use of those lands be included in the calculation of local
community contributions.
The Forest Service manages dozens of administrative sites in
Colorado that are vacant, underutilized, neglected, and in need of
significant improvements for the purpose of employee housing. By
pursuing this renewed leasing authority, we hope to better utilize
federal lands to address a crisis that hobbles public- and private-
sector employers throughout the region. We respectfully request this
subcommittee's support of the Forest Service Flexible Housing
Partnerships Act of 2023.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Godes.
And next, Mr. McClintock, will you introduce our final
witness?
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very
honored to introduce Laurence Crabtree, who has devoted 50
years of his life, fully a half a century, to the U.S. Forest
Service.
He has a forestry degree from the University of Idaho, with
additional courses in advanced forest ecology from UC Berkeley.
He has worked in line positions as District Ranger in Nevada
and California, as Deputy Forest Supervisor, and as Forest
Supervisor in California. He has held every conceivable
position: Firefighter, Dozer Boss, Felling Boss, Logistics
Section Chief, Incident Commander, and was an Agency
Administrator on some of the largest fires in California.
I will simply say this: It was my pleasure to work with him
when he managed the El Dorado National Forest in California,
and he is the best damned forester I have ever met. Just
saying.
[Pause.]
STATEMENT OF LAURENCE CRABTREE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE (RETIRED),
BIEBER, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking
Member Neguse. I will try to make comments that substantiate
some of those warm introductory comments.
I did submit a written testimony, and I think I am just
going to try to visit for a bit. And if that gets a little too
difficult, I am going to tell some fire stories that I think
will illustrate the point I am trying to make.
For me, it isn't that hard to believe that we should be
putting out fires. I started doing that in 1971, and I pretty
well stuck with it for the next 50 years. I understand the need
to introduce fire into the forests. I have a solution for that.
My message is now is not the time to play around with fires.
And I am serious about saying that. I worked and lived in
California for many years, but I have also fought fire in many,
many other states, including some here in the East.
So, I think I need to say this, too. In preparation for
coming here I talked to a number of people both inside the
agency and outside the agency. And I think that is why I am
glad I am not a decision-maker here, I am a witness. This is a
kind of a divisive issue.
If you talk to a lot of Forest Service people, particularly
in the fire service, oh, we have to have all the tools, we
might need to make a resource decision here to let this fire go
until we get in a place where we can deal with it. I understand
that. But if I talk to people who are outside the forest
boundary, who maybe own land, or cabins, or ski areas, or power
lines, they are not so down with managing a fire for resource
benefits, and not even sure what that means, but it means that
we are not suppressing it.
And it wasn't that hard to do. I was doing it in the 1970s,
when I was a Forest Supervisor on the El Dorado. We met and
said with our partners, our Cal Fire partners, ``We are going
to put fires out on this forest. We have enough smoke in the
air in California. We have contributed enough carbon. We are
going to put fires out, all of them.'' And even with that, we
weren't entirely successful. So, I think that is an important
point.
My other point is there are people in the agency, and it
came up here earlier, ``Well, the Forest Service owns this
land.'' And part of my experience with the Congressman is it is
not Forest Service land, we manage it for the people. And if
you have that in your mind, that it isn't ours as a Forest
Service official, yes, we have responsibility, a lot of
responsibility on what to do there. But we have to keep our eye
on the people who own it around us. And right now, I haven't
talked to many people that think, oh, we will use alternative
suppression tactics and you might be at risk, we hope not. We
are successful 99 percent of the time. Well, we have a lot of
fires. One percent of a whole lot of fires isn't a good number.
So, what I am going to conclude with here really is now is
not the time to do anything but suppress fires, at least in the
West, I think. And if you want to have a resource benefit from
burning, then you can do the planning for it, and you can tell
the public why you are doing it, and you can tell the public
where the money is coming from to do it, and then you can have
a prescribed fire.
This idea that you would let a lightning strike decide
where on your forest was a priority is really hard for me to
grasp. And after 50 years of service, I should understand why
that is important. I think it is because it is natural, and the
forests really respond well to natural things like lightning.
And I am going to say that the forests aren't natural right
now, and this isn't the time to choose alternative strategies.
That is, I think, what I really wanted to say.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crabtree follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Laurence Crabtree,
Retiree, USDA Forest Service,
President/Owner Crabtree Forestry Consulting, LLC
on H.R. 934 and H.R. 188
Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse and members
of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify regarding federal
wildland fire suppression reform and Forest Service, and forest
management, specifically fuel reduction and thinning in California.
I serve as President/Owner of Crabtree Forestry Consulting LLC and
am a retired Forest Supervisor.
Body of the Testimony
I fully support H.R. 934 as it provides a clear message from the
elected officials in this body to the agencies regarding the urgency
and appropriateness of suppressing all wildfires. I can share numerous
examples of wildfires I was personally involved in where we chose to
allow the fires to burn under Control/Containment Guidelines. In most
cases these fires burned as planned, but in other cases they did not.
When fires escape their control lines the risk is transferred to
surrounding properties and the additional men and women who are
assembled to fight the, now larger, wildfire. I submit the following
eight points for support for this bill:
1. Firefighting resources are limited and valuable. Committing
personnel to monitoring fires that are not being actively
suppressed is unwise at this time.
2. Fires are more extreme across this country than has been
historical. Often I heard ``I have never seen wildfire
behavior like I saw on this fire''. Things are different
now. It is now particularly important now to put out
wildfires when they are small.
3. Fire behavior and prediction models are being refined but in some
cases did not accurately predict the observed behavior.
This is not the time to be managing unplanned ignitions.
4. I am very aware that at times this bill would put a burden on
firefighting resources.
5. The forests have had fire excluded for many decades. The
condition of the forests, particularly in the West is very
different than it was when the Forest Service began
managing public land. Many stands are overstocked and
contain numerous dead trees. This is not a reasonable place
to manage unplanned ignitions when in CA 8 of the 20
largest fires have occurred since 2020.
6. This bill simply directs the Forest Service to do what they used
to do, to direct resources to suppress wildfire and to do
prescribed burning with a higher level of planning.
7. Line officers can find themselves trying to find a balance
between the desires of forest fire restoration advocates
and fire suppression when there may not be the time and
information necessary to make a reasoned decision. I have
been in that position and I fully understand the importance
of returning fire to the landscape. It is essential.
8. The agencies have used many terms and phrases to communicate what
they are doing is exhausting and confusing. Fire Use,
Alternative Containment strategy, Confine/Control, Managed
for Resource Benefits are all used to describe to the
public what is going on. It may appear to most people that
the fire is being ``let burn''.
I fully support H.R. 188 as it provides a clear message from the
elected officials in this body to agency officials regarding the
urgency and appropriateness of fuel treatment. The bill is fully
supportive of the mission of the Forest Service. I submit the following
four points for support for this bill:
1. The agency appears to be struggling to deliver fuel treatment
expectations even though they have received millions of
dollars from Congress. This bill will provide additional
encouragement by giving them expanded use of Categorial
Exclusions.
2. It is critical that the work of fuel treatment be pursued
aggressively. Wildfires are depleting the public's fiber
resources and putting the agency's mission at risk.
3. The condition of the nation's forests is in urgent need of fuel
treatment and thinning. It is especially critical where
public lands are adjacent to communities and private lands,
particularly industrial forest lands.
4. Requiring the agency to consult with impacted parties,
representatives of local governments and interested
entities should not be an excessive burden to the agencies.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Crabtree. You are going to have
some questions here, so I would like to recognize Mr. Westerman
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you
to the witnesses again.
And Mr. Crabtree, I just want to follow up with a hearty
amen on what you just said, from one forester to the other.
There is a proper time and place for fire, but it is not when
your forests are overgrown, overstocked, dried out, and bug-
infested. And I think that the data shows we are in that
situation, especially in California and in a lot of the dry
forests.
And, unfortunately, the thing the Forest Service needs to
be doing is putting these fires out as soon as they start. We
have seen a lot of data where this is not only destroying
Forest Service property, it is also burning private property,
as well on backfires that they set.
But Ms. Duncan, good to see you again. And kind of in light
of what I was just saying about Mr. Crabtree's testimony, I
think we all want to see better pay for our wildland
firefighters, but we also want to see our forests managed
better. We want to keep these firefighters safe, and the best
way to keep them safe is keeping them from having to fight so
many fires. So, can you please talk about why it is important
for us to comprehensively address the challenges that wildland
firefighters face, including better pay, but also better
management on the ground?
Ms. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. Yes, a lot of
the things we are talking about today, a lot of people have
left out the wildland firefighters on the ground who are doing
the difficult work. And I want to thank Congressman Neguse for
once again reintroducing Tim's Act that has a comprehensive
package to take care of our Federal wildland firefighters who
show up every day.
Federal pay has lagged far behind much of the
municipalities and state agencies in the West, some in the
East, as well, and certainly even private, like PG&E and some
insurance companies are luring away Federal wildland
firefighters for better pay and benefits. So, in order for us
to retain and recruit Federal wildland firefighters, we really
need to look at comprehensive reforms in pay, housing,
benefits, both mental health benefits and physical health
benefits, that we are talking about here today. So, thank you
for that question.
Mr. Westerman. In your opinion, has the Forest Service been
transparent about its hiring practices with wildland
firefighters?
Ms. Duncan. Yes, we struggle sometimes with them providing
their numbers of actually who has been onboarded, because they
tend to look at how many offers are made. But because the
system takes so long to onboard people, a lot of them give up
and take positions other places because it just takes too long
and they need a job. So, anything we can do to streamline and
expedite Federal hiring will greatly affect recruiting new
firefighters into the workforce.
Mr. Westerman. And it is embarrassing that I even have to
talk about this in this Committee, but you may be aware that
the Committee passed legislation last week that would allow the
use of aerial fire retardant. It is hard to imagine that we
live in a world where people want to outlaw aerial fire
retardant. As a former firefighter, can you please talk about
the importance of aerial fire retardant as a tool in protecting
the health and safety of wildland firefighters? And you can be
brief on that one.
Ms. Duncan. Currently, I am an emergency hire. I still go
out and fight fires. It is a valuable tool in the toolbox. I
know there are concerns with some of the issues in the
retardant that can affect aquatic animals, but firefighters
take those into account, and we still need every tool in the
toolbox, and it does help keep firefighters and communities
safer.
Mr. Westerman. And Mr. Crabtree, as a former Forest Service
official, how far behind is the Forest Service in treating our
forests at the pace and skill necessary?
Mr. Crabtree. They are way behind. It is going to take
millions and millions of dollars, which are now coming into the
agency. I don't know in a number of years how far behind, but
it took 100 years to get where we are at, and I am not going to
say it is going to take 100 years to get out of it, but it is
going to take a while.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, and it really took probably the past 30
years to get in the more devastating position that we are in.
But I agree with you, it is going to take time to undo the
damage that has been done. But it is possible to do it, if we
can just let the forestry professionals do their job.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your questions. I would like to
recognize the Ranking Member now for his questions.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be brief.
I know votes were called, so I will skip the questions that
I had planned and just simply say, first, thank you to Mr.
Godes for being here, for your support of the Forest Service
Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 2023 and, of course, for
the work that you do at the Colorado Association of Ski Towns.
And as a Representative who represents many of the
communities, of course, that are members of your organization,
and home, in my view, the 2nd District, to the best ski resorts
and ski resort communities in the country, it is a pleasure to
be able to have you before this Committee.
And this bill, I think, couldn't be more important for the
reasons that you stated during the course of your testimony.
The ability to provide affordable housing options for our
Forest Service workers, for our wildland firefighters, for
first responders is very important, and I think this bill is a
common-sense way to accomplish that, and a way for us as a
Congress on a bipartisan basis to support those efforts at the
local level. So, proud of the bill, and again, grateful for you
being here.
And then, to Ms. Duncan, thank you for being here. It is
wonderful to see you again. Certainly, we are grateful for the
work that you are doing on behalf of wildland firefighters. And
I couldn't agree with you more in response to Chairman
Westerman's question. We all know there is a serious pay cliff
approaching. The clock is ticking, we have limited time to
address it. And I have been beating the drum here in Congress,
of course, for years with respect to the comprehensive reforms
that I think we need to get done, as described and articulated
in my bill, the Tim's Act, that we have spoken about and, of
course, you all have advocated for.
But in addition to that bill, we have to get this pay cliff
resolved. And I just hope that we can work on a bipartisan
basis, Mr. Chairman, both within this Subcommittee, within the
larger, Full Committee, and of course, with our partners in the
Government Oversight and Reform Committee to get this done,
because a lot of wildland firefighters across the country who
bravely sacrifice so much on our behalf are counting on us to
get it done, and to get it right.
So, no questions. But again, I just want to thank you, Ms.
Duncan, Mr. Godes, and all of the witnesses for their
testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. I would like to recognize Mr. McClintock for 5
minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crabtree, you are familiar with the Tamarack Fire in
the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. How difficult would it
have been to put that fire out during the 10 days that it
smoldered on a quarter acre?
Mr. Crabtree. I couldn't quite hear that.
Mr. McClintock. Oh, I am sorry. How difficult would it have
been to put out the Tamarack fire during the 10 days that it
smoldered on a quarter acre?
Mr. Crabtree. So, I wasn't there, and it is kind of hard
for me to say, but I would say it wouldn't have been that hard.
Mr. McClintock. How much do you think it would have cost?
Mr. Crabtree. A few thousand dollars.
Mr. McClintock. For a helicopter drop or two.
Mr. Crabtree. Bring a couple of people in.
Mr. McClintock. What is the cost of fighting a 17,000-acre
fire, which is what the Tamarack became?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, yes, it is going to be millions.
Mr. McClintock. Obviously, what would be cheaper, restoring
the 10 a.m. Rule and applying resources to put out a lot of
small fires immediately, or waiting until one of those fires
explodes out of control?
Mr. Crabtree. Yes, I think that is the issue here is the
risk is not high. The probability of an escape is not high. But
the risk can have a very, very significant price, particularly
for people and property owners outside the agency boundaries.
Mr. McClintock. Right. What role do local fire departments
have in combating incipient fires on Federal lands?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, we try to have agreements up front and
before the season starts to sort of match their capabilities
and their, I guess, interest in attacking fires.
But in California, there is a local closest responder kind
of rule. We will send the closest resources, normally, to the
fire that are available. And that should mean, if it is a Cal
Fire engine closest to the fire and it is on the forest, they
will send a Cal Fire engine.
Mr. McClintock. Have you heard of instances when local
firefighters were warned off initial attacks on fires on
Federal lands?
Mr. Crabtree. I have heard stories like that. But I can say
from my background, I can say no specifics that I know about
that that happened.
Mr. McClintock. Well, we heard about that on the Tamarack
fire. We heard about that on the Dufur Fire, which preceded it
in the same area by 20 years. And I have had local firefighters
make bitter complaints about that, not in the El Dorado
National Forest, but in others.
You tried for years to get the trestle project completed.
What obstacles did you face?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, it is almost difficult for me to go
back and visit the trestle fire because a few days ago I
visited the aftermath of the Caldor Fire, and it is just
sobering to see that much country, very productive timber land,
some of the most productive timber lands in California, and
there won't be a forest there for 400 years at least. And it is
as far as you can see. I mean, it is really unbelievable.
Mr. McClintock. And the trestle project would have
prevented that, would it not?
Mr. Crabtree. Well, it would have definitely--what it would
have done is given firefighters a more likely chance to be
successful. That is how I like to put it.
Mr. McClintock. And what obstacles did you face in trying
to get that----
Mr. Crabtree. Well, one of the obstacles of the trestle
project that took years to get through was it was one of the
hotspots or highest densities area for California spotted owls.
So, if you are an agency decision maker, you don't want to
start making decisions that lead a species toward being
endangered, so you want to leave the habitat----
Mr. McClintock. How is that spotted owl habitat today?
Mr. Crabtree. That is the thing. It is gone, and----
Mr. McClintock. Along with the town, I mean, I was there in
the downtown section. There is no point of reference.
Everything is leveled to the ground. Even folks that have lived
there their entire lives tell me they don't know their way
around because they can't find a single point of reference to
orient.
Mr. Crabtree. I agree. It is----
Mr. McClintock. Let me just very quickly put one final
question to you that I did to Mr. Heithecker. Why is it that
private landowners make money keeping their forests in healthy
condition, and today the Forest Service ends up losing money
and our forests are in terrible condition?
Mr. Crabtree. Oh, gosh, that is a difficult question.
Let's say the Forest Service can't harvest any tree over 30
inches in diameter is an example, without a lot of rationale
behind it. And that is just one thing that comes to mind.
Mr. McClintock. So, they don't have the freedom that
private landowners have to properly manage their lands because
of the laws that we have passed. Is that essentially it in a
nutshell?
Mr. Crabtree. It is, but I like to say also the Forest
Service has a little bit different mission than the private
landowners. They can harvest and make money and then turn that
land into something else, which is not uncommon. Our mission is
future generations.
Mr. McClintock. Right.
Mr. Crabtree. The needs of current and future generations.
So, we are just going to be a little different. Maybe we should
be a little closer together.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, well, I mean, we used to make a lot of
money on Federal timber auctions and keep the forest healthy
and resilient for generations to come. And, as you point out,
nature doesn't mind waiting centuries for a forest to regrow.
We mere mortals don't have that luxury.
Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I just have a couple of
questions, then we have to break. All of us have to get down
and cast a vote.
Mr. Goddard, you referenced the smoke that is coming. I
live in the upper Midwest. And boy, we are seeing it all over
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
The Forest Service, in the previous testimony, I had the
impression they expressed reservations about CAFFS. What is
going on there?
Mr. Goddard. Well, quite frankly, I would say what is going
on is they don't want to take the time to evaluate the system.
Certainly, we have experienced great success overseas. The
question about safety was answered in probably the most
detailed form by the Israeli Air Force.
I recall that back in 2018, tragically, we had a
firefighter killed from an air drop, a low air drop, and it
caused a revamp of all of the safety parameters for BLAT air
drops, or the large tanker air drops. And what we found is with
the CAFFS systems, less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the drop
zone is considered risk, whereas 100 percent of the drop zone
is considered risk with the tankers. And that is because the
payload is moving laterally by 80 to 100 miles an hour. So, the
CAFFS system is falling like rainfall, and you do have the
containers that come down, but they are well within the drop
zone area.
So, the great question is, why don't you want to look at it
if other countries around the world are using it, it is
produced in California? Why don't you just want to take a look?
Mr. Tiffany. Some of us think that there is this movement
to not suppress fire. Might that be part of it?
Mr. Goddard. Yes, sir. That is a great question. When I was
interviewed down in South America for Defensa, which is a large
defense magazine that covered our system going to Peru and
Uruguay and now into Chile, they asked that question. They
said, ``You make it in California. Why aren't you using it?''
And the commander that was with me said, ``Oh, I have that
answer. It is because we want to put fires out, and we want to
put them out quickly.'' And that was one of the aspects of our
system is a rapid response 24 hours a day, converting either--
--
Mr. Tiffany. So, you are selling these around the world,
but not in California.
Mr. Goddard. Correct.
Mr. Tiffany. And not in the United States.
Mr. Goddard. Correct.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. I just want to ask one final question.
Mr. Crabtree, you received the ultimate compliment when Mr.
McClintock said, ``You are the best damn forester.'' I used to
be a dam man. I used to think of myself as the best dam man
managing the Willow Reservoir in northern Wisconsin. So, I have
a little bit in common with you.
I can only take about a minute here. What has changed? I
always view 1988 as a watershed year for the United States
Forest Service and Federal Land Management. What happened? What
changed?
Mr. Crabtree. OK, I think the culture changed in the
agency, the climate has changed, and the public's tolerance for
forest management has changed. And now maybe that is going to
shift, but that is my answer to your question.
Mr. Tiffany. So, in other words, as a result of saying we
are going to make all these changes, now the American public
has, as so often happens, the pendulum swings, and as a result
we have seen these devastating fires. You said 400 years before
we are going to see forest back there.
Mr. Crabtree. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Is that just the sterilization of the ground?
Mr. Crabtree. No, it is 400 years before you see a forest.
You will find trees there in 100 years. Forests are
complicated, and they have large trees and small trees. And
there are a lot of things going on in a forest. When I think of
a forest, it is not just a row of pine that is 80 years old.
Mr. Tiffany. Sure.
Mr. Crabtree. I mean, that was what I was thinking there.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. We have to wrap this up. I would like to
thank all the witnesses.
Thank you so much for taking the time to come here. We
really appreciate it.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for you, and we will ask that you respond to those in writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday,
May 26. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business
days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]