    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ____, TO EXPEDITE
                      UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
                      ACT OF 1969 AND IMPROVE FOREST MANAGE-
                      MENT ACTIVITIES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
                      LANDS, ON PUBLIC LANDS UNDER THE JURISDIC-
                      TION OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
                      AND ON TRIBAL LANDS TO RETURN RESILIENCE
                      TO OVERGROWN, FIRE-PRONE FORESTED LANDS,
                      AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                           Wednesday, April 17, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-111

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

     [GRAPHIC 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
    55-446 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

      BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                        DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
    Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
    Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
    Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
    Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
    Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
    Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
    Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
    Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
    Mike Collins, GA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL
    John Duarte, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                        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 Wednesday, April 17, 2024........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Wisconsin.........................................     1
        Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Colorado................................................    12

        Panel I:

        Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas..........................................     3
        Peters, Hon. Scott H., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Panel II:

        French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
          Forest Service, Washington, DC.............................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     9

        Panel III:

        Downey, Hannah, Policy Director, Property and Environment
          Research Center, Bozeman, Montana..........................    44
            Prepared statement of....................................    45
        Parma, Jim, Eastern Fiber Manager, Bell Lumber & Pole,
          President, Federal Forest Resource Coalition, New Brighton,
          Minnesota..................................................    53
            Prepared statement of....................................    55
        Barrett, Kimiko, Wildfire Research and Policy Lead,
          Headwaters Economics, Bozeman, Montana.....................    57
            Prepared statement of....................................    59
        Desautel, Cody, President, Intertribal Timber Council,
          Executive Director, Confederated Tribes of the Colville
          Reservation, Nespelem, Washington..........................    62
            Prepared statement of....................................    63

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record....    76

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Neguse

            The Wilderness Society, Letter to the Committee..........    14
            Multiple Civil Justice Groups, Letter to the Committee...    18
            Multiple Environmental Groups, Letter to the Committee...    20
            Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological
              Diversity, Letter to the Committee.....................    24

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Peters

            Scripps Institution of Oceanography, ``Fine Particulate
              Matter from Wildfire Smoke More Harmful than Pollution
              from Other Sources,'' March 5, 2021....................     6

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ____, TO EXPEDITE UNDER
       THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 AND IMPROVE FOREST
    MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS, ON PUBLIC LANDS
    UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND ON TRIBAL
    LANDS TO RETURN RESILIENCE TO OVERGROWN, FIRE-PRONE FORESTED LANDS, AND
                               FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 17, 2024

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Tiffany, Stauber, Curtis, Bentz,
    Westerman; Neguse, and Leger Fernandez.
        Also present: Representative Peters.

        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 consider a discussion
    draft of forest management legislation brought forward by the
    Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman.
        I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Peters, be allowed to participate in today's hearing from
    the dais.
        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 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. Today's draft legislation is the culmination
    of the House Committee on Natural Resources efforts this
    Congress to advance innovative solutions to increase the pace
    and scale of forest management, protect vulnerable communities
    from catastrophic wildfire, and restore health and resiliency
    to our nation's ailing forests and Federal lands.
        Our Committee has dedicated considerable time this Congress
    to examining this historical crisis, which has torched millions
    of acres, destroyed lives and communities, charred wildlife
    habitat beyond repair, and degraded our air and water quality.
    We have heard from experts and stakeholders, both here in DC
    and at home, and have considered many individual pieces of
    legislation that form the basis of the comprehensive solution
    before us today.
        The overwhelming message that we have heard is that the
    removal of active forest management from our forests has caused
    this mess, and our present efforts to reverse the awful
    trajectory are not working. Despite historic levels of spending
    to try to address this crisis, the simple fact remains that not
    enough work is being done on the ground at the pace or scale
    that is truly needed. We know what needs to be done to fix this
    problem, and the important tools provided by this discussion
    draft would enable the Forest Service to immediately begin
    treatment work on millions of acres of fire-prone Federal
    lands.
        This legislation will empower streamlined forest management
    projects to take place on a landscape scale in the areas at the
    highest risk for catastrophic wildfire. Across the country,
    over 1 billion acres of land--billion with a B--are at risk of
    wildfire. We need to prioritize forest management projects in
    the areas with the highest risk to communities and watersheds,
    or where the risk of severe fire is so great that there may be
    forest conversion. That is exactly what this legislation does.
    We have heard time and time again that the Forest Service
    doesn't need any new streamlined authorities, and simply needs
    to use the tools the agency already has. Again, this bill does
    exactly that by mandating the use of streamlined authorities
    such as existing categorical exclusions.
        The bill also further incentivizes collaboration with state
    and tribal governments by removing inflexible requirements that
    limit categorical exclusions to a paltry 3,000 acres when those
    authorities are used in collaboration with a state governor or
    Indian tribe. With more than 117 million acres of Federal lands
    at high risk of catastrophic wildfire, we cannot afford to only
    be taking 3,000-acre bites of the apple at a time.
        I would like to highlight several of my priorities that are
    included in this discussion draft.
        First, in recognition that the size and scope of this
    crisis cannot be tackled alone, this discussion draft includes
    several provisions that will encourage coordination and empower
    cross-boundary forest management with states, tribes, counties,
    and other stakeholders. This includes providing full
    partnership to tribes and counties under Good Neighbor
    Authority, a very successful forest management tool used in
    Wisconsin.
        Second, the bill supports the forest products industry by
    codifying the 20-year stewardship contracting, and raising the
    minimum threshold for advertising competitive timber sales.
    Since 2000, over 1,500 sawmills have closed or significantly
    curtailed operations across the country. In western states with
    large footprints of Federal land, the lack of reliable timber
    coming from Federal forests is consistently cited as a reason
    for these closures and curtailments.
        Just a few days ago, another sawmill operating in South
    Dakota announced 50 workers would be laid off as a direct
    result of reductions to the Black Hills National Forest timber
    sale program. We know from experience that once we lose a mill,
    that infrastructure is gone. That locks us into a vicious cycle
    where Federal forests go unmanaged and catastrophic wildfires
    are allowed to wreak absolute havoc on these landscapes.
        Don't take my word for it. Just last week, Forest Service
    Chief Randy Moore told the Senate Appropriations Committee
    during a budget hearing that, ``I can tell you with certainty
    if we do not have a vibrant timber industry we are not going to
    be able to manage our forests and make them healthy and
    resilient.''
        Third, this bill also addresses obstructionist litigation
    which remains a major hindrance to active forest management
    efforts. In the last decade, lawsuits seeking to block forest
    management projects have tied up roughly 1.8 billion board feet
    of timber. This proposal includes a permanent fix to the
    disastrous Cottonwood Decision, which has been one of the most
    common sources of litigation blocking forest management.
        Finally, this discussion draft will foster greater
    transparency and accountability from our Federal land managers.
    I am pleased that my legislation, the ACRES Act, is included in
    this bill. This provision will require land managers to produce
    yearly hazardous fuels reduction reports based on the actual
    number of acres that they treated over the past year, without
    double counting any acreage.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.
        And I am now going to recognize the Chairman of the Full
    Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you,
    Mr. French, for being here today. We look forward to the
    testimony.
        This is obviously a very important issue to me when we
    consider this discussion draft of a comprehensive forest
    management bill. And I will tell you, this is not just
    something that came up recently. It is a product of years of
    work that included site visits, working with Members across the
    aisle, Members on and off this Committee and even utilizing
    recommendations from the bipartisan Wildland Fire Commission
    report.
        For some reason, forests over time have become a divisive
    issue in our country. And I have always said that forests
    should be the least divisive thing that we talk about.
    Everybody benefits from a healthy forest. We know that we get
    clean air, we get clean water, we get wildlife habitat, we get
    places to recreate. And there are so many positive things about
    a forest that it is almost a bit heartbreaking that it has
    become a divisive issue in Congress. It is something we should
    all work towards.
        Last year, we took a little bipartisan trip up to New
    Haven, Connecticut. Republicans, Democrats, folks from the
    Forest Service got on a train here in DC and went to
    Connecticut, and we visited the Yale School Forest, which I
    would contend is the oldest managed forest with records on it
    in the country. Gifford Pinchot founded the Yale School of
    Forestry, and this, I think, 8,000 to 10,000-acre forest up in
    northeast Connecticut is a model for what good forest
    management looks like.
        And some of the feedback I got after the trip was how
    complicated it was for the Yale folks to manage this forest,
    and the only thing they had to worry about was the science. How
    do we do the management? And it was still a challenge to keep
    invasive species out, to restore forest health, and all they
    were dealing with was employing the basic best science
    practices.
        So, you take those challenges and you put them on public
    lands, and you cover that with a lot of bureaucracy and a lot
    of outside influences, and it becomes a very difficult job to
    take care of these Federal lands that I think we all cherish.
    And I want to say how much I appreciate folks in the Forest
    Service who just want to do their work, they want to be able to
    go out and manage, they want to have healthy forests. And I
    have had a great relationship with the Forest Service on the
    two national forests in my district, the Ouachita and the
    Ozark, and they have done some very innovative things.
        On the trip to Connecticut last year, we had Homer Wilkes,
    we had Troy Heithecker, who came off of the Ouachita National
    Forest, and I think it was great for us just to get out and see
    the forest. And that is what happens when you do that, people
    realize this shouldn't be a divisive issue. We have had other
    trips across the country.
        I am glad that my friend, Scott Peters, is here today. He
    has been a strong voice and a leader on the Save Our Sequoias
    Act, which came about by taking a trip out to Sequoia National
    Park and seeing the devastation that happened in just a 2- or
    3-year period where we lost about 20 percent of the only giant
    sequoias on the planet that grow in the western slopes of the
    Sierra Nevadas.
        And because of catastrophic wildfire, we lost about 20
    percent of those trees, and a tree that we should never lose to
    wildfire. These trees were built for fire. But if you suppress
    fire long enough, and the white fir and the pines grow up in
    the tips of them, get up into the lower canopy of the sequoias
    and the fire comes through, that is classic ladder fuel, and it
    actually wiped out groves of sequoias that had survived
    hundreds, if not thousands of fires in their lifetime.
        We can do better than that, and that is the purpose of this
    legislation. It is simply to give the Forest Service and
    Federal land managers the tools to go out and do the work
    without all the impediments that they face as they try to do
    the work under the current conditions. It is about developing
    new markets. We have a biochar demonstration project language
    in here.
        If we don't manage, if we don't have markets to put this
    material into, if they could go out and manage, the first thing
    they would ask us is, what do we do with all this low-value
    material that is coming off the forest? You know, pre-European
    settlement, the West had about 64 trees per acre and now there
    are over 300 trees per acre. You can't get to 64 trees per acre
    overnight, and these are obviously bigger trees, but we can do
    a lot better than the overstock stands that we have.
        I could say a lot more, and I will throughout the hearing,
    but I want to yield time to the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Peters, for any opening statement he may have.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT H. PETERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Peters. Thank you so much, Chairman Tiffany and
    Chairman Westerman, for allowing me to participate today, and
    my colleagues for not objecting. Thank you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Peters. I am here because catastrophic wildfires driven
    by decades of poor land management and a warming planet are now
    the single largest source of particulate pollution in the
    United States, creating more than 40 percent of the nation's
    fine particulate matter air pollution.
        And in the year 2020, California wildfires released more
    CO2 than the state's entire power sector. Wildfire
    smoke is more harmful to human health, compared to other
    pollution sources, and tens of millions of Americans are at
    risk of experiencing high levels of exposure. Vulnerable
    populations like infants, the elderly, and people with pre-
    existing health conditions, such as respiratory or
    cardiovascular disease, are at higher risk of negative health
    effects from wildfire smoke, and extreme smoke events are
    already increasing emergency room visits at hospitals.
        While my home state of California had a relatively quiet
    2023 fire season, it follows the worst 2 years of wildfire on
    record, where 19,000 square kilometers of forest burned. That
    is 10 times the historical average because we don't have
    natural fires anymore, we have catastrophes. Fires have become
    more intense, frequent, and widespread. They are endangering
    communities, watersheds, and ecosystems across the West.
        We have to do better. We have to do something different.
    So, I just am so thankful that Mr. Westerman has presented this
    discussion draft as an encouraging way to start to tackle the
    problem, and I appreciate the Chairman's interest in taking
    feedback, hearing from those that have concerns, and working to
    craft the best product possible.
        But I encourage all those listening today to tell us how we
    can make the bill better. It doesn't help to just say you don't
    like it but we are not going to do anything, because current
    conditions are intolerable. I am not on this Committee, but I
    made my way down here, I made some time on this because this is
    an environmental catastrophe, and we can't just do the same
    thing.
        So, this discussion that we are starting off today is
    absolutely essential. If you don't like what is in the bill, if
    you could help us make it better, let's do that. We have to
    preserve American ecosystems. We all have a responsibility to
    work together in a constructive way. There is nothing
    inherently about forests that has to be partisan, and that is
    why I like working with Bruce Westerman, as we did on sequoias.
        Mr. Chair, before I yield I would like to enter into the
    record, without objection, a 2021 study from the Scripps
    Institution of Oceanography in my district, entitled, ``Fine
    Particulate Matter from Wildfire Smoke More Harmful than
    Pollution from Other Sources.''
        And with that I look forward to working with my colleagues
    on both sides of the aisle across all the Committees of
    jurisdiction. But again, to see if we can't make some progress
    on this, save our ecosystems, and save some lives.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The information follows:]

    FINE PARTICULATE MATTER FROM WILDFIRE SMOKE MORE HARMFUL THAN POLLUTION
    FROM OTHER SOURCES

    Researchers call for revisions to air-quality monitoring guidelines to
    consider the sources of emissions

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography, March 5, 2021 by Robert Monroe

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/fine-particulate-matter-wildfire-smoke-
    more-harmful-pollution-other-sources

                                     *****

    Researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego
    examining 14 years of hospital admissions data conclude that the fine
    particles in wildfire smoke can be several times more harmful to human
    respiratory health than particulate matter from other sources such as
    car exhaust. While this distinction has been previously identified in
    laboratory experiments, the new study confirms it at the population
    level.

    This new research work, focused on Southern California, reveals the
    risks of tiny airborne particles with diameters of up to 2.5 microns,
    about one-twentieth that of a human hair. These particles--termed
    PM2.5--are the main component of wildfire smoke and can
    penetrate the human respiratory tract, enter the bloodstream and impair
    vital organs.

    The study appears March 5 in the journal Nature Communications by
    researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Herbert
    Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at UC San
    Diego. It was funded by the University of California Office of the
    President, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
    the Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center for Advancing Minority Aging
    Research at UC San Diego and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
    Assessment.

    To isolate wildfire-produced PM2.5 from other sources of
    particulate pollution, the researchers defined exposure to wildfire
    PM2.5 as exposure to strong Santa Ana winds with fire
    upwind. A second measure of exposure involved smoke plume data from
    NOAA's Hazard Mapping System.

    A 10 microgram-per-cubic meter increase in PM2.5 attributed
    to sources other than wildfire smoke was estimated to increase
    respiratory hospital admissions by 1 percent. The same increase, when
    attributed to wildfire smoke, caused between a 1.3 to 10 percent
    increase in respiratory admissions.

    Corresponding author Rosana Aguilera said the research suggests that
    assuming all particles of a certain size are equally toxic may be
    inaccurate and that the effects of wildfires--even at a distance--
    represent a pressing human health concern.

    ``There is a daily threshold for the amount of PM2.5 in the
    air that is considered acceptable by the county and the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA),'' said Aguilera, a postdoctoral scholar at
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography. ``The problem with this standard
    is that it doesn't account for different sources of emission of
    PM2.5.''

    As of now, there is not a consensus as to why wildfire PM2.5
    is more harmful to humans than other sources of particulate pollution.
    If PM2.5 from wildfires is more dangerous to human lungs
    than that of ambient air pollution, the threshold for what are
    considered safe levels of PM2.5 should reflect the source of
    the particles, especially during the expanding wildfire season. This is
    especially relevant in California and other regions where most
    PM2.5 is expected to come from wildfires.

    In Southern California, the Santa Ana winds drive the most severe
    wildfires and tend to blow wildfire smoke towards populated coastal
    regions. Climate change delays the start of the region's rainy season,
    which pushes wildfire season closer to the peak of the Santa Ana winds
    in early winter. Additionally, as populations grow in wildland urban
    interface areas, the risks of ignitions and impacts of wildfire and
    smoke increase for those who live inland and downwind.

    Coauthor Tom Corringham points to the implications for climate change:
    ``As conditions in Southern California become hotter and drier, we
    expect to see increased wildfire activity. This study demonstrates that
    the harm due to wildfire smoke may be greater than previously thought,
    bolstering the argument for early wildfire detection systems and
    efforts to mitigate climate change.''

                                     ______

        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your opening comments, Mr.
    Chairman, and we are going to move on to our second panel.
        Let me remind our witness that per 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, please 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.
        I would like to introduce Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief of
    the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service.
        Deputy Chief French, it is good to have you back before the
    Committee. You have 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
              SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. French. Thank you, Chairman and Chairman. I appreciate
    the time to be here today. My name is Chris French. I am the
    Deputy Chief of the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest
    Service.
        I really appreciate the space to have to talk on this
    discussion draft today because these issues, the long-term
    sustainability of our forests and reducing the risk that those
    forests create through wildfire to our communities, is our
    central focus right now. These are at the front and center of
    all of our leadership, our foresters, our biologists, our other
    resource management professionals as they focus on how do you
    create long-term sustainability of our forests that are
    resilient and that are not as susceptible to wildfire, insects,
    disease, and the other stressors we are seeing being brought on
    by climate change right now.
        In my 32 years of working for the Forest Service in
    multiple disciplines, I have not seen us at such an important
    inflection point in terms of the health and the long-term
    sustainability of these forests and the communities that depend
    on them, whether it is for water, for jobs, or just having a
    place where they don't feel threatened by the very forests that
    surround them.
        Our national forests and grasslands span 193 million acres
    in 42 states and Puerto Rico. They are lands where people
    recreate, fish, hunt, and hike. They provide clean water,
    support livestock grazing, mineral and energy development, and
    forest products. They are an important touchstone for
    Indigenous people, and our multiple use management supports
    local economies throughout the country.
        All told, our work creates hundreds of thousands of jobs
    and contributes nearly $44 billion to our nation's gross
    domestic product. This includes uses from livestock grazing,
    forest products, mineral and energy development, and probably
    most significantly through recreation. However, as we all know,
    the forests that provide all of these benefits are at risk from
    the wildfire crisis we now face. Fueled by our changing
    climate, fire exclusion, insect and disease outbreaks, and
    expanding urbanization we are experiencing rapidly shifting
    environmental conditions and longer, hotter, and drier wildfire
    seasons.
        To address these challenges, the Forest Service is
    implementing our wildfire crisis strategy to reduce the risk of
    catastrophic fire threatening our communities and forests. We
    are seeing real results. And as the Chief testified earlier
    this week, we are seeing decreases in risk to communities and
    large returns on our investments. We are focused on forest
    restoration and resilience of those forests and communities.
        In short, we know that we must do the right work where it
    matters the most with our partners in the industries that we
    work with.
        The draft bill that we are going to discuss here today
    represents a good opportunity for Congress to advance the
    dialog on supporting sound forest management and wildfire risk
    reduction, and to build on support previously provided through
    efforts such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the
    Inflation Reduction Act, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act,
    and several farm bills.
        With certain exceptions, the United States Department of
    Agriculture has previously testified before this Subcommittee
    and its counterpart in the Senate in support of the goals and
    intent of several provisions that are in this draft bill. There
    are certain provisions, especially those related to
    environmental compliance, where the Administration looks
    forward to the opportunity to work with the Committee to
    understand the intent and the implications of the language. And
    USDA does not support the provision that would require the
    Forest Service to attempt to extinguish all fires within 24
    hours of detection.
        We appreciate the Committee's engagement in these important
    issues affecting the long-term health and sustainability of our
    nation's forests and communities. It is worth us working
    together. It is worth us coming to agreement, problem-solving,
    because we have common goals. We look forward to that
    discussion, and we look forward to this Committee's continued
    support for our forests and the communities in the long run.
        I would be happy to take questions. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Chris French, Deputy Chief, National Forest
             System, U.S. Department of Agriculture--Forest Service

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, regarding
    various Federal land management bills.
        USDA has previously testified on several bills with language
    similar or identical to the provisions in this discussion draft. While
    we are continuing to analyze the discussion draft for additional
    feedback, we welcome the opportunity to engage with the Committee on
    these issues of mutual interest and to share our appreciation for your
    continued support of the mission of the Forest Service.
        The Forest Service cares for the nation's forests and grasslands
    for the benefit of all people. The agency manages 154 national forests,
    20 national grasslands, and 1 tallgrass prairie to sustain both healthy
    landscapes and prosperous rural communities. The agency's top priority
    is to maintain and improve the health, diversity, and productivity of
    the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of current and
    future generations.
        The agency's forest management focuses on restoring ecosystems,
    reducing wildland fire risk, maintaining forest health, and supplying
    sustainable forest products. Our management ensures that our national
    forests and grasslands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient
    to climate change. Healthy, resilient forests are crucial to ensure
    that the American public continues to have clean water and air,
    wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities.
        Several of the provisions in this bill relate directly to the
    Forest Service's approach to wildland fire response. Our priority is to
    protect the health, safety and well-being of the fire management
    community and the public we serve. Federal agencies, Tribal nations,
    State and local partners, private industry, and volunteers stand
    together, ready to respond to wildfires again this year.
        Where wildfires threaten lives, communities, and homes, we will
    actively use all available strategies and tools to suppress those fires
    and their growth. Our focus is on making sound, science-based, risk-
    informed decisions.
        Providing critical wildfire response is essential to protect
    communities from exceedingly large fires that display extreme fire
    behavior. We are witnessing unprecedented wildfire behavior, fueled by
    overly dense forests and disrupted fire regimes, amplified by severe
    drought, climate change and extreme weather. Risk from these conditions
    is increased by continued development in and around forests. Fighting
    fire in these conditions means we need to make strategic, risk-based,
    and often difficult decisions about where and how to deploy
    firefighters and aviation assets safely.
        The Forest Service's Wildfire Crisis Strategy, launched in 2022,
    combines an historic investment of Congressional funding in fire
    science research with community wildfire risk planning in an
    unprecedented effort to confront the nation's growing wildfire crisis.
    Leveraging contributions from States, Tribes, local governments, and
    partners, the Strategy dramatically increases the scale and pace of
    forest health treatments focused on the highest risk areas in the
    country. As part of this effort, 21 priority landscapes within high-
    risk firesheds have been identified; our work in these areas is
    mitigating wildfire risk for around 550 communities in the western
    United States.
        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.
    Discussion Draft Summary

        The discussion draft of H.R. ____ aims to ``improve forest
    management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands
    under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal
    lands'' through a variety of new programs and amendments to existing
    authorities. The draft bill compiles several separate bills related to
    wildfire risks, forest health, collaborative forest management, and
    other provisions included in the following titles.
    TITLE I--LANDSCAPE-SCALE RESTORATION
    Subtitle A--Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority
            Firesheds

        Subtitle A would provide for the designation of certain areas as
    fireshed management areas, provide for a publicly accessible Fireshed
    Registry including interactive geospatial data, and establish an
    interagency Fireshed Center. This subtitle would also direct the
    Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior
    (``Secretaries'') to carry out fireshed management projects in
    designated fireshed management areas and enter into a shared
    stewardship agreement with a Governor within 90 days of receiving a
    request from the Governor.
    Subtitle B--Expanding Collaborative Tools to Reduce Wildfire Risk and
            Improve Forest Health

        Subtitle B would require that Tribes and counties (in addition to
    States) retain receipts under a good neighbor agreement and would allow
    the retained receipts to be used for restoration services on Federal or
    non-Federal land. Subtitle B would also extend the maximum term for
    agreements and contracts executed under the Stewardship End Result
    Contracting Projects authority from 10 years to 20 years and would
    direct the Chief to pay a 10 percent cancellation or termination cost
    for any long-term agreements or contracts that are canceled or
    terminated. Further, this subtitle would direct the Secretaries to
    jointly establish intra-agency strike teams to address NEPA reviews,
    consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act and under
    the Endangered Species Act, site preparation work, and implementation
    of fireshed management projects. This subtitle would raise the
    threshold at which timber sales must be advertised from a sale value of
    $10,000 to $55,000. The subtitle would also direct the Secretary of
    Agriculture to increase this threshold annually based on the Consumer
    Price Index of All Urban Consumers published by the Department of
    Labor.
    Subtitle C--Addressing Frivolous Litigation

        Subtitle C would prohibit a court from enjoining fireshed
    management projects under this bill if the court determines that the
    plaintiff's claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits. This subtitle
    also pertains to Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, stating
    that the agency is not required to reinitiate consultation under the
    ESA on a land management plan when a new species is listed, critical
    habitat is designated, or new information becomes available. Further,
    Subtitle C would establish a discretionary arbitration pilot program as
    an alternative dispute resolution process for objections to forest
    management activities undertaken pursuant to the Act.
    Title II: Protecting Communities in the Wildland-Urban Interface

        The second title of the draft bill would establish an interagency
    program to support coordination in reducing the risk of fires in the
    wildland-urban interface. This title would also require the Forest
    Service to use all available resources to extinguish wildfires within
    24 hours of detection on National Forest System lands. This title would
    also establish a program for the purpose of testing and advancing
    innovative designs to create wildfire resistant structures and
    communities. Additionally, this title would amend the Federal Lands
    Policy and Management Act of 1976 by increasing the required right-of-
    way for certain electric transmission and distribution facilities.
    Further, this title would establish a statutory categorical exclusion
    for certain electric utility line rights-of-way and related matters
    under the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as declaring these
    activities exempt from ESA and the National Historic Preservation Act
    consultation requirements and any other applicable law. Finally, this
    title would require the development of an interagency strategy to
    enhance the domestic supply chain of seeds.
    Title III: Transparency and Technology

        The third title of the draft bill would establish a program for
    certain Federal agencies to enter into partnerships to carry out
    demonstration projects to support the development and commercialization
    of biochar. The title would also require Federal agencies to publish an
    annual report on the number of acres on which hazardous fuels
    activities were carried out in the previous year. Additionally, this
    title would establish a testbed pilot program for new and innovative
    wildfire prevention, detection, communication, and mitigation
    technologies. Further, this title would require the Government
    Accountability Office to conduct a study evaluating the effectiveness
    of Forest Service wildland firefighting operations and the suitability
    and feasibility of establishing a new Federal agency with
    responsibility for responding to and suppressing wildland fire on
    Federal lands. Finally, this title would require the Forest Service to
    study potential locations for a western headquarters for the agency.
    Views

        USDA has previously testified before this Subcommittee and the
    Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on several of the
    provisions of the discussion draft of H.R. ____ and appreciates the
    interest from the Committee in working with the Forest Service to
    address concerns previously identified in testimony, as well as areas
    identified in new provisions of the draft bill that would benefit from
    further analysis and discussion.
        While we would appreciate the opportunity to continue working with
    the Committee to analyze this discussion draft and provide feedback, we
    would like to take the opportunity to note some of the positions and
    feedback that we have provided in previous testimony or technical
    assistance.
        USDA supports expanding the authority to retain receipts to Tribes
    and counties as proposed in Section 111. This authority would
    significantly increase county and Tribal participation in agreements
    executed under the Good Neighbor Authority, which would help us carry
    out needed forest management activities. The ability to use this
    revenue on non-Federal land would facilitate important cross-boundary
    restoration treatments.
        On a number of provisions, USDA supports the intent of the language
    but would appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the
    committee to ensure workable implementation of the bill language. USDA
    supports the extension of a maximum term of agreements and contracts
    executed under the Stewardship End Results Contracting Projects
    authority as proposed in Section 112. USDA also supports raising the
    threshold at which timber sales must be advertised from a sale value of
    $10,000 to $55,000 as proposed in Section 114. USDA supports the intent
    of establishing interagency strike teams as proposed in section 113.
    For all these sections, however, we would like to continue to work with
    the Committee to address concerns and provide technical assistance to
    ensure workable implementation of the bill language.
        USDA would like to work with the Committee to better understand the
    intent of several provisions related to implementing the National
    Environmental Policy Act, judicial review, and a pilot arbitration
    program to help the Committee meet its intent and ensure any agency
    concerns are addressed.
        Section 122 exempts the Forest Service from reinitiating ESA
    consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
    Marine Fisheries Service (Services) on plans that have already been
    subject to consultation at the time they were approved, revised, or
    amended when a species is subsequently listed, critical habitat is
    designated, or new information concerning a listed species or critical
    habitat becomes available.
        The USDA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) realizes ESA
    consultation is an issue with a number of equities that need to be
    addressed. We are committed to continuing to work together towards a
    legislative solution that allows for timely decision making, while
    maintaining the important wildlife protections afforded by the
    Endangered Species Act. As drafted, the Administration has concerns and
    looks forward to working with the Committee and the bill sponsor to
    address concerns with the bill. We want to ensure clarity on how
    consultation for specific actions or projects can provide the American
    public with confidence that the agency is upholding its
    responsibilities to protect listed species and their habitat while
    providing the many benefits we gain by managing our forests.
        Section 302 would establish a requirement for Federal agencies to
    publish an annual report on the number of acres on which hazardous
    fuels activities were carried out. The agency strives to improve its
    metrics in order to provide transparency and accountability for each
    dollar the agency receives to reduce wildfire risk and to accurately
    describe the outcomes from program implementation. The agency has a
    complex set of metrics for the work performed in the hazardous fuels
    program to reduce wildfire risk, restore and maintain fire adaptive
    ecosystems, and improve forest health. Currently the agency reports the
    number of acres invested in for treatment, the number of acres where
    treated has been implemented and the number of acres treated to
    maintain a desired condition. We continue to learn the best ways to
    incorporate outcome-based performance metrics into our programs using
    the best available science. We are working hard to prototype new
    outcome-based metrics. The agency currently has sufficient data, and we
    are working to incorporate those data into our science-based models.
    USDA would like to work with the Committee to better understand the
    intent of section 302.
        Section 202 would require the Forest Service to use all available
    resources to carry out wildfire suppression with the purpose of
    extinguishing wildfires detected on National Forest System lands no
    later than 24 hours after they are detected. The agency has serious
    concerns that this language would remove critical resource management
    and firefighting tools and tactics from interagency responders who have
    to make life and death decisions. In addition, the agency has a history
    associated with a policy that required all fires be suppressed by 10am
    the next morning following detection. This policy had a direct result
    in the removal of fire from ecosystems which increased the number of
    trees and fuels in those ecosystems. The increase in fuels increased
    fire intensity and severity which increased fire risk to communities.
    Therefore, we cannot support this section.
        The agency must continue to use every tool available, including the
    use of managed fire in certain circumstances, to reduce current and
    future adverse impacts from wildfire, consistent with agency policy and
    interagency response. Under 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 are tailored
    to fire and fuel conditions, weather, values at risk, and resource
    availability.
        USDA looks forward to further reviewing the draft bill to better
    understand how these issues have been addressed, as well as to analyze
    the full implications of new provisions. As we continue this review, we
    would appreciate the opportunity to provide additional recommendations
    and comments, including technical amendments, before the Committee
    moves forward with this legislation.
    Conclusion

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the draft bill. USDA
    looks forward to continued work with the Committee and bill sponsors as
    they further develop the legislation.

                                     ______

        Mr. Westerman [presiding]. Thank you, Deputy Chief French.
        Before we go to questions I want to give the Ranking Member
    of the Subcommittee, Mr. Neguse, an opportunity for an opening
    statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Today's hearing gives our Subcommittee another opportunity
    to continue the critical discussion about our national response
    to the wildfire crisis.
        As we know well, back in my district, just by way of
    example, in Colorado, climate change is leading to longer and
    more severe fire seasons, and we must respond accordingly. That
    is exactly why House Democrats took significant steps in the
    117th Congress to secure historic investments for the Forest
    Service and the Department of the Interior through the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And I thank the Deputy Secretary
    for his testimony and for being here today.
        Specifically, we provided $28 billion to the Department of
    the Interior and $5.5 billion to the Forest Service to address
    drought, fire management, forest and landscape resilience, and
    preservation for increasing extreme weather events.
        We delivered further with the Inflation Reduction Act,
    which provided $2.5 billion for ecosystem resilience and
    restoration, as well as a $500 million allocation for wildfire
    management and workforce needs. These historic investments
    allowed the Biden administration to develop and implement the
    National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, leading to
    record-high restoration treatments designed to promote
    resilient landscapes and safe communities.
        Another key accomplishment was the establishment of the
    Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, which at
    the end of the last year released their final report that
    includes a whopping 148 consensus recommendations. I want to
    thank the Commission for appearing before the bipartisan
    Wildfire Caucus, of which I serve as a co-Chair. We are lucky
    enough, I understand, to have two members of the Commission who
    are testifying today, and I certainly want to thank all of the
    members of the Commission for their time and their continued
    efforts to advance and advocate for comprehensive wildland fire
    response and pre-fire preparedness.
        We have a lot of work to do, as we are now challenged to
    translate those recommendations from the Commission into
    action. Fortunately, several bills that have been sponsored by
    members of this body align with the recommendations advanced by
    the Commission. I introduced with a number of my colleagues a
    bipartisan, bicameral Joint Chiefs Reauthorization Act, as well
    as the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    Reauthorization Act, both of which I think are important steps
    forward for restoration efforts.
        I hope the Chairman will consider including those bills
    among many others within the discussion draft that he has
    released and that we are considering today. There are a number
    of other consensus-driven bills that I think merit some
    consideration by this Committee, both as stand-alone measures
    and, of course, with respect to the bill that we are
    considering from the Chairman.
        Before getting into the details of the discussion draft, I
    do just want to say I appreciate the Chairman's interest and
    his lifetime focus on forestry and wildfire. I know it is an
    issue that is near and dear to the Chairman, as the only
    registered forester in the U.S. Congress. And while we may not
    see eye to eye on every provision of his discussion draft, it
    is encouraging, I think, to see some new and revamped pieces of
    the bill that sync up with several of the recommendations made
    by the Wildfire Commission. Just by way of example, the
    establishment of a fire environment center, or Fireshed Center,
    as it is called in the Chairman's bill, is in line with several
    consensus recommendations of the report. The focus on community
    wildfire risk reduction has the potential to build on the
    Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant program that we
    established last Congress.
        Now, we do have concerns, and there have been a variety of
    concerns articulated by different organizations. I will ask
    unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks to enter
    their letters into the record, and I look forward to the robust
    discussion that we are going to have today.
        I think that this issue has to be approached in a
    bipartisan way because it is a bipartisan priority. So,
    certainly the Chairman has my commitment, as the Ranking
    Member, to work in good faith, and I know that he shares that
    same commitment.
        The last thing I will say, I mentioned at the top of my
    remarks, but I am grateful to the Forest Service. You all are
    doing tremendous work. Because of the investments that House
    Democrats made in the last several Congresses, I should say
    with the leadership of my colleague, Mr. Peters, who has waived
    on to the Committee today and who has been a national leader in
    this space, the Forest Service has achieved annual records for
    hazardous fuels reduction and prescribed burning. And, again,
    that is because of the investments that were made in the
    Inflation Reduction Act.
        I see that I am at the conclusion of my time. Again, I
    thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing, and I
    look forward to the testimony and the questions.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. I thank the Ranking Member and, without
    objection, we will accept your submission to the record.

        [The information follows:]

                             THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

                                                     April 17, 2024

    Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
    Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
    Federal Lands Subcommittee:

        On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The
    Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express views on Chairman
    Westerman's discussion draft, ``A bill to expedite under the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management
    activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the
    jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to
    return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for
    other purposes,'' being heard before the Subcommittee on April 17,
    2024. We respectfully request that this letter be included in the
    hearing record.

        TWS supports many of the goals of Chairman Westerman's discussion
    draft. We recognize the enormous amount of work necessary to restore
    our forests to a healthy and resilient state, and we welcome the chance
    to be part of these discussions. TWS also has significant concerns
    about some of the bill's provisions, such as ones that weaken bedrock
    environmental laws and limit judicial review. Below are suggestions for
    specific sections of the bill.

        Section 2 defines ``hazardous fuels management'' as ``any
    vegetation management activities that reduce the risk of wildfire,
    including mechanical thinning, mastication, prescribed burning,
    cultural burning, timber harvest, and grazing.'' TWS suggests changing
    the phrase ``reduce the risk of wildfire'' to ``reduce the risk of
    uncharacteristically severe wildfire.'' This change will make it clear
    that Congress recognizes wildfire as an essential, beneficial, and
    natural part of the landscape, which is supported by both western fire
    science and long-held Indigenous Knowledge. We also recommend adding
    wildland fire use to the list of included vegetation management
    activities.
    Title 1

        Section 101 establishes the designation of fireshed management
    areas. As written in the draft bill, the designation of firesheds may
    cover more than 350 million acres (the Wildfire Crisis Strategy
    identified 250 high risk firesheds, and the 2019 Rocky Mountain
    Research Station identified 7,688 firesheds. 20 percent of these 7,688
    firesheds comes to 1,538 firesheds, and with an average size of 250,380
    acres per fireshed, the total acres encompassed by Section 101(a)(1)(A-
    B) equals 385 million acres). We are concerned that legislatively
    designating an area of that magnitude will hamper the agencies' ability
    to prioritize. Additionally, one criterion for identifying firesheds in
    the top 20 percent for wildfire exposure is ``wildfire exposure to
    municipal watersheds.'' In this instance, TWS recommends quantifying
    the risk to watersheds, as opposed to just using exposure as the sole
    metric. For example, it is possible for an area to have high exposure,
    but that exposure is low risk. This is an issue we recommend addressing
    throughout the bill.

        Section 103 of the discussion draft calls for the creation of a
    publicly available Fireshed Registry, which will include data on
    wildfire exposure, past forest management treatments, planned forest
    management treatments, status of permits and authorizations, project
    costs, and more. We believe increasing transparency in the project
    development and permitting processes and creating a one-stop-shop for
    information on individual firesheds will be beneficial to the many
    stakeholders who are involved in or impacted by wildfire and management
    activities designed to mitigate risk.
        Section 104 directs the Administration to enter into shared
    stewardship agreements with state Governors who request it. The main
    concern we have with the wording in this section is the use of
    ``shall,'' which mandates that the Secretary concerned enter into a
    shared stewardship agreement. The use of a mandate in this instance
    will allow state governments to unilaterally dictate all terms of such
    an agreement. To avoid this imbalance, we recommend changing ``shall''
    in Section 104(a) to ``shall seek to.''
        Section 105 establishes Fireshed Assessments, which are to be
    jointly created by the relevant federal agency and Governor of each
    respective state. These Assessments will identify within each fireshed
    management area wildfire exposure risks, at-risk communities, and
    potential management projects to mitigate risks. The legislation
    further prioritizes potential management projects based on their
    ability to reduce exposure to communities, reduce exposure to municipal
    watersheds, reduce risk of forest type conversion, and protect critical
    infrastructure and wildlife habitat.
        TWS supports the creation of Fireshed Assessments and corresponding
    prioritization of management projects. The type of coordination between
    federal, Tribal, state, and local governments called for in this
    section is necessary to create comprehensive plans that can tackle the
    large task of improving the health and resilience of our forests.
        As currently written, the Fireshed Assessments are heavily weighted
    towards hazardous fuels management. One area of improvement we see is
    to rework the prioritization to place more emphasis and prioritization
    on mitigation in the built environment because this will have the
    greatest impact on protecting and reducing risk for communities and
    critical infrastructure. Given the important role state Governors will
    play in the development of Fireshed Assessments, it seems increasingly
    appropriate to focus resources and attention on the built environment,
    as opposed to wildlands, where the risk is lower. As the recent
    Wildfire Commission report stated, ``it is important to note that focus
    on the natural environment alone is unlikely to fully reduce wildfire-
    related loss (Calkin et al., 2013; Cohen, 2008; Mortiz et al., 2014.)
    There is a critical need to also focus actions within the built
    environment.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ON FIRE: The Report of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and
    Management Commission, Sept 2023, Page 33. https://www.usda.gov/sites/
    default/files/documents/wfmmc-final-report-09-2023.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TWS has several concerns with Section 106, which states, among
    other provisions, that agencies shall carry out fireshed management
    projects, that these projects are categorically excluded from the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment and
    environmental impact statement requirements, and that acreage
    limitations contained in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) do not apply to fireshed
    management projects.
        While we agree with the desire to expedite the necessary work that
    must be done on our national forests, these management projects have
    the potential to be very large, with significant impacts on the
    landscape. A thorough NEPA analysis will ensure that any impacts to the
    ecosystem and local communities are considered and that community
    involvement and buy-in are prioritized. We know NEPA is not the cause
    of permitting delays, and while certain lawsuits may gather press and
    attention, very few NEPA decisions are litigated. To be exact, only one
    in 450 NEPA decisions is litigated,\2\ and as we have heard from agency
    officials, the best way to achieve an efficient review process is to
    ensure agencies are adequately funded and staffed.\3\ A more effective
    way to ensure timely project approval and implementation is to properly
    invest in agency capacity, resources, and retention of staff to aid in
    expedited reviews. Additionally, as stated by U.S. Forest Service Chief
    Randy Moore, 85 percent of all work done by the Forest Service is
    currently implemented under CEs (categorical exclusions).\4\ This is a
    startling figure that suggests, at minimum, that additional CEs are
    unwarranted. Additionally, a CE is defined as ``a class of actions that
    a federal agency has determined . . . do not individually or
    cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.'' \5\
    It would be inappropriate to claim that land management projects in
    excess of 3,000 acres have no significant impact; therefore, the
    acreage limits contained in HFRA Sec. Sec.  603(c)(1), 605(c)(1), and
    606(g) and IIJA Sec.  40806(d) should not be expanded.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ruple, John C. and Race, Kayla M., ``Measuring the NEPA
    Litigation Burden: A Review of 1,499 Federal Court Cases,'' SJ Quinney
    College of Law, University of Utah. https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/
    viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=stegner_pubs
        \3\ Oversight Hearing, Modernizing NEPA for the 21st Century,
    https://www.congress.gov/115/chrg/CHRG-115hhrg27722/CHRG-
    115hhrg27722.pdf
        \4\ Legislative Hearing, H.R. 2989, ``Save Our Sequoias Act,''
    Committee on Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives,
    Wednesday, May 10, 2023, Serial No. 118-22, Page 31. https://
    www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115639/documents/HHRG-118-II00-
    Transcript-20230510.pdf
        \5\ Categorical Exclusions, https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/
    categorical-exclusions.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One aspect included in Section 111 is to extend the retention of
    revenues under good neighbor agreements to Tribes, giving them parity
    with states. We support this provision because, at minimum, Tribes
    should be extended the same authority as states. TWS also recommends
    that Congress evaluate the success of good neighbor authority before
    extending the authority permanently. Specifically, we recommend an
    analysis to determine whether revenues are being spent in accordance
    with the law and making sure revenue retention is not creating a
    perverse incentive to increase timber harvests when doing so may not be
    in the best interest of the health of the forests or the safety of
    communities.
        Section 113 calls for the creation of intra-agency strike teams to
    assist with implementation of the fireshed management projects, reviews
    of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic
    Preservation Act (NHPA), and more. We believe encouraging agencies to
    coordinate in this way will have a positive impact on the review
    processes; however, we ask the Committee to evaluate the requirements
    of the makeup of these strike teams. The bill currently states that
    strike teams cannot exceed 10 members, and these members can be
    representatives of the federal government, private contractors, and
    volunteers. We believe the legislative text should include a minimum
    number of federal employees and language that ensures a balance of
    volunteer members so that no one sector is given outsized influence.
        Section 121 places strict limits on a court's ability to issue
    injunctive relief and places mandates on what factors a court must
    weigh when making these decisions. This section also prevents judicial
    review of fireshed management projects unless certain factors are met.
    Although the provisions in this section are meant to prevent, or at
    least reduce, legal challenges that result in project implementation
    delays, the judicial branch represents a critical check on the agency's
    power that should not be eroded, one that is oftentimes the only resort
    to stakeholders who have been wrongly ignored or excluded from project
    development. Additionally, further restricting when legal challenges
    can be brought before a court could have the opposite effect--we could
    see an increase in legal challenges, particularly those that have a low
    likelihood of success, because parties opposed to the agency's decision
    are rushed to file. These types of unnecessary delays would be better
    prevented by ensuring an inclusive and transparent project development
    process, rather than placing restrictions on legal challenges.
        Section 122 would weaken the ESA by broadly exempting the U.S.
    Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from the regulatory
    requirement under Section 7 of the ESA to re-initiate consultation when
    new information indicates that implementation of land management plans
    may be harming threatened or endangered species in a manner that was
    not previously anticipated. The ESA's Section 7 consultation process is
    a vitally important safeguard for more than 400 ESA-listed species that
    occur in the National Forest System and 300 listed species that inhabit
    BLM (Bureau of Land Management) lands. The wildfire crisis poses a risk
    to many listed species but so can ill-informed, poorly conducted forest
    treatments, especially large-scale treatments that can span large
    swaths of a species' habitat, which could certainly be the case here.
    Proper planning and management of these federal public lands offer the
    best opportunity for recovery of many of these imperiled species whose
    unique requirements for survival occur on federal lands.
        Section 123 of the bill allows the agency to force many management
    challenges through an internal and binding agency arbitration process
    that eliminates the possibility of judicial review in federal courts.
    This section of the bill usurps the Constitution's Article III power
    given to the courts and vests it instead with the executive branch,
    thus shielding the agency from the checks and balances of an
    independent judiciary. While agencies frequently conduct quasi-judicial
    proceedings, all of those decisions are ultimately ``final agency
    actions,'' appealable to federal courts and judicial oversight as the
    Constitution intended. Instead, section 123 improperly cuts Article III
    courts out.
    Title II

        TWS supports Section 201, which creates a program to support
    interagency coordination around community wildfire risk reduction. As
    this Committee knows, wildfire risks are relevant to several
    administrative agencies, and increasing intergovernmental coordination
    and simplifying processes for communities to access information and
    assistance is vital.
        Section 202 requires the government to extinguish fires on the
    National Forest System within 24 hours after the fire is detected. This
    misguided approach has been tried and tested before in the form of the
    ``10 a.m. policy'' implemented in the first half of the 20th century,
    in which the Forest Service was tasked with extinguishing any ignited
    wildfire by 10 a.m. the following day. Both western fire science and
    long-held Indigenous Knowledge have taught us that fire has always
    played a critical role in our country's landscapes. Fire exclusion and
    suppression have led to larger, more frequent, and more dangerous
    wildfires, which have strained resources, damaged property, and in some
    cases, destroyed communities. The answer to solving the wildfire crisis
    is not to continue this pattern, but to break it. Research shows that
    managed wildfire, which is the use of natural ignitions, such as
    lightning, to allow fire to fulfill its natural role on the landscape,
    rarely results in destructive outcomes to people and property.\6\ In
    fact, the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes state that
    ``expanding managed wildfire use has long-term health, safety, and risk
    reduction benefits.'' \7\ Section 202 would make this impossible by
    eliminating the government's discretion in managing wildfire on the
    National Forest System and would return us to an era of total fire
    suppression that is partially to blame for the current untenable
    situation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Independent Analysis of Managed Wildfire by the Southwest
    Ecological Restoration Institutes, July 2023
        \7\ Independent Analysis of Managed Wildfire by the Southwest
    Ecological Restoration Institutes, July 2023
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 205 creates a new CE for the development and approval of
    vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and
    maintenance plans for electric utility line rights-of-way. In addition
    to falling under a CE, all forest management activities conducted under
    this section would also not be subject to ESA consultation or section
    106 of the NHPA. As stated above in the discussion of Section 106, the
    vast majority of activities conducted by the Forest Service are
    accomplished using a CE, and additional CEs or expansions of existing
    CEs are unwarranted.
        TWS supports the goals of Section 302. Many different stakeholders,
    from Native Tribes to state and local governments to industry and
    nongovernmental organizations, all have an interest in where and how
    forest management activities take place. The language in Section 302
    will require a clear reporting of where treatments are happening, the
    level of wildfire risk to specific areas, the cost and effectiveness of
    treatments, and much more. We greatly appreciate the level of
    transparency this will provide, and we believe it will lead to smarter
    decisions and increased accountability. We encourage the Committee to
    review and incorporate the performance measure recommendations included
    in the Wildfire Commission Report.

        Thank you for considering our views.

                Sincerely,

                                                   Lydia Weiss,
                                  Senior Director, Government Relations

                                     ______

        American Association for Justice  Center for Biological
    Diversity  Center for Justice & Democracy  Earthjustice
                 People's Parity Project  Public

      Citizen  Impact Fund  Texas Watch  National
                                 Association of

                               Consumer Advocates

                                                     April 16, 2024

    Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
    Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Please Defend Access to Justice and the Rule of Law--Oppose Rep.
            Westerman's draft so-called ``Forest Health'' bill

        Dear Federal Lands Sub-Committee Chairman Tom Tiffany and Ranking
    Member Joe Neguse:

        The undersigned nine civil justice groups write today to express
    our strong opposition to Congressman Westerman's draft bill, the poorly
    named ``Forest Health'' bill. We understand this bill will be the
    subject of the sub-committee's hearing scheduled for April 17th, 2024.
        While this bill would likely do nothing to promote ``healthier
    forests,'' and would likely promote potentially harmful and destructive
    extractive projects under final rules of the Forest Service and the
    Bureau of Land Management, the comments of our groups in this letter
    focus specifically on the attacks to access to justice through access
    to our federal judiciary in sections 121, 122, and 123 of the bill.
    These provisions would interfere with the power of federal courts to
    say what the law ``is'' and provide appropriate redress to litigants,
    and should therefore be rejected.
        Section 121 & 122--Section 121 of the bill contains several
    provisions that severely limit long-standing judicial review standards
    for certain Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management actions.
    Specifically, it would interfere with the judiciary's application of
    Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by significantly
    altering a federal court's balancing test for issuing a preliminary
    injunction. It also inappropriately applies a severe 30-day limit on
    any court-ordered preliminary injunction which will strain limited
    judicial resources by requiring re-application of these limited
    injunctions. This is simply not how the federal courts work. Section
    121 also dramatically limits the time to seek judicial review to 120
    days after final agency action, (from as much as 6 years under the
    National Environmental Policy Act, or ``NEPA''). This abbreviated time
    frame places an undue burden on interested parties and communities with
    limited resources and would likely have the unintended consequence of
    leading to more litigation, not less, as interested parties may be
    forced to file suit to protect their legal rights. Section 121 also
    prohibits any judicial review of claims challenging the inappropriate
    use of a categorical exclusion by an agency under NEPA. Finally,
    Section 122 simply waives the federal Endangered Species Act law in
    certain circumstances, and with it, judicial review over agency actions
    that could violate one of our nation's bedrock environmental laws.
        Section 123--We focus the rest of our comments on Section 123 of
    the bill. Importantly, this section would trample on access to justice
    principles in our democracy by stifling citizens' ability to seek
    redress through our courts, instead channeling many agency final
    actions into secretive forced binding arbitration proceedings.
        Eliminates judicial review--Judicial review is a central tenet of
    the rule of law in our democracy. Congress has long recognized the
    critical role the public plays in going to court to hold the government
    and private actors accountable to our most fundamental federal
    protections, including those protecting civil rights, consumers, the
    environment, government transparency, people with disabilities, private
    property, public resources, public health, and workers. Yet, this bill
    would give the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management the
    power to eliminate this judicial review. Specifically, Section 123
    would force certain public challenges to final agency actions through
    an unprecedented internal and ``binding'' agency arbitration process
    with final decisions ``not . . . subject to judicial review.''
        Dangerously privatizes agency actions--The arbitration process
    created by this bill specifically anticipates outsourcing management
    decisions on public lands to private entities, including resource
    extraction industries, which will create a high likelihood of abuse and
    mismanagement. Under this bill, an extractive entity could challenge a
    forest management plan, and through a binding arbitration process would
    be free to write their own regulatory ``alternative proposal'' for
    consideration. The arbitrator cannot ``modify any proposal'' offered by
    non-federal entities, but could select such a plan despite being
    written by private parties. This is not how our democracy works. Final
    agency regulatory actions must be actions of the agency, not third
    parties. Had the legal challenge gone to an independent court, a
    legally inadequate plan would be remanded to an agency to ``try again''
    rather than allowing arbitration to illegally privatize that action.
        Violates due process--The binding arbitration process also
    effectively obliterates the due process and public notice and comment
    protections of the Administrative Procedure Act, since there is no
    requirement that a privately selected plan get any public review. Such
    review is critical, especially given that--shockingly--the bill does
    not require the arbitrator to select a plan that in any way complies
    with the statutes governing these management plans.
         Not a ``pilot'' program--The bill's language implies it is
    creating a limited and discretionary arbitration ``pilot program''
    limited to ``no more than 15'' legal challenges a year for each
    ``Forest Service Region'' and each ``State Region of the Bureau of Land
    Management,'' which is incredibly misleading. First, there are a total
    of 21 regions between the two agencies, which could mean that up to 315
    legal challenges a year could be forced into arbitration. Given that
    there were only 264 total environmental/public land cases against all
    of the federal government in 2023 (out of over 60,000 civil cases),
    this could eliminate all judicial review of these agencies actions.\1\
    Second, the public, in fact, has no discretion on whether to have their
    concerns heard by a federal court or submit to binding arbitration. The
    agency would have ``sole discretion'' to decide which challenges are
    forced into this binding arbitration process (if not all of them), and
    that decision would also not be judicially reviewable. This broad one-
    sided discretion would imbue the agency with the power to shield itself
    from federal judiciary oversight for whichever legal challenges it
    finds most problematic, which to our knowledge would be an
    unprecedented government agency power. Again, our democracy simply
    doesn't work this way.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See U.S. Department of Justice civil litigation statistics
    here--https://www.justice.gov/usao/media/1343726/dl?inline at pg. 20
    (visited 4-9-24).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In sum, this draft legislation is a dangerous and reckless attack
    on every day citizens' ability to enforce the law. On behalf of our
    members and supporters, we ask that you defend access to justice
    through access to independent federal courts, protect our public lands,
    and uphold the rule of law by opposing this ``Forest Health'' bill,
    should it be filed.

                Sincerely,

            American Association for
            Justice                       Public Citizen

            Center for Biological
            Diversity                     Impact Fund

            Center for Justice &
            Democracy                     Texas Watch

            Earthjustice                  National Association of Consumer
                                          Advocates

            People's Parity Project

                                     ______

    Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
    Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
    Federal Lands Subcommittee:

        On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, our
    organizations write to express our opposition to Chairman Westerman's
    discussion draft, ``A bill to expedite under the National Environmental
    Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National
    Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the
    Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to
    overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes,'' being
    heard before the Subcommittee on April 17, 2024. We respectfully
    request that this letter be included in the hearing record. Although we
    recognize that a few small components of this legislation are positive,
    the vast majority of this bill would harm communities, the climate,
    lands, water and biodiversity, and we are fully opposed to this draft
    legislation as a whole.
        Our organizations recognize the challenge in addressing threats
    posed by climate change as well as unsustainable forest management. We
    oppose several provisions and support some provisions of the proposed
    legislation. We caution, however, that active management, especially
    where checks and balances embodied in federal environmental laws are
    exempted, is not a panacea for climate change-induced effects on our
    federal forests. Active management takes many forms including damaging
    logging and road building projects that can increase risk of
    uncharacteristic fire, such as increasing road density and removing
    large old trees that confer fire resilience. Additionally, we object to
    the bill provisions that limit judicial review. Our organizations
    welcome the chance to be part of this critical discussion, and we
    recommend the following actions based on each section of the bill.
    Title I: Landscape Scale Restoration
    Subtitle A--Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority
            Firesheds

        This section of the legislation amends the Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act (HFRA) by adding ``Emergency Fireshed Management,''
    which establishes fireshed management areas and allows governors to
    enter into Shared Stewardship agreements with USDA to conduct
    management projects in identified firesheds. Fireshed management areas
    must be landscape-scale, in the top 20% of firesheds at risk of
    wildfire exposure, and may contain federal and nonfederal lands. Once
    identified, USDA and the respective governor will conduct a fireshed
    assessment that identifies wildfire risk and at-risk communities in the
    fireshed and potential fireshed management projects, and then
    prioritizes projects based on risk reduction.
        Although fireshed projects must comply with forest plans, plans are
    often decades old, and this provision creates a Categorical Exclusion
    (CE) without an acreage limitation to implement fireshed projects, and
    exempts projects from administrative review. Injunctions against
    unlawful projects in the Wildland Urban Interface are prohibited.
        We ask you to oppose this subtitle, which allows for unlimited
    logging and other activities within designated fireshed management
    areas to be categorically excluded from necessary NEPA review with
    emergency exemptions. A fireshed, as delineated by the Forest Service,
    is typically 250,000 acres, and fireshed management areas comprise
    multiple firesheds. Along with unlimited logging, this section calls
    for fuel breaks, removal of dead and dying trees (trees which are
    essential for forest health and regeneration), chemical treatments,
    mechanical thinning, and grazing to be used as fireshed management
    projects on federal and non-federal lands on 20% (of 7,688) firesheds
    at higher wildfire exposure. While no one argues against the importance
    of protecting communities from wildfires, this subtitle promotes
    logging and other ecologically damaging activities on an unprecedented
    scale under the guise of wildfire risk reduction. Authorizing massive
    forest management projects without objective and detailed environmental
    and administrative review, which limits public engagement and the use
    of best available science, is unacceptable.
    Subtitle B--Expanding Collaborative Tools to Reduce Wildfire Risk and
            Improve Forest Health

        One aspect included in Section 111 is to extend the retention of
    revenues under good neighbor agreements to Tribes, giving them parity
    with states. We support this provision because, at minimum, Tribes
    should be extended the same authority as states, as sovereigns.
    However, our organizations recommend that Congress evaluate the success
    of good neighbor authority before extending the authority permanently.
    Specifically, we recommend an analysis to determine whether revenues
    are being spent in accordance with the law and making sure revenue
    retention is not creating a perverse incentive to increase timber
    harvests when doing so may not be in the best interest of the health of
    the forests or the safety of communities.
    Subtitle C--Addressing Frivolous Litigation

        Section 121 of the bill contains several provisions that severely
    limit long standing judicial review standards for certain Forest
    Service and Bureau of Land Management actions. It inappropriately
    applies a severe 30-day limit on any court-ordered preliminary
    injunction, and also dramatically limits the time to seek judicial
    review to 120 days after final agency action. This abbreviated time
    frame places an undue burden on interested parties and communities with
    limited resources and would likely have the unintended consequence of
    leading to more litigation, not less, as interested parties may be
    forced to file suit to protect their legal rights. Section 121 also
    prohibits any judicial review of claims challenging the inappropriate
    use of a categorical exclusion by an agency under NEPA. We therefore
    ask you to oppose this provision of the bill.
        Section 122 of this bill would weaken the ESA by broadly exempting
    the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from the
    regulatory requirement under Section 7 of the ESA to reinitiate
    consultation when new information indicates that implementation of land
    management plans may be harming threatened or endangered species in a
    manner that was not previously anticipated. Reinitiation of
    consultation at the forest plan level is imperative because it provides
    the only mechanism to change management practices and apply them
    uniformly at the landscape scale, thereby avoiding extinction-by-a-
    thousand-cuts from consultation that occurs solely at the project
    level. Exempting the Forest Service from the requirement to reinitiate
    consultation would codify climate denial. Even as national forests
    suffer more and more effects from the worsening climate crisis, this
    provision would permanently exempt the Forest Service from ever
    modifying any forest plans to protect listed species from changing
    climate conditions. The result of this legislation could send countless
    species on an inevitable path towards extinction. We therefore ask you
    to oppose this provision of the bill.
        Section 123 would trample on access to justice principles in our
    democracy by stifling citizens' ability to seek redress through our
    courts, instead channeling many agency final actions into secretive
    binding arbitration proceedings. This provision would force certain
    public challenges to final agency actions through an unprecedented
    internal and ``binding'' agency arbitration process with final
    decisions ``not . . . subject to judicial review.'' The arbitration
    process created by this bill specifically anticipates outsourcing
    management decisions on public lands to private entities, including
    resource extraction industries, which will create a high likelihood of
    abuse and mismanagement. The binding arbitration process also
    effectively eliminates due process and public notice and comment
    protections, as well as environmental analysis and interagency and
    Tribal consultation requirements, because there is no requirement that
    an alternative selected by the arbitrator receive public, interagency,
    or Tribal review. For more information about why this provision is so
    harmful, please see Senate Report 115-429.\1\ We therefore ask you to
    oppose this provision of the bill.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress/
    senate-report/429/1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title II: Protecting Communities in the Wildland Urban Interface

        Our organizations support Section 201, which creates a Community
    Wildfire Risk Reduction Program to promote interagency coordination and
    reduce the risk of wildfires in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
    This includes coordination on advancing research and science, and also
    supporting fire resistant building codes and standards, which are
    proven to be the most effective means of keeping communities safe in
    the event of a wildfire. This section also streamlines the grant
    process for federal technical and financial assistance, making it
    easier for communities to get the help they need to prepare for and
    respond to a wildfire crisis.
        Our organizations oppose Section 202, which requires the Secretary
    of Agriculture to suppress all wildfires not later than 24 hours after
    the fire is detected and to suppress all prescribed fires that exceed
    prescriptions to burn. The bill also prevents the Secretary from using
    fire for resource benefit unless the fire is prescribed, and limits the
    use of backburns to control wildfires. This approach has been tried and
    tested before in the form of the ``10 a.m. policy'' implemented in the
    first half of the 20th century, in which the Forest Service was tasked
    with extinguishing any ignited wildfire by 10 a.m. the following day.
    This policy of fire suppression and exclusion, combined with worsening
    effects of climate change, is what has led to larger and more frequent
    wildfires. These extreme events have strained resources, damaged
    property, and in some cases, destroyed communities.
        Both western fire science and Indigenous Knowledge tell us that
    fire has always played a critical role in our country's landscapes, and
    that we must work to restore fire regimes to our landscapes.
    Ecologically based thinning and fire--prescribed burning, Indigenous-
    led cultural burning, and managed wildfire--should play a key role in
    accomplishing this goal. Research shows that managed wildfire rarely
    results in destructive outcomes to people and property. In fact, the
    Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes state that ``expanding
    managed wildfire use has long-term health, safety, and risk reduction
    benefits.'' \2\ Unfortunately, this provision would eliminate the
    government's discretion in managing wildfire on the National Forest
    System and would steer us back towards an era of fire suppression.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Independent Analysis of Managed Wildfire by the Southwest
    Ecological Restoration Institutes, July 2023
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 203 is another provision which our organizations support.
    This section expands the Joint Fire Science Program to include a
    Community Wildfire Defense Research Program. This program will test and
    advance innovative designs to improve the wildfire resistance of
    structures and communities, including home hardening, building
    materials, subdivision design, and landscape architecture. The
    innovations promoted by this program will help save communities and
    lives in the event of a wildfire.
        Section 205 creates a new categorical exclusion (CE) for the
    development and approval of vegetation management, facility inspection,
    and operation and maintenance plans for electric utility line rights-
    of-way. The forest management activities conducted under this section
    would not be subject to ESA consultation or section 106 of the NHPA,
    exemptions that our organizations oppose. There is no evidence that
    this authority is necessary, given that the Forest Service in
    particular has dozens of existing CEs that could be used for this
    purpose; and we note that the Regulatory Flexibility Act authorized
    federal agencies to utilize the CEs of all other federal agencies,
    extending the Forest Service's CEs to the BLM for that agency's use. We
    oppose this section and legislative proposals that seek to expand the
    use of CEs further. Thank you for your consideration of these comments
    and suggestions.

                Sincerely,

            Alaska Wilderness League      Los Angeles Audubon Society

            Alaska Wilderness League
            Action                        National Wolfwatcher Coalition

            Alta Peak Chapter,
            California Native Plant
            Society                       Natural Resources Defense Council

            American Bird Conservancy     North Central Washington Audubon
                                          Society

            Bark                          Northcoast Environmental Center

            Buffalo Field Campaign        Northeastern Minnesotans for
                                          Wilderness

            Californians for Western
            Wilderness                    Greater Hells Canyon Coalition,
                                          Endangered Species Coalition
            Cascade Forest Conservancy    Primate Conservation Inc

            Center for Biological
            Diversity                     Resource Renewal Institute

            Central Sierra
            Environmental Resource
            Center                        SAFE Alternatives for Our Forest
                                          Environment

            Conservation Northwest        Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition

            Earthjustice                  Sierra Club

            Endangered Habitats League    Sierra Forest Legacy

            Endangered Species
            Coalition                     Silvix Resources

            Environment America           Soda Mountain Wilderness Council

            Environmental Law & Policy
            Center                        Southern Environmental Law Center

            Environmental Protection
            Information Center            Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

            FOUR PAWS USA                 Standing Trees

            Friends of Merrymeeting Bay   The Urban Wildlands Group

            Friends of the Inyo           United Plant Savers

            Great Lakes Wildlife
            Alliance                      WE ACT for Environmental Justice

            GreenLatinos                  Western Environmental Law Center

            Heartwood                     Western Nebraska Resources
                                          Council

            Howling For Wolves            WildEarth Guardians

            Kettle Range Conservation
            Group                         Winter Wildlands Alliance

            Klamath Forest Alliance       Zoo New England: Franklin Park
                                          Zoo & Stone Zoo

            Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands
            Center

                                     ______

                                                     April 16, 2024

    Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
    Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: OPPOSITION TO WESTERMAN HARMFUL FOREST ``DISCUSSION DRAFT''

        Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:

        On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological
    Diversity, we write to express our opposition to Chairman Westerman's
    ``Discussion Draft'' bill, To expedite under the National Environmental
    Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National
    Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the
    Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to
    overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes. The bill
    will be the subject of the Subcommittee's hearing on April 17, 2024. We
    request this letter be included in the hearing record.
        Chairman Westerman's bill proposes a large-scale rollback of the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) on millions of acres of federal lands. Its sweeping provisions
    would also pave the way for unlimited logging and remove accountability
    from federal land managers.
        At a time when our planet is facing an extinction crisis of epic
    proportions, Congress should not undermine the Endangered Species Act--
    our most effective tool for preventing extinctions. Nor should it
    remove the informed decision-making and public disclosure requirements
    of NEPA, or citizens' rights to judicial review. This is especially
    true for a bill that both threatens widespread harms to ecosystems and
    imperiled species and imposes no obligation that fire-management
    actions (or the other land uses swept in by the bill) serve either the
    long-term health or fire-resilience of federal lands.
    A. Widespread Rollback of Bedrock Environmental Laws and Opening of
            Lands to Unlimited Logging

        This bill proposes broad rollbacks of environmental laws. It
    removes the obligation to reinitiate consultation under Section 7 of
    the ESA for Forest Service land management plans and BLM resource
    management plans if: (1) a new species is listed or critical habitat
    designated under the ESA, or (2) new information reveals effects of the
    plan may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not
    previously considered. See Section 122. Section 7 consultation at this
    stage plays a crucial role in providing a landscape-scale evaluation.
    The language of this bill resembles that of another Chairman Westerman
    separately proposed, H.R. 7408. Here, it is suggested as part of a
    Subtitle named ``Addressing Frivolous Litigation,'' which is discussed
    further below and effectively characterizes all litigation under the
    statutes whose protections the bill would remove as frivolous, however
    meritorious the claims would be. See TOC; Section 122 (the only part of
    the bill that addresses these plans).
        Forest Service and BLM management plans are the blueprints that
    govern agency actions. And, the requirement to reinitiate consultation
    reflects the continuing obligation of federal agencies under Section 7
    of the ESA to insure that their actions, including the implementation
    of management plans, are not likely to jeopardize the continued
    existence of any listed species or result in the destruction of their
    critical habitat. Allowing exemptions for Forest Service and BLM plans
    blatantly disregards the agencies' Section 7 obligation and could
    potentially threaten the existence of imperiled species in plan areas.
        In a similar vein, Section 106(a)(3)(A) would deem ``emergency''
    provisions in regulations implementing the ESA and NEPA applicable
    ``[f]or any fireshed management area designated under section 101'' of
    the bill.\1\ In so doing, it requires no finding of actual emergency.
    Nor does it contain any limiting language confining the application of
    these provisions to fire-related activities. Instead, it would extend
    these emergency provisions, across-the-board, to areas comprising
    hundreds of thousands of acres each. A single fireshed is ``about
    250,000 acres.'' \2\ And Section 101 indicates fireshed management
    areas will span multiple firesheds. See Section 101(a).\3\ In Section
    101(a)(1), the bill also would remove any obligation to comply with
    NEPA in undertaking the designation process, see Section 101(b).\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These provisions include 50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.05, which allows
    informal consultation under alternative procedures, with formal
    consultation deferred until after the emergency is under control. Under
    this bill, consultation appears intended to be deferred as long as the
    bill is in force.
        \2\ Confronting the Wildfire Crisis (usda.gov) at 3.
        \3\ Strangely, the bill calls for updated fireshed maps at five-
    year intervals, but also purports to sunset this process, along with
    other provisions, after seven years. See Sections 101 & 107.
        \4\ Meanwhile, according to the Forest Service's Wildfire Crisis
    Strategy document, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy for
    Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America's Forests,
    ``scientists have already located the communities at highest wildfire
    risk and the firesheds that are the source of highest community
    exposure to wildfire.'' Confronting the Wildfire Crisis (usda.gov) at
    28.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ESA and NEPA compliance provide a framework for agencies to
    carefully consider the environmental consequences of wildfire
    management, as well as to make informed decisions that balance the need
    for effective fire management with the protection of natural resources
    and ecosystems. The ESA, as discussed above, also provides substantive
    protections crucial in a time in which biodiversity is in crisis.
    Without a requirement to follow these laws, agencies could potentially
    harm listed species and the ecosystems they rely on.
        Turning back to the text, Section 2 of the bill defines ``hazardous
    fuels management'' in a way that does not require that the activity be
    intended for the purpose of reducing hazardous fuels. Instead, it
    encompasses ``any vegetation management activities that reduce the risk
    of wildfire. . . .'' This leaves room to argue any ``mechanical
    thinning'' or other vegetation management activity would provide such
    risk reduction and should be deemed to fall within the definition.
        Section 106 uses the definition set forth in Section 2 in requiring
    that the Forest Service and BLM ``shall'' carry out, as ``fireshed
    management projects,'' ``hazardous fuels management'' actions, which
    Section 106(a)(2)(A) frames as ``including'' timber harvest, grazing,
    and others activities. See Section 106(a)(2)(A) (also referencing
    mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, cultural burning, and
    mastication). Read together, these provisions could be interpreted to
    provide a vehicle for the agencies to carry out a number of activities
    already occurring on federal lands, including for reasons unrelated to
    fire management, but without the standards, responsibility, and
    accountability that would otherwise exist.
    B. Reduction of Federal Agency Accountability and Citizen's Rights to
            Judicial Review
    1. Lacks Protective Standards and Expands NEPA Exclusions

        In mandating that the Forest Service and BLM ``shall'' undertake
    certain actions in Section 106, the bill directs no consideration for
    long-term forest health, including the need to protect of old growth
    forests, and the role of public lands in sequestering carbon,
    mitigating the effects of climate change.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Apart from this lack of standards, it also bears noting that
    the bill expressly vests a responsible official with discretion, for
    example, to decide an ``appropriate basal area'' for the removal of
    trees to address overstock and crowding, without providing or
    referencing any guideposts. See Section 106(a)(2)(e).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Section 106(a)(3)(B) calls for broad categorical
    exclusions (CEs) from NEPA obligations, accomplished by adopting CEs
    from other, existing laws. Going still further, it removes acreage
    limitations set forth in those CEs for projects located in areas in
    which an agency and a state have ``completed a fireshed assessment
    under Section 105'' of the bill. See Section 106(a)(3)(B)(ii) (removing
    3,000-acre limit for categorical exclusions under Sections 603(c)(1) &
    605(c)(1) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and Section
    40806(d) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as well as the
    4,500-acre limit in Section 606(g) of the HFRA, along with other
    provisions of law described in the bill). The Section 105 ``fireshed
    assessment'' itself would be also exempted from NEPA. See Section
    105(b).
    2. Removes Rights to Judicial Review
    i. Section 121

        The bill also proposes to remove accountability from the agencies
    by foreclosing and frustrating judicial review in multiple ways, set
    forth in Subtitle C. Though titled ``commonsense litigation reform,''
    Section 121 of the bill is anything but. First, it purports to devise a
    different test than the one courts typically use for injunctive relief.
    The existing equitable evaluation already addresses likelihood of
    success on the merits and any public interest in pursuing, or not
    pursuing an activity. Compare Section 121(a)-(b). The bill needlessly
    proposes to alter traditional equitable principles.
        Second, the bill would limit preliminary injunctions and stays
    pending appeal to thirty days. Any additional time requires re-briefing
    and re-deciding within successive, additional 30-day windows. See
    Section 201(c). Thirty days is quite short, particularly given that the
    default time frame simply to brief, let along decide, a motion may take
    as much as twenty-eight or thirty-five days.\6\ And, such a requirement
    would serve only to waste resources of the parties and courts alike. If
    there were reason to believe changed circumstances altered the need for
    a preliminary injunction or stay, an agency could move to lift it.
    There is no reason to presume, however, that the reasons which led to
    the court's decision have changed in thirty days.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See, e.g., D.C.Colo. L.Civ.R 7.1(d) (35-day period); DUCiv.R 7-
    1(a)(4)(D) (28-day period).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, the bill imposes unreasonable and potentially impossible
    time limits. See Section 201(d). Any suit must be: (1) filed within 120
    days of the publication in the Federal Register of a notice of agency
    intent to carry out a proposed action; but (2) also cannot be filed
    until after a record of decision (ROD) or other final agency action
    occurs. This forecloses any claim for which the agency takes final
    action or issues a ROD more than 120 days after publishing a notice of
    intent. See Section 201(d)(1)-(2). Further, 120 days is very short,
    undermining the ability of those with fewer resources to sue. It also
    would make it difficult for anyone to do so by effectively shortening
    the time frame still further if the law under which a claim is
    contemplated requires a 60-day pre-suit notice letter, as the ESA does.
        Fourth, the bill would prohibit any judicial challenge to the
    applicability of a categorical exclusion. See Section 201(d)(3). Even
    if an agency flagrantly violated the limits set forth on such
    exclusions, citizens would have no means to challenge this conduct.
    ii. Section 123

        Further insulating agencies from accountability, Section 123
    creates a heavily-slanted and vaguely-articulated arbitration pilot
    program that would keep citizens out of court altogether, at the
    agencies' discretion. Thereunder, the Forest Service and BLM would
    select a group of at least 20 arbitrators of their choice. See Section
    123(e)(1). Although these individuals must not be registered lobbyists
    at the time, any other potential conflicts of interest, such as
    industry ties, are not disqualifying. See Section 123(e)(2). If parties
    to an individual arbitration cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the
    agency's choice prevails. See Section 123(e)(3). Thereafter, the
    arbitrator, who need not have any expertise in the subject matter, will
    make a decision. See Section 123(d)-(e). That decision will be based
    not on the merits of the legal claims, but the perceived superiority of
    competing proposals. See Section 123(d). The agency would choose which
    challenges to its actions it wants to arbitrate, up to 15 per fiscal
    year. See Section 123(a)(2)-(3). Any such challenges would not be
    subject to judicial review. See id. The fundamental flaws in, and
    unfairness of, such a program are obvious.
        Moreover, vague language in the bill would create confusion. It is
    unclear what an ``objection or protest'' subject to arbitration is. See
    Section 123(a). Will the agency pull cases out of court? Or will it
    attempt to preemptively guess which out-of-court comments concerning
    its actions would otherwise have led to a lawsuit? If multiple parties
    or suits seek to challenge the same action, can the agency attempt to
    force them all into arbitration and count that as only one of its 15
    potential annual selections?
        Setting aside the specific issues presented by Section 123, the
    U.S. Supreme Court has described arbitration as ``well suited to the
    resolution of contractual disputes,'' but a ``comparatively
    inappropriate'' forum for statutory rights created by Title VII.
    Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 at 56-57 (1974)
    (discussing, among other things, differences in the fact-finding
    process and the lack of an obligation for an arbitrator to provide the
    reasons for an award). This reasoning applies equally to the types of
    claims at issue here.
    3. Cedes Control of and Responsibility for Federal Lands

        The bill cedes control of and responsibility for federal land
    management to state and local governments (but not tribes) in two
    respects.\7\ First, Section 106 provides that federal agencies ``shall
    carry out,'' as ``fireshed management projects,'' any activities
    recommended in a state-specific fireshed assessment under Section 105
    of the bill. See Section 106(a)(2)(G). Sections 104-105, in turn, would
    provide for state-federal agreements, pursuant to which the referenced
    assessments are made. Those provisions do not, however, address how to
    resolve any fundamental differences or disagreements if state and
    federal regulators do not agree about recommendations for federal
    lands. Additionally, Section 106(a)(2)(H) would mandate any activities
    recommended in applicable community wildlife protection plans. Federal
    agencies' role with respect to such plans, however, is one of
    consultation, not control.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Because fireshed management areas could include non-federal
    land, see Section 101(a)(1)(D), the bill may also make federal agencies
    responsible for activities on non-federal lands. If that is the case,
    it does so without additional funding to carry out this responsibility.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. Additional Issues

        Apart from the more overarching provisions, Section 205 grants
    broad exemptions from following the law for utility rights of way. Both
    ``the development and approval of a vegetation management, facility
    inspection, and operation and maintenance plan'' under Section
    512(c)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the
    implementation of routine activities under such a plan are subject to
    exemptions from NEPA, ESA Section 7 consultation, Section 106 of the
    National Historic Preservation Act, and ``[a]ny other applicable law.''
    See Section 205. Although there are two exceptions to the NEPA
    categorical exclusion for: (1) designated (but not proposed) wilderness
    areas under the National Wilderness Preservation System; and (2)
    National Forest System lands on which another statute restricts removal
    of vegetation, it is unclear if the restrictions on judicial review
    extend to this section (or if the catchall eliminates Administrative
    Procedure Act review), limiting the enforceability of these exceptions.
    Further, the bill lacks any similar caveat for the ESA and other laws
    whose protections it removes. It also appears to expressly allow
    unlimited temporary road construction--with no exception for wilderness
    areas. See Section 205(e). Our nation's environmental laws exist for a
    reason, as discussed above with respect to ESA Section 7 and NEPA. And,
    the broad catchall exemption to any applicable law seems likely to lead
    to unintended consequences.
        In contrast to the license granted in this area, Section 202 of the
    bill would tie the Forest Services' hands in certain respects in using
    fire as a management tool. This provision would require the Forest
    Service to suppress all wildfires within 24 hours, limit the use of
    backfire, and restrict the use of fire as a management tool to
    prescribed fires within the bounds of the prescription. The 24-hour
    requirement parallels the ``10 a.m. policy'' implemented in the first
    half of the 20th century, in which the Forest Service was tasked with
    extinguishing any ignited wildfire by 10 a.m. the following day. Fire
    is essential to forest ecosystems. Returning natural fire to fire-
    adapted areas in a way that protects communities is an important way to
    reduce uncharacteristically large fires that can threaten people, their
    homes and pets and livestock. The limitation to prescribed fire in this
    provision also appears in tension with the inclusion of both prescribed
    burning and cultural burning as activities the agency must undertake
    pursuant to Section 106 of the bill.
        Finally, Section 305 of the bill proposes a study of potentially
    moving the Forest Service headquarters. This is not the place to divert
    resources amidst the challenges confronting the agency. Further, many
    high-level staffers presently live (and work) outside the existing
    headquarters. And, both Forest Service regions and individual forest
    supervisors have significant decision-making power under the status
    quo. Any such move would come at considerable cost to taxpayers without
    adding value. It also risks the loss of institutional knowledge if
    individuals leave the agency, as occurred when BLM moved its
    headquarters.

                                      ***

        In short, this bill provides neither additional funds to confront
    the wildfire crisis nor the tools to do so. Instead, it proposes to
    rollback environmental (and other) laws and divert resources to deprive
    the affected public of judicial review and engage in needless study of
    moving an agency office.

        Thank you for your consideration.

                Sincerely,

            Desiree Sorenson-Groves,      Randi Spivak,
            Vice President of             Public Lands Policy Director
              Land and Habitat
            Conservation                  Center for Biological Diversity
            Defenders of Wildlife

                                     ______

        Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
        Mr. Westerman. It is now time for questions, and we will
    start with the gentleman from Utah.
        Mr. Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to echo
    the thoughts and appreciation to you for bringing this forward
    and for being such a leader on this.
        I would like to just quickly nod to the Ranking Member,
    Congressman Neguse, and your comments about bipartisanship. You
    know, you and I are interesting. We share a boundary. And while
    the politics might be very different on each side of this
    boundary, the geography is very similar. And we both deal with
    these forest fires in our district of great magnitude. And it
    has been an honor to serve as your co-Chair on the Wildfire
    Caucus, and I appreciate your leadership there.
        And I think one thing in particular I would like to point
    out is your leadership in making sure that those who fight our
    fires are appropriately compensated. And just a moment of a
    shout-out to these good men and women who oftentimes sacrifice
    their health and safety to protect us, to protect our property,
    and our lives. And we have seen that in Utah firsthand. So, a
    big shout out to all of them.
        It has been said, and we all know, that we don't have fire
    seasons anymore. We have fire years. And it is just a reality
    that we are facing. And this is particularly acute in the West
    and in my district. And clearly, we all know this, but let me
    point out that what we are talking about impacts water supply,
    air quality, recreation, ranching, grazing and, for many
    people, their way of life. And just in many, many ways this is
    important.
        I would also like to point out that oftentimes we overlook
    the wisdom of people who live in these areas, and I think
    sometimes they can give us a lot of insight on how to fight
    these. I am proud to support the Chairman with this
    legislation.
        Mr. French, just a couple of questions. I don't know, it
    does come down sometimes to partisanship and being proactive
    versus reactive in these fires. Can you just talk for a minute
    about where the sweet spot is on being proactive, and what you
    would like to see us consider?
        Mr. French. It is so much more efficient to the American
    taxpayer to reduce wildland fire risk in the forests and
    grasslands. Look at what happened in Texas this year. To do
    that preventatively, when you look at the rate of return versus
    the impacts that happen to a community from a wildfire and,
    honestly, to our resources, it is a no-brainer to me.
        And I think sometimes we forget the broader consequences of
    getting our forests back into healthier conditions, the
    downstream effects of water. The number of users that depend on
    water from LA all the way up through most of California, like
    50 percent of the groundwater that goes into municipal water
    supplies in the West originates from national forests.
        So, I think we often think about just the impacts at a
    local community, but it is so much broader. It is the food we
    eat, it is the communities that depend on the water. And every
    time we lose the ability to deliver one of those, the costs are
    enormous compared to the investment of reducing that risk up
    front.
        So, the sweet spot to me is our ability to recognize we
    have to continue our suppression work. We have to. But to make
    the right investments at the right scales, at the right pace,
    up front to actually make sure that these forests are surviving
    for generations to come. And right now they are at risk.
        Mr. Curtis. Yes. Thank you. You mentioned water. And I have
    to think, one of the biggest problems in my community after a
    devastating fire would be the floods and mud debris that comes
    down and the erosion when that growth is taken away.
        If I can compel all of my residents to listen to this
    testimony today, and you have a moment to say to them what you
    would like them to do as residents in places that run up
    against these lands, what advice would you give?
        What proactive steps can residents take in prohibiting
    these fires?
        Mr. French. Well, I am going to answer it this way. I am
    going to repeat to you what I told my own mother who lived for
    years in Heber, Arizona, some very large fires, who, as I
    walked her property, loved the environment around her. But the
    reality was that very environment on her property and the
    adjoining property would cause her to lose her house. So, my
    advice to homeowners is look at your own property, make sure
    that we are reducing the fire risks that you have right around
    your house. Do simple things if you can, or take advantage of
    what our fire safe councils and others are offering to harden
    your property. And then, when you look at the surrounding
    lands, whether it is state, Federal, county, or even private
    landowners, be a part of understanding what a healthy forest
    is.
        And most of our forests and fire-adapted areas right now,
    because we have excluded fires, and this is what I have told
    her, I am like, that beautiful forest that you are looking at
    that you love is unhealthy.
        Mr. Curtis. Yes.
        Mr. French. It is unnatural.
        Mr. Curtis. I wish I could let you go on a little bit more,
    but I am out of time.
        So, I am going to yield, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman's time has expired. I
    recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
    Neguse, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman.
        Again, thank you for being here, Deputy Chief French. And I
    certainly want to echo the remarks of my colleague from Utah.
    We will miss him here in the House, but I know he will no doubt
    continue his efforts that have been so successful here in our
    body in partnering on a bipartisan basis to address wildfire
    risk. And it has certainly been a pleasure and a privilege for
    me, as the co-founders of the bipartisan Wildfire Caucus, to
    work with him in that regard, although our ski resorts are
    still better than his.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neguse. But anyway, not to offend the sensibilities of
    the crowd, apparently.
        Mr. French, I want to say I deeply appreciate the work that
    your agency does, deeply appreciate the work that Chief Moore
    does, and have certainly appreciated the partnership of the
    Forest Service. So, I want to preface my remarks with that
    statement.
        I have been frustrated by the inability to receive an
    answer from the Forest Service regarding some basic questions
    that myself and several other Members of Congress have
    propounded to the agency in regards to wildland firefighter
    pay. As you know, we have worked with the agency for years, and
    we appreciate your partnership. And, of course, we understand
    that it takes Congress to act with respect to making permanent
    some of the pay protections that the Forest Service has been so
    passionate about.
        But one issue in particular that has percolated to our
    office and to others is housing, and a number of anecdotal
    reports of exorbitant housing increases for wildland
    firefighters that are barely making enough to get by. I
    previously had another witness from the Forest Service who
    testified in a hearing in March whom I questioned on this
    issue. We sent a letter in February.
        I don't know if you are aware of that letter. If you are,
    perhaps you can opine on that. And if not, I would love your
    commitment to go back to the agency to perhaps convey to them
    that one of their biggest advocates on Capitol Hill, someone
    who has worked very hard to try to increase funding for the
    Forest Service, is deeply disappointed in their inability to
    answer what were basic questions, essentially, about the
    housing rent increases for wildland firefighters that we have
    heard over the course of the last 6 months.
        Mr. French. Fair enough. I do commit to that. I will go
    back and talk with the Deputy Chief area that oversees that,
    and I apologize to you that we haven't given you a timely
    response.
        The rates that we have to charge for our housing are,
    essentially, set through policy that comes from the Office of
    Personnel Management. I will tell you that, as a leader in this
    agency, it is very hard for me to understand why we have to
    charge certain rental rates that are not commensurate with the
    communities that we are a part of, but may be set on a
    community that is 100 miles away, like Bend, Oregon, where
    rental rates are going to be much higher, versus a rural space
    that we would be in.
        It is our central focus, and we have started to move some
    Great American Outdoors funds to address it. But the actual
    issue in terms of the rates that we are charging has been a
    central focus for Chief Moore and our leadership. And we will
    get you your answers.
        Mr. Neguse. I thank you, Deputy Chief. And I know this
    isn't your particular bailiwick in terms of your subject area,
    and I also know it is not the exact nature of the subject that
    we are discussing today.
        But I appreciate your commitment, and that is exactly why
    we are hoping for an answer from the agency, and one of the
    questions was actually specifically around OMB's policies,
    because we think we can be a resource in perhaps advocating for
    changing some of those, either on the regulatory basis or
    perhaps via changes in statute. So, I thank you.
        And I thank the Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also want to
    compliment you on this bill. I read through it this morning. It
    is an extremely focused and, I think, excellent approach to the
    challenges we face in our forests.
        To that end, I am curious about how much progress the
    Forest Service has actually made over the past, let's just say,
    5 years in trying to reduce the danger of wildfire. Can you
    share with us what you think the progress has actually been on
    perhaps a percentage basis?
        Because you have millions of acres you are dealing with,
    can you share with us how many thousands of acres the Forest
    Service has successfully reduced the level of fuel upon?
        Mr. French. Yes. I think there are actually two ways to
    look at this. Last year, we reduced wildland fire risk on, I
    think, 4.3 million acres, which was a significant increase from
    where we were the year before.
        Mr. Bentz. And how many total acres are you dealing with in
    millions?
        Mr. French. How many total, say that again.
        Mr. Bentz. How many total acres does the Forest Service
    manage?
        Mr. French. There are 193 million acres.
        Mr. Bentz. Right. And how many did you take care of?
        Mr. French. Last year, I think it was--let me give you the
    exact number. I think it was 4.35 million acres.
        Mr. Bentz. So, we have a ways to go.
        Mr. French. We do.
        Mr. Bentz. Let's hop to the amount that wildland
    firefighters are paid. I had some contractors come in 2 weeks
    ago, 3 maybe, from Oregon that contract with the Forest Service
    and the BLM. And they had been told that they had to increase
    the pay of those that they hire when they are doing these kinds
    of contracts by something like $9 an hour, taking up the pay to
    around $35. Does that ring true to you?
        Mr. French. I am not aware of that, but I can get back with
    you.
        Mr. Bentz. So, it is true. And the amount that is being
    paid now is somewhere in that mid $30-per-hour range.
        Now, I have actually fought fire and, frankly, $35 an hour,
    I am not sure I would want to fight for $35 an hour, but the
    truth of it is that is a pretty good wage. Are you aware of
    people being paid more than that to fight fire, $35 an hour?
        Mr. French. OK, I also fought fire for the Forest Service.
    I am aware of other state agencies that are paying more, and I
    don't know what contractors are paying.
        Mr. Bentz. I don't think the Forest Service had much to do
    with the establishment of these rates. I think it was somebody
    else, and we will probably hear about that later. But that
    amount, that dramatic of an increase in that which has to be
    paid to those who are hired to try to help us, makes it
    extremely difficult for many of these companies to stay in
    business because it was done abruptly, and the amount of the
    increase was around 20 percent, maybe even 25 or 30 percent of
    what was normal.
        And I will just point that out because it is going to be
    difficult for many of them to stay in business.
        Mr. French. OK.
        Mr. Bentz. And they are absolutely essential, these
    independent contracting groups, to controlling fire in and
    across the United States. They are absolutely essential. So,
    you might want to look into that.
        And we had better be talking to whoever is in charge of
    raising these rates. And I had it in my notes, the office of
    somebody, and you might want to reach out and say, what are you
    doing? You are putting the nation at risk because these
    companies can't afford it. I mean, that is just the way it is.
        Let me hop to NEPA for a moment, and the lawsuits. Are you
    aware of lawsuits that have delayed the Forest Service in
    trying to take care of dangerous situations, fire-related?
        Mr. French. Am I aware of, did you say ESA?
        Mr. Bentz. Sure. Under the NEPA or----
        Mr. French. Delaying when we are actually suppressing
    fires?
        Mr. Bentz. No, no. In anticipation of cleaning up the
    forest so you could perhaps not have as many fires to fight.
        Mr. French. OK, yes. So, we have to consult on ESA with two
    agencies. And I would say historically we have had projects
    that have been delayed in the last year or so. We have been
    working very collaboratively.
        Mr. Bentz. I am going to run out of time here. What I am
    getting at, there is a provision in this bill, and it is an
    excellent one that is doing its best to try to head off that
    kind of litigation, so that you can do your job and try to
    protect people in cities and towns. Are you being prevented
    from doing that by virtue of litigation or----
        Mr. French. By virtue of litigation?
        Mr. Bentz. Yes, or the threat of lawsuits?
        Mr. French. Litigation, for me, as overseeing and doing
    this work, litigation is a part of just our work, and I
    anticipate that in our time frames and our costs.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez,
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much.
        And once again, welcome Deputy Chief French, and thank you
    for being here. As you know, April 6 marked the 2-year
    anniversary of the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon Fire that was
    started by the Forest Service's prescribed burn and devastated
    my home state of New Mexico and lands I hold dear. So, every
    time I look at issues with regards to forest management, I come
    with those fresh burn scars in my memory.
        And I want to thank Chair Westerman for drafting
    legislation to address these, and thank you so very much for
    incorporating some of my suggestions and other suggestions from
    the Democrat members of the Committee.
        So, while there are provisions in the bill that I think are
    transformational in terms of how we address and manage our
    forest because responsibly and appropriately managing the
    forest, I think that there is consensus on that. There is an
    issue of how do we go about it. And one of the things I think
    has come up with some of these questions is really about how do
    we pay for it all, right?
        How do we make sure that we pay enough so our firefighters
    are able to do their job so that people working on state fires
    aren't paid more, that there is enough so that we can get this
    done, because that doesn't get done in a vacuum.
        I take it, Mr. French, does the Forest Service have a big
    pot of money sitting around that they can utilize to get stuff
    done?
        Mr. French. Well, it has been helpful under the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and IRA, but generally, no.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. So, I wanted to see if you
    could comment. Yes, and I think that that was key. Like, we
    recognized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law the need to
    send money to USDA, to the Forest Service to start some of this
    transformational work that needed to be done, and to look at
    firefighter pay. And now we are trying to say, how do we get
    some of that and actually institutionalize it?
        But could you speak a bit on, in reviewing this, are there
    consequences for your agency?
        And would you be able to carry out some of the directives
    without funding resources to execute them?
        Mr. French. As written right now, so here is the direct
    answer. Yes, we could carry them out, but it would come at a
    consequence of us not doing other things. I mean, that is what
    we do right now. We take the money we have, and we focus on the
    priorities. And it may mean we are not delivering as much in
    other areas.
        The other way to look at it is, no, there are certain
    aspects of this that we would need more funding to carry out.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I think your comment
    earlier that if we put money up front we are going to save
    money from suppression costs, which are much more expensive and
    have lots of other negative consequences for our economy. But
    when I see this, it is like we can't keep complaining about
    these issues and not fund the agencies to do their work.
        Mr. French. Yes I agree with you. And the BIL and IRA
    funding has been incredible. It has helped us really look at
    wildland fire risk reduction. But when you compare that, that
    is one-time temporary money. You can't hire the type of
    capacity you need long-term to actually sustain a response to
    this problem and fund the agency at a level long-term to
    actually deal that. So, it is a different dynamic.
        I mean, we are dealing with right now on how to deal with
    big budget shifts, cuts we just got and in our workforce
    because that money was one-time money, right? So, most of that
    goes out to contractors and others. But if you are going to
    build a workforce to sustain this work over time and deliver
    our full mission, whether it is providing timber, range
    management, recreation, all the things that we do, there has to
    be a sustained investment.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. So, I would encourage my
    colleagues to think about the need to actually fund the
    agencies to do the work that we are asking them to do,
    including in this legislation.
        I want to quickly ask--I know you did some service-wide
    planning with regard to NEPA, the endangered species. Can you
    tell us quickly some of the accomplishments that you
    accomplished with that planning?
        Mr. French. Yes. I mean, this has been a focus of mine for
    years. Over the last 10 years or 5 years, we have seen a
    relative decrease in our NEPA costs by about $10 million a
    year, yet we have been producing more. We are doing fewer
    decisions, using more authorities, but we are producing more.
    We have record amounts of hazardous fuels work, a million more
    acres this year than we had the year before. We have been
    holding steady on our ability to provide other outputs, and yet
    our costs for environmental compliance continue to go down.
    That is one aspect of it that I am pretty proud of.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes. Part of that says you don't need
    to get rid of environmental compliance, you can actually plan
    for it and get better results.
        Thank you for the biochar provisions in this bill. I
    learned a lot about biochar with you, Mr. Chair. And with that,
    I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Chairman Tiffany, for
    holding this. I want to thank you for convening this hearing. I
    want to thank Chairman Westerman and the Committee staff for
    their work on the legislation before us today.
        The district I represent in northern Minnesota is home to
    great timberland, including on Federal lands like the Chippewa
    and Superior National Forests. Like many rural districts across
    the country, we face serious risks from wildfires if our
    forests are not properly managed. This legislation will help
    benefit the people of northern Minnesota and our vast public
    lands.
        One of the provisions that I am very happy to see included
    in this draft is the expansion of the Good Neighbor Authority
    to allow counties and tribes to fully participate. I am happy
    to see my good friend, Representative Fulcher's Treating Tribes
    and Counties as Good Neighbors Act included in the text of this
    bill. I am proud to co-sponsor the standalone bill, and want to
    thank Chairman Westerman for including it in his bill.
        Deputy Chief French, thank you for joining us once again
    today. The Chippewa and Superior National Forests are not
    currently meeting their timber harvesting goals, and this is
    having serious consequences. In August 2021, during the
    Greenwood Fire, nearly 27,000 acres burned in the Arrowhead
    region of northern Minnesota, most of that within the bounds of
    the Superior National Forest. And that was just 10 years ago,
    after the Pagami Creek Fire that burned just under 93,000 acres
    on the Superior National Forest.
        Deputy Chief French, timber harvesting is an important tool
    in preventing wildfires, one which, I will add, supports
    economic activity and communities like those in northern
    Minnesota and raises revenues that can be reinvested into
    forest management.
        Deputy Chief French, can you share why national forests
    like the Chippewa and Superior are not meeting their timber
    harvesting goals, their 100 percent of the allowable sale?
        Mr. French. Sure. First of all, I would say over the last
    10 years, we have increased our timber volumes out of the
    agency about 15 percent, while the budget that we have had
    specifically for timber----
        Mr. Stauber. Mr. French, I am just specifically talking
    about the Superior and Chippewa, not the overall forest.
        Mr. French. Well, I am going there.
        Mr. Stauber. OK.
        Mr. French. The bottom line is staffing. The overall budget
    we have had in forest products has remained relatively flat in
    that same period, whereas the increase of costs for personnel
    and things like that, we had nearly a 10 percent increase in
    salaries that we had to pay for last year, but the budget
    remains flat.
        So, at the end of the day, the amount of staffing we have
    to carry out this work, and we have been investing in that
    region, in their area, but chronically they tell us they don't
    have quite the number of funds they need.
        Mr. Stauber. So, how much staff do you need?
        By the way, I am not sure I agree with that answer, but how
    much staff do you need to make sure the Superior and Chippewa
    are harvesting 100 percent of the allowable sale?
        Mr. French. I will have to get back to you. I don't know
    the specific numbers on that.
        Mr. Stauber. Are you seeing these same issues, Deputy Chief
    French, outside the forest areas of Minnesota, like around the
    nation? Are you seeing short staffing causing the logging to be
    reduced?
        Mr. French. Yes. I mean, it is a combination of three
    things: we have lost specific expertise in staffing in some
    areas; we have lost infrastructure in some areas, forest
    products infrastructure, where it is harder to utilize those
    pieces; and then the composition of things that we do offer. We
    are not offering as much in terms of saw logs and other pieces
    as we reduce wildland fire risk. So, that has consequences that
    we know in our own supply, and doesn't meet all those goals.
        The last thing I would say is that those numbers that you
    talk about are allowable sale quantities. There are lots of
    other factors that had to go into how much we actually offer on
    forest to forest.
        Mr. Stauber. Would you consider getting some professional
    advice from the private industry?
        Mr. French. Yes, and we----
        Mr. Stauber. Which wouldn't cost the government anything.
        Mr. French. No, and I will say that I have been making some
    of those moves to bring in folks from the private industry to
    give us advice on how to handle some things right now. So,
    sure.
        Mr. Stauber. If I got a group together to work on the
    Superior and Chippewa from the private industry, you would have
    an open door?
        Mr. French. We have an open door to anything like that.
        What I would also suggest, though, is that managing forests
    on private lands versus managing lands through the Federal laws
    and regulations and the multiple things that we have to do are
    quite different. And you are going to see different management.
        Mr. Stauber. So, you are saying the Federal Government has
    redundancy and rules and regulations that hamper your ability,
    is that what you are saying?
        Mr. French. No, I am not saying that. I am saying if you
    have a private land that you are managing towards the value
    primarily of economic timber versus the value of, let's say,
    wildlife, fisheries, water, tribal interests, there is a whole
    other set of interests that we have to manage on a national
    forest based on the laws that Congress has passed that are
    quite different than a private industrial landowner. And I
    think it is just a different space.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I see my time is up.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. French. I thought your testimony was very
    well done and very helpful. I am also going to praise the Biden
    administration for what it has done with the IIJA, the
    infrastructure bill, and IRA in terms of advancing action on
    climate.
        But I am going to express to you the same frustration I
    have had with the Administration I expressed to Mr. Ali Zaidi
    yesterday, which is accepting this litigation regime as a
    given. And you did that, I think, very professionally. You are
    not here to criticize NEPA or any other laws. You have
    described them as part of your timeline when you work, it is
    just part of the game. I have been asking the Administration in
    other contexts to tell us what we could do to make it go
    faster.
        You know, we are facing this climate challenge that we
    describe as something we have to act on in 10 years. In my
    other Committee, Energy and Commerce, we deal with
    transmission. It takes 10 years to build a power line. You
    can't deploy significant renewables without doubling or
    tripling the size of the grid, and we are just not getting it
    done because we have burdened ourselves with such process. Out
    of the 10 years it takes to build a power line, 7 years of
    process, 3 years are construction. And we are not going to
    compete with China or solve the environmental crisis under that
    kind of regime.
        And it occurs to me that there are bedrock laws like the
    Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act that prevent the emission
    of pollutants into the air, but we have these process laws like
    NEPA that we need to look at again.
        I look at the comments about Mr. Westerman's draft, and a
    lot of it is just conclusory: Well, we can't change public
    access, we can't change access to the court, as if that is the
    game, as if NEPA was delivered to us on tablets from Moses,
    right, rather than IBM's electric typewriters in 1970, that is
    what they had back then. People like us wrote that law. Those
    laws need to be adapted to today's challenge.
        And in the fire context, you can't be litigating over
    almost every tree. We cannot do that. I am not asking you for a
    response. I am telling you. What I would like the Biden
    administration to tell me is how to make it better. This notion
    you can't go to arbitration, or you can't go to an
    administrative proceeding instead of a Federal court, where the
    complaint sits on a desk for a year before it is picked up, in
    the context of this, what we describe as an environmental
    crisis.
        And I am asking the Administration, I will ask through you.
    I think we need to do better. I think we need to figure out a
    way. Where is this essential? Where is it adding to
    environmental protection? And also, I practiced environmental
    law for 15 years, so I know a little bit about the NEPA-style
    litigation. You have to ask, we have to ask what the trade-offs
    are.
        And time is our enemy now. So, I don't want you building in
    time. I mean, you have to do it now. I don't want you building
    in time for NEPA litigation that is not necessary. I want to
    get rid of that. And I don't want you building in time for
    reconsultation if that is a waste of time. I want to give more
    authority to the Forest Service to manage these things, to get
    these forests in a condition that would have existed had
    natural fire existed over the last century because, as I said
    before, we don't have natural fires anymore. We have
    catastrophes.
        Some people wonder why I, from San Diego, am worried about
    that. Well, we have had fires too, directly. We had fires in
    2003 and 2004, when I was a Member in 2007, when I was a member
    of the City Council that took homes and a lot of what we
    couldn't get out of our way on brush management, like you
    described with your mom. But just because I am next to the
    ocean, I wouldn't claim the ocean as my district, right? The
    oceans and the forests are natural systems that affect the
    entire world. We all have to be in this game, and I am just not
    going to sit here and say that the way we have done it always
    is the way we should do it just because we have always done it,
    always.
        And some of these arguments I see, I will just let people
    know who are here, are very conclusory, as though expanding
    categorical exclusions in itself is an argument that persuades
    me. It doesn't. If expanding categorical exclusions is a way we
    can help these forest systems be healthy, I am all for it
    because I am for the environment, not for these 50-year-old
    environmental laws that were appropriate in 1970, but often
    don't meet the challenge and, in fact, ironically, undermine
    the challenge of environmental protection today.
        So, I am happy to have this conversation start off today.
    And Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
    participating, and thanks again for letting me participate in
    this hearing. And I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentleman yields, and I will
    recognize Representative Westerman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany.
        And again, thank you, Mr. French, for being here today. You
    said something in your testimony that I have said many times in
    this room before. It is the old metaphor that an ounce of
    prevention is worth a pound of cure. And that is probably
    nowhere more evident than in forests. And a trained eye can see
    that a forest is in need of work.
        And when Mr. Peters and I worked on the Save Our Sequoias
    Act, one thing we put in there was the authority that you all
    are already using. It is an emergency authority, where you can
    go in and do work when an emergency happens. But when you look
    at a forest and it is overgrown, and it is in an arid condition
    where fires are prevalent, you can almost look at it like a
    bomb with a fuse on it. And we shouldn't wait until the fire
    starts to use those emergency authorities.
        Could you talk a little bit about how the emergency
    authority has benefited the work on getting more of these
    hazardous areas treated, and the benefits of codifying that so
    that you would have that authority and be insulated from
    litigation on it?
        Mr. French. Yes, thank you, I appreciate the question. When
    I talked about the efficiencies that we have created and the
    way that we are doing our NEPA right now, part of it is based
    on the full use of the authorities we have been given through
    Congress.
        And one of those is the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    Emergency Authority. The Secretary authorized us to use that
    over 27 million acres. We have 37 projects that have been
    promulgated using that authority, and then we have other
    authorities like the one that you are talking about that we
    have used out of our own NEPA regs that allowed us to move in
    and take action immediately before the fire hit.
        It is also incredibly helpful sometimes after a fire to
    remove hazard trees along roads that right now we don't have
    some clear authorities to do that quickly. So, using those in
    those spaces have tremendously helped us.
        If I look at the efficiencies that we have been able to
    create, it is primarily driven by doing larger projects using
    all the authorities, whether those are CEs that have been
    promulgated or emergency authorities, that have basically
    allowed us to reduce the amount of money we put into NEPA and
    other environmental compliance, but produce higher quality and
    more authorizations at the other end, Congressman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you. When I first came to Congress in
    2015 and started working on these wildland fire issues, I have
    learned from service in the State Legislature that if you want
    to know how something works, go look at the budget. So, I did
    hours upon hours of digging through the Forest Service's
    budget. And I found something very interesting in it, that at
    one time the Forest Service sent more money to the Treasury
    than the Forest Service was appropriated. So, the Forest
    Service was actually, in a sense, making money for the Federal
    Government.
        Now, by the time I got here in 2015, it was way the other
    direction on that because of the tremendous amount of money
    spent on fire suppression. At one point, I thought we should
    just change the name of the Forest Service to the U.S. Fire
    Service because most of the funding went to fight fire.
        And we worked hard to get something called the Fire Funding
    Fix done so that FEMA funds would be available when
    firefighting funds were exhausted, and the thought was more
    management could happen instead of saving all the Forest
    Service budget to fight fire at the end of the year. We got
    that done, we have given the Forest Service authorities, such
    as the 20-year stewardship contracting, which, unfortunately,
    to my knowledge, there hasn't been a 20-year stewardship
    contract issued yet. I am still going to continue working on
    that and pushing on that.
        But we hear a lot about funding and needs for funding, and
    I hear everything you are saying about the multi-use aspect of
    our Federal lands. But if we just took the money we were
    spending to fight fires and used that on forest management,
    then we wouldn't have to spend so much money on fighting fires.
    It is like we have things upside down and backwards.
        But on the other hand, that forest is valuable. It has very
    valuable assets in it. And as you responded to Mr. Stauber,
    private landowners are trying to make a profit. If the Forest
    Service wasn't trying to make a profit, just trying to pay the
    bills so that we could do more management work, it seems like
    there is a tremendous asset there that--as I said, it is 300
    trees per acre and needs to drop down much lower than that. If
    we had the markets, we could sell that timber to pay for future
    management. And we have programs like Good Neighbor Authority.
    I have a bill on wildlife habitat management that does just
    that, it takes revenues from Forest Service sales and puts them
    back into the fund to do more work.
        Do you see a scenario where, instead of Congress having to
    appropriate more money, where we could actually use the
    resources we have to generate the funds so that the Forest
    Service could pay for all the work that they are doing to keep
    our forests healthy?
        It has happened in the past. Why can't it happen again?
        Mr. French. OK, so maybe. I mean, to be realistic here, I
    would just say there are a number of activities that we do. If
    we were to recover the funds that come from them, it would help
    pay towards delivering the program. And it goes beyond forest
    management.
        In this one there is a scenario to get there, but I think
    that there are a couple things. Attitudes on how we manage our
    forests, and I am reflecting public meetings and comments that
    we get, litigation that we have, towards managing forests
    through a standard-type rotation versus a long-term resiliency
    set, I think that is one of the spaces that we find ourselves
    in public land management is those two spaces, Congressman.
        And why I bring that up is that both result in our ability
    to deliver forest products. One results in a continuous
    delivery of saw logs. And I think our challenges right now are,
    as we are trying to reduce wildland fire risk and those
    pressures not to rotate trees but to do long-term restoration,
    our ability to provide saw log products as well as remove all
    the other products at times is pretty challenging, and you can
    see the consequences of that.
        Mr. Westerman. Yes, and just a quick follow-up on that. I
    am not talking about plantations and clear-cutting. I am
    talking about thinning activities that over time can produce
    perpetual income to the Forest Service. And it is being done on
    the Ouachita Forest in my district, and it is the healthiest
    component of the forest that is out there.
        And we are seeing it was done to create habitat for the red
    cockaded woodpecker. We are seeing more woodpeckers, more
    songbirds, more quail, more turkey, more deer, and a flush of
    biodiversity when you open up the forest floor to sunlight.
        So, I think it is not really thinking outside the box; it
    is looking at how we can use sound science to manage these
    forests, and they can actually pay their way so that it is not
    a burden on the taxpayer. And that is something I want to work
    on as we go forward.
        I am way out of time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tiffany. It is forestry, right? The gentleman yields. I
    want to ask a couple questions here and take my 5 minutes, if I
    may, Mr. French.
        I just got done planting the state tree in Wisconsin, a
    sugar maple, out on the Capitol grounds. What a great day to be
    able to do that. And we look forward to that being a mighty
    maple at some point. Maybe we can even tap it for a little
    maple syrup.
        So, Mr. French, I want to piggyback a little bit on the
    Chairman's questions there. What is one change that could be
    made to get there? You just used the phrase, ``to get there,''
    in terms of having more harvest, and I think we are driving at
    how we had management a few decades ago that was so successful.
    And in order to get there, what is the No. 1 thing you would
    change?
        Mr. French. Change in the agency or in general?
        Mr. Tiffany. What is the No. 1 change in the position that
    you are in?
        Let's say you are king for a day in the United States
    Forest Service. In order to ``get there,'' what is the No. 1
    change that would help us get there?
        Mr. French. I think the No. 1 thing is being able to
    clearly show people the true costs and consequences of what we
    are doing, and then being able to prioritize the resources we
    have towards delivering what those choices are.
        If you are going to deliver on wildland fire fuels
    reduction, we can, as the Chairman pointed out, most
    oftentimes, not always, pay for the sawlogs to get out. I have
    to figure out a way to pay for all the small-diameter and other
    pieces, because the sawlogs don't usually pay for the biomass.
    If I could make a change, I would figure out a solution that
    does both, gives me a way to transport and dispose and utilize
    biomass in a way that I can also deliver the broader set of
    sawlogs at the same time. In this forestry question, that is
    what I would shift.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, what is the impediment to get that biomass
    off from the forest floor?
        Mr. French. Fuel cost and cost of utilization, and a loss
    of an integrated set of markets out there, forest markets, of
    where you have to take that stuff to.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, in other words, for example, I cited in my
    testimony the loss of sawmills.
        Mr. French. That is a part of----
        Mr. Tiffany. It is a big problem, right?
        Mr. French. It is a part of it, yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, the Federal Forest Resource Coalition puts
    out a quarterly update on how much harvest is coming off from
    the U.S. Forest Service lands. Do you see that report?
        Mr. French. I have seen their reports in the past. I am not
    sure if I saw the latest one.
        Mr. Tiffany. Because what is striking to me is, subsequent
    to huge amounts of money being authorized to try to get rid of
    this backlog, we were told that this is simply going to take
    more money to be able to harvest more wood and all the rest. We
    are actually not seeing that in the data. So, what is it going
    to take to get more harvest off from those Federal lands?
        Mr. French. Again, on the wildfire crisis strategy, the
    focus there is how do you increase or decrease the risk to
    communities that are threatened by wildfire, and that is going
    to run the gamut of work that can be from removing chaparral
    and shrubs all the way to sawlogs.
        And we have been focusing on the communities that are most
    at risk. Unfortunately, many of those places are places that
    lack a connected forest products industry. We spend a lot of
    time trying to connect those two.
        I understand the criticisms, but what I can say is we
    increased our fuels reduction last year by more than a million
    acres based on those investments. We have been holding fairly
    steady on our timber volume outputs. We have been trying to
    create ways that you connect the two more directly.
        But I would also say that there should be as much
    investment in the budget items that are for forest products as
    there are for fuels. They drive a capacity that does similar,
    but different things at times.
        Mr. Tiffany. Are you saying that they are not capturing the
    fuels reduction that you are doing in that data?
        Mr. French. No, I am saying that there are places where we
    are doing significant fuels reduction that isn't necessarily
    about removing sawlogs.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, the data is not capturing that. So, how
    they are measuring this, would that be accurate, that they are
    not capturing some of the work that you are doing?
        Mr. French. What we are showing, and we will be able to
    come back to Congress and show this, is what is the overall
    risk reduction that we are creating to the communities that we
    are trying to protect. That is a better outcome to look at, in
    terms of overall value of the work we are doing versus how many
    acres you treat or how much volume you produce.
        And I say that not to say that we are not wanting to make
    sure that we create a sustainable amount of volume at any given
    time, but the investments we have had to reduce wildland fire
    risk, which primarily came through BIL and IRA, are not
    necessarily connected. If you are trying to reduce wildland
    fire risk in some of your most fire-prone communities, at times
    you are going to be doing it in ways--I will give you an
    example, and I know I am over time, but yesterday I was meeting
    with a community that is in the exact same predicament we are.
        Mr. Tiffany. There is nobody here to object, go ahead.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. French. All right. I mean, this is the conversation
    that I just went through yesterday. They had to dispose of tons
    and tons of acres of trees because they couldn't figure out how
    to subsidize the cost to transport them to someplace for them
    to be utilized.
        So, if you are going to reduce wildland fire risk to a
    community that doesn't have infrastructure to use what I think
    increases the scale, like logging, like timber sales, then the
    costs are higher per acre, and you don't necessarily see those
    outputs. And this is worth us getting into a deeper
    conversation. But that is what is going on.
        Mr. Tiffany. We look forward to having that conversation
    with you.
        Are there other agencies that are a problem here also?
    Because, from my understanding, the EPA has been a problem in
    terms of being able to build a plant specifically in the upper
    Midwest, possibly even in my home state of Wisconsin, and they
    have denied the ability to do that, because of, they say,
    emissions concerns.
        Mr. French. I am not aware of that. What I will say is
    integrated forest products industry is an incredibly important
    piece for us to reduce wildland fire risk and maintain healthy
    forests.
        Mr. Tiffany. If this question is redundant, I apologize, I
    was planting that maple tree: Is there any scientific reason
    why forest management projects should be limited to no more
    than 3,000 acres?
        Mr. French. You mean in our categorical exclusions?
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Mr. French. Well, part of that was based on what Congress
    told us. When those CEs were promulgated, let's say under the
    Healthy Forest Restoration Act, that is what Congress said was
    the limit for something not being significant.
        For the things that we have promulgated, what we do is we
    look at our past history of environmental assessments that find
    that projects are not significant, and we use those to say here
    are the acreages that we would say a new CE would make.
        Mr. Tiffany. Might it be helpful if you can expand that CE
    if it would be appropriate for that landscape?
        Mr. French. It is always helpful for us to have--OK, here
    is how I will answer it.
        A CE takes us about 143 days to finish, and costs about a
    quarter of what an EA does. An EA takes about 390 days to
    finish and costs essentially a third of what an EIS does. So,
    you always have these scales of efficiencies. So, my answer to
    you is that we use the best tools we have, whether it is things
    we have created ourselves or from Congress, to try to hit the
    most work we can with the resources we have.
        Mr. Tiffany. If you had the ability to expand beyond 3,000
    acres for CEs, might you use that in some projects?
        Mr. French. If we had authorities that were greater than
    our current limits, we could make it through ESA and other
    pieces and local collaboration, then of course we would use
    those.
        Mr. Tiffany. What are some of the primary reasons projects
    today require an EA or an EIS, as opposed to a CE?
        I mean, what are a couple of primary reasons that----
        Mr. French. The most significant piece is that the larger
    the project that you want to authorize, you are usually outside
    the scope of a categorical exclusion.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, larger than 3,000 acres?
        Mr. French. Yes. If we are doing a 10,000, 20,000, 30,000-
    acre project. And the likelihood that you start to have
    potentially significant issues arise, whether that is
    compliance with the National Heritage Protection Act, or ESA,
    or even your local community that is looking at this through a
    different lens. Those are the sorts of things that start to
    occur with larger projects.
        Mr. Tiffany. What would be the impact if there is not a
    permanent solution to the Cottonwood Decision? Let me start,
    can I preface it with a question?
        Mr. French. Sure.
        Mr. Tiffany. Has the Cottonwood Decision been a major
    impediment in getting some projects done?
        Mr. French. It increases our costs on a per-unit basis in
    places where we are authorizing projects so that we are
    guarding ourselves against litigation. And it creates risk.
        Mr. Tiffany. Significantly?
        Mr. French. What is that?
        Mr. Tiffany. Does it significantly increase costs?
        Mr. French. Yes, sure.
        Mr. Tiffany. Give me a project, I mean, did it increase it
    by 25 percent or 50 percent? Do you have a----
        Mr. French. OK, here is the way I would say it. We can do a
    project in one part of the country where we know that the risk
    for litigation under, like, a Cottonwood-type approach but it
    is all litigation will generally be three to four times less on
    the environmental compliance side because of the way we do the
    analysis. And unit costs are probably around half, sometimes
    more.
        I mean, that is the business that I work within. And I am
    not here to say one way is right or another. I just know if I
    do a project here, it is going to cost me this. And if I do it
    over here, it is going to cost me a different amount.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, I just want to hone in, a final question
    here on unit costs. You said it is up to half. What do you mean
    by unit cost?
        For being able to remove that wood, is it a 50 percent
    increase in cost, or does it double it?
        Mr. French. It doubles it.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, it doubles the cost of removal as a result
    of increased litigation.
        Mr. French. The level of analysis that we are going to do
    on an acre in one of those places will be much higher than we
    may in other places, and that increases those unit costs, sure.
        Mr. Tiffany. And you have seen an example where it has been
    double. Is that accurate?
        Mr. French. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. Well, very good. I am way over time, and I
    appreciate you taking the time, Mr. French, to come here today
    and testify. It is always good to have you here and provide
    information from the Forest Service perspective. Thank you for
    your answers.
        Mr. French. You are welcome. Thank you.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. We will now move on to our next panel. I
    would like to thank the Deputy Chief for his testimony.
        While the Clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the
    witnesses that under Committee Rules, they must limit their
    oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statements 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 previous panel, I will allow all witnesses to
    testify before Member questioning.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Tiffany. Well, it is great to have our next panel here,
    and first I am going to introduce Hannah Downey, the Policy
    Director at the Property and Environmental Research Center.
        Ms. Downey, it is good to have you here. You have 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF HANNAH DOWNEY, POLICY DIRECTOR, PROPERTY AND
             ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

        Ms. Downey. Excellent. Chairman Tiffany, Chairman
    Westerman, thank you so much for the opportunity to participate
    in today's hearing on forest conservation and how the
    discussion draft from Chairman Westerman can help us fix
    America's forests. My name is Hannah Downey, and I am the
    Policy Director at the Property and Environment Research
    Center.
        When I was 14, my family was on a backpacking trip in the
    mountains of Montana when we came around a bend in the trail,
    only to see flames racing up the canyon towards us. It was a
    terrifying journey evacuating to safety, and I quickly learned
    the power and destruction of an out-of-control wildfire. I am,
    unfortunately, just one of many with similar stories.
        Today, I am proud to be able to promote policies that help
    improve the situation through my work at PERC. PERC is the
    national leader in market solutions for conservation, and
    enhancing forest health is a primary focus of our work,
    especially the obstacles to collaborative forest restoration
    and the expanded use of prescribed burns. In 2021, we authored
    this report, ``Fix America's Forests,'' looking at policy
    reforms to help restore our national forests and tackle the
    wildfire crisis. Many of the ideas we looked at then are
    included in the proposal we are discussing today. PERC is non-
    profit, non-partisan, and we are proudly based in Bozeman,
    Montana.
        This discussion draft will help address the wildfire
    problem through reforms that would make it easier to do
    restoration work, limit disruptions from litigation, and expand
    capacity through partnerships.
        Large and destructive wildfires are, unfortunately,
    becoming more common, and it is really an environmental
    problem. They destroy wildlife habitat, pollute our water and
    air, emit carbon dioxide, and shut down recreation. Although
    several factors contribute to this trend, the declining health
    of our forests is the primary cause. A lack of forest
    restoration and decades of fire suppression have led us to a
    situation where we have excessive forest density and a build-up
    of fuels to a point where an area larger than the state of
    California urgently needs our help.
        The good news is that fuels reduction treatments, including
    mechanical thinning and prescribed burns, are effective at
    restoring forest health and reducing fire risk, and there is
    broad agreement on these positive impacts. A new meta-analysis
    published in the journal ``Forest Ecology and Management,'' for
    example, found that combining mechanical thinning and
    prescribed burns reduces the severity of subsequent wildfires
    by 62 to 72 percent.
        To tackle the wildfire crisis, PERC supports the Biden
    administration's ambitious strategy to significantly increase
    its forest restoration work over the next decade. But if the
    good news is that we know what we need to do to actually fix
    our forests, the bad news is that doing that work is a long,
    complicated process.
        First, before any chainsaws or drip torches can touch a
    Federal forest, a restoration project must navigate significant
    bureaucratic obstacles such as the NEPA review. Although well-
    intentioned, it takes years for a project to get off the
    ground. According to PERC researchers, once the Forest Service
    initiates an environmental review process, it takes over 5
    years to actually begin a mechanical treatment on the ground
    and over 7 years for a prescribed burn. We don't have that
    time. This proposal from Chairman Westerman would help
    alleviate these delays for the highest-risk firesheds by
    applying categorical exclusions and emergency authorizations.
        However, if a project is litigated, this adds on even more
    years of delay. While litigation does play an important role in
    holding the government accountable, it can also be disruptive
    and warp incentives. Disruptive litigation has tied the Forest
    Service in a Gordian Knot, and consumes valuable time and
    funding that should instead be spent making a positive
    difference in our forests. Several common-sense solutions
    offered in this proposal, like fixing the Cottonwood Decision,
    improving injunction standards, and establishing a pilot
    arbitration program could help alleviate these barriers.
        Finally, even when forest restoration projects do make it
    through this approval process, the capacity to implement work
    on the ground still remains a challenge. States, counties,
    tribes, and private partners are all ready and willing to help
    fix this problem. This proposal contains several opportunities
    to expand on successful models to get more work done with
    partners by extending Good Neighbor Authority revenue retention
    to counties and tribes, and increasing stewardship contracts to
    up to 20 years.
        We need to get to the root of the wildfire crisis and get
    more restoration work done in our forests. This discussion
    draft has good tools Congress should act on to help fix
    America's forests.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any
    questions.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Downey follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Hannah Downey, Policy Director, Property and
                       Environment Research Center (PERC)

    Main Points

         America's wildfire crisis is getting worse. There is broad
                agreement that increasing active forest restoration
                efforts, such as mechanical thinning and prescribed
                burning, will improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk
                of catastrophic wildfires.

         Red tape and litigation encourage conflict and create
                barriers to forest restoration activities. Policy change is
                needed to advance positive work.

         Partnerships with the private sector, states, counties,
                and tribal nations can help overcome federal capacity
                challenges to forest restoration.

    Introduction
        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
    important discussion on forest conservation and how this proposal from
    Chairman Westerman can remove obstacles and bring in additional
    resources to improve the pace and scale of forest restoration.
        My name is Hannah Downey, and I am the policy director at the
    Property and Environment Research Center. PERC is the national leader
    in market solutions for conservation, with over 40 years of research
    and a network of respected scholars and practitioners. Through
    research, law and policy, and innovative applied conservation projects,
    PERC explores how aligning incentives for environmental stewardship
    produces sustainable outcomes for land, water, and wildlife. Enhancing
    forest health has been a primary focus of PERC's research and policy
    efforts, with recent major reports on how to overcome obstacles to
    collaborative forest restoration and expand the use of prescribed
    fire.\1\ Founded in 1980, PERC is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and proudly
    based in Bozeman, Montana.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Holly Fretwell & Jonathan Wood, Fix America's Forests:
    Reforms to Restore National Forests and Tackle the Wildfire Crisis,
    PERC Public Lands Report (2021); Jonathan Wood & Morgan Varner, Burn
    Back Better: How Western States Can Encourage Prescribed Fire on
    Private Lands, PERC Policy Report (2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond my professional work, my connection to today's topic is
    deeply personal. As a young girl, I'll never forget the fear of being
    forced to evacuate a family backpacking trip in Montana's Absaroka-
    Beartooth Wilderness as an out-of-control wildfire raced toward us.
    Since then, I married a wildland firefighter and have prayed for my
    husband and his fire crew as they battled blazes around the United
    States. I have seen members of my community lose their homes to a
    devastating wildfire. And as a resident of Bozeman, Montana--which,
    like many western cities, draws its water from national forest lands
    with high risk of catastrophic fire--I live with the sobering
    realization each summer that our community's water supply would likely
    be cut off in the event of a fire in the nearby watershed.
        The reality is that large and destructive wildfires are becoming
    more common across the West. Although several factors contribute to
    this trend, the declining health of our nation's forests is a primary
    cause.\2\ America's national forests face an 80-million-acre backlog in
    needed restoration--a backlog that leaves our forests with excess
    fuels, more vulnerable to insects and disease outbreaks, and less
    resilient to climate change and drought.\3\ Yet the Forest Service has
    struggled to treat more than a few million of those acres per year on
    average.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Among the four factors driving fire severity in the western
    United States, live fuel accounted for an estimated 53.1 percent of
    average relative influence, fire weather accounted for 22.9 percent,
    climate accounted for 13.7 percent, and topography accounted for 10.3
    percent. See Sean A. Parks et al., High-Severity Fire: Evaluating Its
    Key Drivers and Mapping Its Probability Across Western US Forests,
    Environmental Research Letters (2018).
        \3\ See Forest Service, Forest Products Modernization (last visited
    Mar. 17, 2023). See also Fix America's Forests, supra n. 1 at 4-16.
        \4\ See Deputy Chief Christopher French, ``Testimony Concerning
    Instrastructure Needs, Western Water and Public Lands, and the
    Discussion Draft of the Energy Infrastructure Act'' (June 24, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PERC supports the Biden administration's ambitious strategy to
    significantly increase its forest restoration work over the next
    decade, including the goal of treating an additional 20 million acres
    of national forest above the business-as-usual rate.\5\ Meeting that
    critical target will require greater efficiency in the years-long
    process of developing, approving, and implementing forest restoration
    projects.\6\ PERC proposed reforms to restore national forests and
    tackle the wildfire crisis in the 2021 report Fix America's Forests.
    This discussion draft incorporates several of those recommended reforms
    that would make it easier to do restoration work in high-risk
    firesheds, limit disruptions from litigation, and expand capacity
    through partnerships. Now is the time to implement proactive policies
    that increase the pace and scale of forest restoration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See Forest Service, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy
    for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America's
    Forests (2022).
        \6\ See Eric Edwards & Sara Sutherland, Does Environmental Review
    Worsen the Wildfire Crisis?, PERC Policy Brief (2022). See also
    Confronting the Wildfire Crisis, supra n. 9 at 30 (predicting that
    existing ``shovel ready'' projects could be completed in years 1 and 2
    of the plan); Forest Service, National Prescribed Fire Program Review
    App. A 21 (2022) (identifying the need to ``streamline required
    environmental analysis and consultations'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Getting to the Root of the Wildfire Crisis

        According to the Forest Service, about 40 percent of the acres in
    the national forest system are in need of restoration.\7\ When the
    Department of the Interior's 54-million-acre restoration backlog is
    added in,\8\ the total area of federal land that needs urgent help is
    larger than the state of California (See appendix figure 1). The
    wildfire crisis is the most visible symptom of this problem, but it is
    not the only one. Due to the backlog, many western forests are stocked
    full of overly dense, unhealthy, and dying stands that provide lower-
    quality habitat, are more vulnerable to insects and disease, and are
    less resilient to climate change and drought.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n. 1 at 4. The Forest Service
    manages 193 million acres of land, 80 million of which are in need of
    restoration, according to the agency.
        \8\ GAO, Wildland Fire: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Reduce
    Wildland Fuels and Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems (2019).
        \9\ See Fix America's Forests n. 1 at 8-13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As with any complex phenomenon, no single factor fully explains
    declining forest health or the wildfire crisis. A changing climate has
    increased the risk of drought and extended the West's ``wildfire
    season.'' \10\ A massive jump in the number of people living near or
    recreating in forests has increased opportunities for human-caused
    ignitions.\11\ But the largest factor, according to a study by Forest
    Service scientists, is excessive forest density and the buildup of
    fuels due to a lack of forest management and decades of fire
    suppression.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 1 at 4.
        \11\ See id.
        \12\ See High-Severity Fire: Evaluating Its Key Drivers and Mapping
    Its Probability Across Western US Forests, supra n. 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fire is nothing new to western forests, which were traditionally
    adapted to flames due to climate, terrain, and Indigenous tribes' use
    of controlled fire for millennia.\13\ However, recent catastrophic
    wildfires are far more destructive than historical fire regimes. They
    are more likely to threaten old-growth trees, wipe out habitat for
    wildlife, and cause erosion that degrades watersheds and fish
    habitat.\14\ Even mighty giant sequoias, one of the most fire-adapted
    tree species, are at risk. The National Park Service estimates that 10-
    20 percent of the world's remaining sequoias have been killed by
    wildfires since 2020.\15\ Wildfire emissions are also a major climate
    concern. California's record wildfire year in 2020, for example,
    released twice the amount of carbon emissions than the state had cut
    between 2003 and 2019.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 1 at 4.
        \14\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n. 1 at 8--10.
        \15\ See Dr. Kristen Shive, et al., 2021 Fire Season Impacts to
    Giant Sequoias (last visited Mar. 19, 2023).
        \16\ Michael Jerrett, Amir S. Jina, Miriam E. Marlier, Up in smoke:
    California's greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020
    wildfires, 310 Env'tl Pollution 119888 (2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2015, for the first time, the United States eclipsed 10 million
    acres burned by wildfires in a year--an unfathomable total just a few
    decades ago--with the vast majority of that acreage concentrated in the
    West. Since then, we have passed that milestone twice more.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ National Interagency Fire Center, ``Total Wildland Fires and
    Acres (1983-2022).''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And due to growing populations near forests, modern fires threaten
    communities and property in ways not seen before.\18\ Nearly 100,000
    structures have burned in wildfires since 2005, with two-thirds of that
    destruction occurring since 2017.\19\ California's Camp Fire in 2018,
    for example, was the deadliest and most destructive in that state's
    history, killing 85 people and destroying most of the town of Paradise
    in less than 24 hours.\20\ In my home of Bozeman, our city's entire
    water source would be depleted in just three days if our neighboring
    forests went up in flames. For decades, the watershed has been at high
    risk of severe wildfire. Yet, despite this risk, the collaboratively
    designed Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project was tangled in red tape
    and litigation for 15 years before restoration activities could finally
    begin several years ago.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 1 at 4.
        \19\ Headwaters Economics, Wildfires Destroy Thousands of
    Structures Each Year (2022).
        \20\ National Institute of Standards & Technology, New Timeline of
    Deadliest California Wildfire Could Guide Lifesaving Research and
    Action (Feb. 8, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Forest restoration efforts, including mechanical thinning and
    prescribed fire, are urgently needed to reduce wildfire damage and
    promote forest resilience. A new meta-analysis published in the journal
    Forest Ecology and Management found that combining mechanical thinning
    with prescribed burns reduces the severity of subsequent wildfires in
    an area by 62-72 percent.\21\ Importantly, the efficacy of these
    treatments did not vary among forest types assessed in the study and
    was high across a range of fire weather conditions. The effectiveness
    of these tools was demonstrated in 2021 during Oregon's Bootleg Fire,
    which ultimately burned more than 400,000 acres.\22\ Firefighters
    reported that where both treatments had been applied, fire intensity
    was reduced, the crowns of trees were left intact, and the blaze became
    a more manageable ground fire (see appendix figure 2). Reports also
    indicated that an area where scheduled prescribed burns had been
    delayed suffered more damage than areas where treatments had been
    completed.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Kimberley Davis, et. al., Tamm Review: A Meta-Analysis of
    Thinning, Prescribed Fire, and Wildfire Effects on Subsequent Wildfire
    Severity in Conifer Dominated Forests of the Western US, 561 Forest
    Ecology and Management 121885 (June 2024).
        \22\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 1 at 5.
        \23\ See Sara Sutherland & Eric Edwards, How Environmental Red Tape
    Inflames Wildfire Risk, PERC Reports (2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Forest Service has simply not been able to keep up with forest
    restoration needs. In 2023, the agency completed more hazardous fuels
    work than any prior year in its history, reporting that it treated more
    than 4.3 million acres.\24\ The Forest Service's method of tracking and
    reporting these acres, however, is prone to misinterpretation that
    overstates the agency's progress at addressing the restoration
    backlog.\25\ For example, the 4.3 million acres of restoration work
    reported last year does not necessarily mean that the restoration
    backlog has been reduced by 4.3 million acres. Because an area may
    require multiple treatments over several years, the Forest Service's
    method of tracking and reporting this information can result in
    substantial double-counting. While PERC applauds the Forest Service's
    commitment to increasing forest restoration, we must continue to
    dramatically increase the pace and scale of this work to make progress
    against the backlog.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ U.S. Forest Service, USDA Forest Service celebrates historic
    investments in 2023, (January 23, 2024).
        \25\ See Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions (ACRES)
    Act, H.R. 1567. See also Adiel Kaplan & Monica Hersher, ``The Forest
    Service is Overstating its Wildfire Prevention Progress to Congress
    Despite Decades of Warnings Not To,'' NBC News (August 9, 2022); GAO,
    Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better
    Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction (2003).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overcoming Red Tape

        While the good news is that we know how to reduce wildfire risk
    through forest restoration activities, the bad news is it is
    exceptionally difficult to get that work done on the ground and at the
    scale needed. Before any chainsaws or drip torches can touch a federal
    forest, a restoration project must navigate complex bureaucratic
    procedures, including review under the National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA). Depending on the extent of anticipated impacts, NEPA may
    require the Forest Service to analyze a project through, in order of
    increasing complexity and expense, a categorical exclusion,
    environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. The agency
    may also need to develop a range of alternatives to the project and
    analyze their impacts as well.
        While well-intentioned, extensive NEPA reviews can significantly
    increase project costs and inject substantial delays. In PERC's recent
    policy report Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis?,
    researchers compiled and analyzed a novel NEPA dataset and found that
    the average time to conduct an environmental impact statement is over
    2.5 years.\26\ Even a categorical exclusion, which is designed to
    exempt a project from stringent environmental review, takes an average
    of nine months to complete.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Eric Edwards and Sara Sutherland, Does Environmental Review
    Worsen the Wildfire Crisis? How Environmental Analysis Delays Fuel
    Treatment Projects, PERC Policy Brief (June 2022).
        \27\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NEPA delays contribute substantially to an overall approval and
    implementation process that holds up projects for many years. According
    to PERC researchers, once the Forest Service initiates the
    environmental review process, it takes an average of 3.6 years to
    actually begin a mechanical treatment on the ground and 4.7 years to
    begin a prescribed burn--and those numbers increase to 5.3 years and
    7.2 years, respectively, if an environmental impact statement is
    required (see appendix figure 3).\28\ If a project is litigated, that
    adds on another two years, on average. Given the time it takes to
    conduct environmental reviews and implement fuel treatments, it is
    unlikely that the Forest Service will be able to achieve its goal of
    treating an additional 20 million acres over the next 10 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Evaluating the costs associated with NEPA compliance is challenging
    largely because, similar to many other federal agencies, the Forest
    Service does not routinely track or report the associated costs and
    personnel time.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Katie Hoover & Anne Riddle, National Forest System Management:
    Overview and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service (May
    18, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Forest Service has, however, historically identified
    administrative process barriers as a major factor holding up forest
    restoration goals. As a 2002 Forest Service report on The Process
    Predicament described it, ``Even noncontroversial projects often
    proceed at a snail's pace.'' \30\ In 2022, the Forest Service likewise
    concluded that environmental review processes must be streamlined to
    give the agency more tools to use prescribed fire to protect forests
    and wildlife habitat.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ U.S. Forest Service, The Process Predicament: How Statutory,
    Regulatory, and Administrative Factors Affect National Forest
    Management (2002).
        \31\ U.S. Forest Service, Nat'l Prescribed Fire Program Review
    (2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Improving the Process

        The current environmental review process delays needed restoration
    projects and is often further delayed by litigation. Several common
    sense solutions offered in Chairman Westerman's proposal can help
    alleviate these barriers.
    Make Categorical Exclusions Easier to Apply

        One approach to reduce NEPA burdens is to use categorical
    exclusions to exempt a forest restoration project from rigorous
    environmental review. Under this proposal from Chairman Westerman,
    projects in the top 20 percent of riskiest firesheds would be
    categorically excluded from NEPA analysis, expediting needed
    restoration activities in the areas that need it most. Additionally,
    projects in these high-risk firesheds would be included under section
    40807(d) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (16 U.S.C.
    6592c(d)), allowing them to move forward as emergency actions under
    NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. There are major environmental
    risks to not moving needed forest restoration projects along quickly,
    and these improvements will help get that work done in the highest-risk
    areas.
    Fix Cottonwood

        Chairman Westerman's proposal would also address the problems
    created by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Cottonwood Environmental Law
    Center v. Forest Service.\32\ When the decision was issued, the Obama
    administration warned that it threatened to ``cripple the Forest
    Service.'' \33\ A temporary legislative fix forestalled that result for
    a while, but it expired last year. As a result, the Biden
    administration has reported that restoration projects in 87 national
    forests could be upended by litigation under Cottonwood, and the Forest
    Service's only option could be to spend millions of dollars and a
    decade on duplicative and unnecessary paperwork rather than working in
    the field to restore forests.\34\ Simply put, Cottonwood harms forests
    and wildlife and only benefits litigants. That's why a diverse
    coalition of conservation groups support a permanent Cottonwood fix and
    why the idea has drawn significant, bipartisan support.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015).
        \33\ See Pet. for Cert., U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cottonwood, No. 15-
    1387 (filed June 10, 2016).
        \34\ See Forest Serv., Deputy Chief French testimony on land bills
    (March 24, 2023).
        \35\ See Jonathan Wood, Prepared Statement before the U.S. House
    Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Federal Lands--Hearing on
    H.R. 200 (March 23, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Make Litigation Less Disruptive

        While litigation plays an important role in holding the government
    accountable, it can also be disruptive and warp incentives. It can
    encourage conflict rather than collaboration, especially where the
    government pays its opponents' attorney's fees.\36\ And it can elevate
    relatively minor scientific or policy disagreements over broader
    considerations of forest health and the public interest. Litigation has
    tied the Forest Service in what former agency chief Jack Ward Thomas
    described as a ``Gordian Knot'' by limiting the agency's ability to
    actively restore national forests.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ See, e.g., Habitat Education Center, Inc. v. U.S. Forest
    Service, No. 07-cv-578, 9 (E.D. WI 2019) (describing a litigant's NEPA
    claims as ``much closer to flyspecking than holistic analysis.
    Plaintiffs have identified a host of technical issues, but have painted
    no overall picture that leaves me with the firm conviction that the
    environmental impact statement has not adequately fostered informed
    decision-making and informed public participation'').
        \37\ See Jack Ward Thomas, The Future of the National Forests: Who
    Will Answer an Uncertain Trumpet? (2011).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Forest restoration projects are substantially more likely to be
    litigated than other Forest Service projects. But the adverse
    consequences of litigation are not limited to projects that end up
    before the courts. Forest Service personnel report that the mere risk
    of litigation can affect project analysis, costs, and delays.\38\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ See Michael J. Mortimer et al., Environmental and Social
    Risks: Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest
    Service, Journal of Forestry (2011)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For some Forest Service regions or national forest units,
    litigation is an ever-present consideration. Litigation is a
    particularly disruptive factor for national forests within the Ninth
    Circuit Court of Appeals--which has jurisdiction over the West Coast
    states as well as Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona--and near
    communities with litigious local or special interest groups (see
    Appendix figure 4).\39\ But even with litigation concentrated in parts
    of the country, the expenses, delays, and uncertainty take up limited
    resources that could instead be spent on restoration work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ From 2007 to 2017, 188 lawsuits were filed challenging forest
    restoration projects. FOIA Data. 85 percent of these cases were filed
    in district courts whose decisions are appealable to the Ninth Circuit,
    a court generally perceived as more favorable to environmental
    litigants. Some degree of Ninth Circuit bias is to be expected due to
    the large area over which it has jurisdiction and the number of forests
    that region contains. However, the distribution of cases among Regions
    3 and 4, which straddle the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, suggests that the
    large number of cases in the Ninth Circuit is more than mere
    coincidence. Only 16 percent of the cases challenging projects in
    Regions 3 and 4 were filed in the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction. In
    fact, nearly half of these cases were filed in only two districts
    within the Ninth Circuit: the District of Montana (53 cases) and the
    Eastern District of California (35 cases).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress should help the Forest Service and partners avoid these
    downsides, without sacrificing the accountability litigation can
    provide, through reforms that provide greater transparency and
    predictability. PERC is pleased to see this legislative proposal
    include a fix to the Ninth Circuit's incredibly lenient standard for
    enjoining forest restoration work, by limiting this extraordinary
    relief to situations where a court has determined a project is likely
    unlawful. It would also prevent open-ended injunctions, by limiting
    them to 30 days with discretion for courts to renew them. It would
    require challenges to projects to be filed more quickly so that
    litigation risks don't hang over projects for years. And it would also
    establish a pilot arbitration program, an alternative approach to
    dispute resolution that has proven faster, cheaper, and more efficient
    than litigation in other contexts.
        The proposal also shields the Forest Service's use of categorical
    exclusions from litigation. PERC agrees that categorical exclusions are
    an essential tool and that litigation has needlessly interfered with
    their use. The Ninth Circuit, for instance, recently rejected several
    attempts by interest groups to twist the meaning of some categorical
    exclusions to dramatically narrow their scope to achieve the interest
    groups' political ends.\40\ Subjecting projects approved under a
    categorical exclusion to years of uncertainty and litigation undermines
    the purpose of such exclusions. However, we have some concern that the
    proposed exemption is written too broadly and would like to work with
    the Committee on how to sharpen the language to target truly abusive
    and dilatory litigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ See, e.g., Mountain Communities for Fire Safety v. Elliott,
    20-55660 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2022) (rejecting activists' invitation to
    interpret the ``timber stand improvement'' CE to implicitly forbid the
    removal of any commercially valuable timber, even if necessary for
    forest health or to reduce wildfire risks).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increasing Capacity Through Partnerships

        Even when forest restoration projects make it through the approval
    process, the capacity to implement work on the ground remains a
    challenge. Chairman Westerman's proposal contains several opportunities
    to expand work done with partners.
    Expand Good Neighbor Authority

        Good Neighbor Authority is a tool that allows state, tribal, and
    county partners to carry out forest restoration projects on federal
    lands. Partners' roles can include planning and preparation as well as
    the restoration work itself. Congress first authorized a Good Neighbor
    Authority pilot in Colorado in 2001, and since then the program has
    been expanded nationally. In return for their efforts, state partners
    can receive a share of revenues that result from selling materials
    harvested or compensation directly from the federal government--
    offsetting the costs of the work and sometimes even funding additional
    forest restoration work.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ See Anne Riddle, The Good Neighbor Authority on Federal Lands,
    Congressional Research Service (January 11, 2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Counties and tribes have also been allowed to enter into Good
    Neighbor agreements since 2018. But those entities have so far used the
    program only a handful of times in the West. The reason why this
    program has worked better for states than tribes and counties is that
    tribes and counties are prohibited from retaining timber revenues,
    which decreases their incentive to participate in the program.\42\
    Chairman Westerman's proposal would make Good Neighbor Authority more
    inclusive by granting counties and tribes the legal authority to keep
    timber revenues, which will not only treat those partners as ``full''
    neighbors but also make it easier to harness their expertise in
    conducting forest treatments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, restrictions also specify that program funding can
    only be spent on the federal lands within a Good Neighbor project
    boundary, even if state or other lands are interspersed in the project
    area. This proposal allows for Good Neighbor dollars to be spent across
    the landscape, including state and private lands, which would help
    improve the effectiveness of forest restoration treatments at a wider
    scale. PERC has long advocated for these improvements to expand Good
    Neighbor Authority, and these ideas are also captured in the Treating
    Counties and Tribes as Good Neighbors Act (H.R. 1450) from Congressman
    Fulcher, which passed the House with broad bipartisan support earlier
    this Congress.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Hannah Downey, ``Healthy Forests Make Good Neighbors,'' PERC
    Reports (June 2022).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allow for Longer-Term Contracts

        The Forest Service regularly enters into agreements that establish
    and direct mutually beneficial work with partners. Currently,
    stewardship contracts established under Section 604 of the Healthy
    Forests Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 6591c) are generally limited to not
    more than 10 years and can only go up to 20 years in areas of high fire
    risk. In many cases, however, the general contract length of 10 years
    may not be enough.
        For ambitious, forest-wide restoration efforts--the sort of efforts
    greatly needed--the Forest Service needs flexibility to enter contracts
    of appropriate length and options to easily extend contracts,
    especially where anticipated projects must navigate environmental
    reviews and potential litigation. This is especially true where long-
    term success depends on motivating the timber industry to build mill
    capacity and markets for small-diameter timber products.\44\ The types
    of investments that are necessary, such as new and retrofitted mills
    and biomass plants, cost tens of millions of dollars, and such expenses
    are unlikely to be recouped in only a few years. Extending stewardship
    contracts for up to 20 years, as included in this proposal, is an
    important step in increasing forest restoration capacity on federal
    lands through private partners.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion

        Shrinking the 80-million-acre restoration backlog that fuels the
    wildfire crisis is an urgent conservation challenge. Many of the
    policies in this proposal from Chairman Westerman will help move more
    needed projects through the approval process and bring in external
    capacity to help get the work done. Congress should act now to adopt
    these tools to help fix America's forests.

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5446.001

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5446.002

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5446.003

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5446.004

                                     .eps__

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you so much for your testimony. I now
    recognize Mr. Jim Parma. He is the Eastern Fiber Manager at
    Bell Lumber & Pole, and President of the Federal Forest
    Resource Coalition. Mr. Parma has a mill right in my district.
        We really appreciate the investment that you have made in
    Wisconsin. You have 5 minutes for your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF JIM PARMA, EASTERN FIBER MANAGER, BELL LUMBER &
        POLE, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION, NEW
                          BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA

        Mr. Parma. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other
    members of the Subcommittee that are here. Again, my name is
    Jim Parma. I am the Eastern Fiber Manager for Bell Lumber &
    Pole.
        Bell is a family-owned business. It is in its fifth
    generation. It started in 1909. Our company is known for wood
    we have produced into wood utility poles and other products
    that have come from renewable forest resources. We have dozens
    of yards spread throughout dozens of states, and treating
    plants and other facilities in these states. Bell's mission
    statement to radically love and influence lives, and along with
    our corporate values of stewardship, excellence, and
    entrepreneurial spirit, show our concern for the broader common
    good.
        I am a working forester. I cruise timber, I sign timber
    sale contracts, I work on the ground, I oversee these timber
    sales. I work with loggers to execute these timber sales with
    the utmost respect and care for the environment.
        I am also the current Chairman of the Federal Forest
    Resource Coalition, Mr. Chairman, which is a nationwide non-
    profit that represents purchasers of Forest Service and BLM
    timber sales. Our members live and work closely in the
    proximity of the 193 million-acre National Forest System, and
    many, like Bell Lumber & Pole, are multi-generational and have
    deep commitments to both the communities that we work in and
    also the forests that support our livelihoods.
        We appreciate the bipartisan efforts of this Committee to
    streamline the management of our National Forest System, but I
    would like to share a little bit about my experience and then
    talk about how the discussion draft can help improve results on
    the ground.
        Again, I buy timber sale for the company. We manufacture
    products that carry electricity and Internet service to every
    corner of the country. To do this, I need to find quality trees
    that meet our high standards so we can produce products that
    have the strength and longevity that we need.
        The National Forest System has an abundance of these kinds
    of timber. Current forest plans call for far higher levels of
    forest management than we are currently seeing. But our
    companies' need for these wood fibers do not drive the
    management of the national forest, forest plans do. These plans
    allocate land to different uses and set standards for
    management. These plans are crafted with both national and
    local input, and focus on meeting goals beyond timber outputs,
    including creating and maintaining habitat for imperiled
    wildlife species.
        The Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas is a prime example
    of how timber sales can be used to create and maintain habitat.
    As has been mentioned earlier, the red cockaded woodpecker,
    once driven to almost near extinction by over-harvest, now
    thrives on the Ouachita because of timber management. Bell
    purchased timber sales that are designed to restore and
    maintain this habitat that the red cockaded woodpecker lives on
    and needs to survive.
        Other wood customers in other regions also help to maintain
    different habitat types. They do this for young forests for
    grouse and golden winged warbler in lake states, and also for
    reducing fire danger to protect Mexican spotted owl in New
    Mexico and in Arizona.
        We see need of projects that could take years to get
    through the NEPA process, and then run into further delays as
    the Forest Service faces legal challenges and administrative
    objectives. The discussion we have today would make it easier
    to implement these much-needed projects.
        We particularly appreciate the Good Neighbor Authority's
    stewardship contracting and litigation reforms found in this
    draft. We urge you to consider similar legislation introduced
    in the Senate that would further streamline the management of
    the national forests outside of the already-designated
    protected areas like wilderness and roadless areas.
        Our industry is a tool to accomplish forest management
    goals, from fuels reduction to habitat creation. With common-
    sense reforms like these we are discussing today, we and
    partners in the forests can do more, we can do better, and we
    can do it faster.
        I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today,
    and I will be happy to answer any of your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Parma follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Jim Parma, Eastern Fiber Resource Manager, Bell
         Lumber & Pole and President, Federal Forest Resource Coalition

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, my name is Jim Parma and I am the Eastern Fiber Resource
    Manager for Bell Lumber & Pole, a multi-generational, family run
    company that manufactures utility poles from the renewable forest
    resources of the U.S., including timber from National Forest System
    lands across the country. Bell Pole has purchased Forest Service timber
    sales from more NFS units in more Forest Service regions than any other
    company, which provides us with a unique perspective on the current
    challenges facing the Forest Service. Bell's mission statement is: To
    Radically Love and Influence Lives, along with our corporate values of
    Stewardship, Excellence, and Entrepreneurial Spirit show our concern
    for the broader common good.
        I am here today as President of the Federal Forest Resource
    Coalition, a nation-wide, 501(c)(6) organization with members from the
    panhandle of Florida to Southeast Alaska. Together, FFRC's membership
    covers more than 650 companies in 38 states. FFRC members include
    sawmills, plywood and panel producers, biomass energy facilities, and
    the logging sector. In addition, we work with water authorities who
    rely on healthy National Forests to produce sustainable water supplies
    for major metro areas. Collectively, FFRC members and other purchasers
    of Forest Service timber have spent over $900 million in the last five
    years alone purchasing timber from the Forest Service.
        Unfortunately, in recent years we've seen a decline in timber
    outputs from the National Forest System, and these falling outputs have
    directly contributed to mill closures in several states. While mills
    close for a variety of reasons, lack of fiber supplies exacerbates and
    accelerates the loss of management capacity near our National Forests.
    Just last week, Neiman Enterprises cut a shift at their Spearfish,
    South Dakota sawmill. That mill, like many others that have shut down
    this year, was highly dependent on National Forest Timber. My fellow
    FFRC board member, Jim Neiman, said that but for the lack of supplies
    from the Black Hills National Forest, the company would not have
    reduced their capacity at the Spearfish mill.
        We appreciate the leadership the Natural Resources Committee has
    demonstrated on forest management issues. With a trained forester and
    engineer as Chairman, this committee is poised to provide the kind of
    clarity and reform the Forest Service badly needs. We are particularly
    appreciative of legislation approved by the Committee to require
    accurate accounting of hazardous fuels treatments, to require
    aggressive fire suppression when burning conditions are extreme, and to
    reform Good Neighbor Authority to encourage greater participation by
    counties, tribes, and the States. These important measures are
    incorporated into the discussion draft you provided us in advance of
    today's hearing.
        We believe that these provisions, when combined with additional
    items like the fireshed provisions, reforms to Stewardship Contracting,
    locally-led restoration, litigation reform, and expanded efforts to use
    utility corridors as fuel breaks, are a good starting point for reforms
    at the Forest Service. I will discuss each of these briefly.
    Key Provisions:

        Stewardship Contracting is one of the key authorities that has
    allowed the Forest Service to begin making headway in improving forest
    health, reducing fuel loads, and reinvesting in land management on the
    National Forest System. Put simply, Stewardship contracts allow the
    Forest Service to trade the value of timber for forest management and
    restoration work, including prescribed burning, mastication of
    hazardous fuels, installation of nest boxes for listed species, and
    other beneficial practices. The use of Stewardship contracts has
    expanded over the years to the point where last year almost one third
    of all Forest Service timber volume sold last year was accomplished
    through Stewardship Contracts. Currently, Stewardship Contracting
    authority provides for seven ``land management goals'' which include
    reintroduction of prescribed fire, mechanical removal of hazardous
    fuels, and improvement of wildlife habitat.
        The discussion draft would add an eighth, co-equal goal of
    ``retaining and expanding forest products industry infrastructure'' to
    the program. Since Stewardship Contracting was first pilot tested in
    the 1990s, we've seen significant reductions in industry capacity,
    particularly near National Forest System lands where erratic or
    unreliable timber supplies make running wood using facilities
    difficult. We have also watched as the Forest Service has struggled to
    attract new investments in wood using industries--particularly in
    Arizona where the Forest Service has invested significant resources in
    hazardous fuels reduction. This has taught us that lack of markets for
    wood drives up land management costs, reduces receipts to the agency,
    and limits the ability of the Forest Service to expand treatments to
    additional acres. The modest reform of adding retention of industry
    infrastructure--along with 20-year contracts--will help ensure that the
    Forest Service offers Stewardship contracting opportunities to mills
    which can help drive down management costs while creating jobs in rural
    areas.
        We also strongly support the proposed changes to small timber sales
    and locally led conservation. projects This modest reform would
    increase the dollar value of timber sales that can sold directly, from
    the $10,000 to $55,000. The $10,000 figure was written into the
    National Forest Management Act in 1976, with no provision for inflation
    adjustment. The discussion draft would correct this oversight by
    adjusting that figure to $55,000, roughly the value of the 1976 figure
    adjusted for inflation, while requiring annual inflation adjustments
    thereafter. We would encourage the committee to consider expanding the
    ``fireshed management projects'' authority to cover more areas of the
    National Forest System, including any areas designated as insect and
    disease treatment areas, or areas considered at high risk of wildfires.
        The proposed litigation reforms are also badly needed. According to
    data provided to us by the Forest Service, over 1.8 Billion Board Feet
    of Forest Service timber was under litigation in the fall of last year.
    That's more than half a year's worth of timber sales in an average
    year. The threat of litigation forces the Forest Service to engage in
    needlessly detailed analysis of modest timber projects, which take
    place on lands designated under current forest plans as being suitable
    for timber production. The requirements in the discussion draft still
    allow project level litigation, but also ensures that needed management
    can take place in a timely fashion.
        We particularly applaud the provisions clarifying that there is no
    need for additional consultation on forest plans, particularly if the
    project itself has not raised any concerns about listed species. As you
    are aware, this misguided case law was opposed by the Obama
    Administration, which appealed it to the Supreme Court. Congress should
    take the initiative and make these reforms law to free up agency
    resources and prevent absurd results. One such result was the National
    Forests in New Mexico having their project level fuels reduction work
    halted so the Forest Service could reconsult with the Fish & Wildlife
    Service on plans that were, in some cases, well over 30 years old. This
    delay took place while those plans were under revision. Once the
    injunction was resolved, the Forest Service went ahead with a
    prescribed burn under red flag conditions, which subsequently exploded
    into the Hermit's Peak Fire--the largest fire in New Mexico history.
        The provisions encouraging the use of utility corridors as
    firebreaks is very positive, and in our view ought to be expanded.
    Significant research and experience show that fuel breaks, including
    shaded fuel breaks, can be extremely effective in reducing fire spread
    and protecting wildland firefighters and adjacent communities. FFRC has
    supported similar provisions including the fuel break categorical
    exclusion provided in the Infrastructure Act. We look forward to
    working with the Committee to encourage broader use of this and other
    legislatively-created categorical exclusions.
        We are also strongly supportive of Good Neighbor Authority
    provisions in the Discussion Draft. Allowing the retention of some
    receipts under GNA by agency partners, including tribes, counties, and
    states, will encourage further participation in and investment in Good
    Neighbor programs at those levels. We note that these reforms have
    received bipartisan support in both this Committee and in the House
    Agriculture Committee.
    What This Bill Doesn't Do:

        It is critical to note what this bill doesn't do, in addition to
    the modest but important reforms mentioned above. This legislation does
    not authorize timber harvest in the over 36 million acres of designated
    Wilderness on the National Forest System. It does not open any of the
    58 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas to timber harvest. It
    doesn't open the over 17 million acres of Wild & Scenic River Corridors
    to timber harvest. The timber industry that relies on National Forest
    timber is fine with this--we would like to see the roughly 24 percent
    of the National Forests designated as ``suited for timber production''
    managed to produce economically viable supplies of timber. We can do
    that, while creating critically important wildlife habitat, reducing
    fire danger, and generating additional receipts to pay for additional
    land management activities like prescribed burning.
        This legislation also does not waive a single Forest Plan Standard
    or Guideline. These provisions are developed through a locally-led
    planning process that allows for broad public input but is driven by
    forest managers and the communities closest to the resource. It doesn't
    waive any habitat protections required by statute or regulation. The
    Forest Service must manage within those constraints, and we believe
    there is far more work that could be accomplished with the targeted
    reforms in the current discussion draft.
    Additional Reforms:

        The last two decades have taught America many bitter lessons about
    forest management and wildfires. After precipitous declines in timber
    harvest from the National Forests during the 1990's, we've now seen the
    results of under-managed forests combined with climate change and
    increased settlement in the Wildland Urban Interface; Overstocked
    forests are vulnerable to catastrophic fire, which destroys wildlife
    habitat, damages watersheds, and threatens communities. The result is
    significant carbon emissions and major challenges to reforestation.
    While Congress has provided significant new authorities and funding to
    address the wildfire challenges, there are additional proactive reforms
    Congress can adopt that would clarify the Forest Service's multiple use
    mandate, reduce the need for repetitive and exhaustive NEPA, and
    further reduce frivolous litigation.
        We would urge the committee to review the bipartisan Promoting
    Effective Forest Management Act, introduced in the Senate by Energy &
    Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Ranking Member John
    Barrasso. That bill would, among other things, set numeric targets for
    mechanical thinning at the Forest Service, require the use of expedited
    authorities on some acres, and encourage the Forest Service to promote
    staff in place. We also commend to your attention the Expediting Forest
    Restoration and Recovery Act introduced by Sen. John Thune. This bill
    requires, rather than allows, the Forest Service to use expedited NEPA
    on acres designated at high risk to fire, insects, or disease, and it
    expands the number of acres eligible for expedited NEPA.
    Conclusion:

        The National Forest System is a conservation achievement of which
    all Americans should be proud. More than half of the National Forests
    are already in low to no management designations like Wilderness Areas,
    Wild & Scenic River corridors, and Inventoried Roadless Areas. Less
    than 28 percent of the National Forest System is designated as
    ``suitable for timber production.'' Yet with all of these restrictions,
    management on National Forests remains a daunting challenge.
        Congress should consider simplifying the forest planning process,
    providing additional resources for forest plan monitoring, and making
    it clear that they expect timber management to take place on suited
    acres. The discussion draft before you today makes significant strides
    in reducing litigation and ensuring accountability. We urge you to
    think big and consider these more fundamental reforms as well.
        And while we recognize that this goes beyond your jurisdiction,
    we'd be remiss if we did not point out that the appropriations process
    has proven to be an active impediment to good forest management (and
    much else besides). While Congress has the right to demand
    accountability of the Forest Service, the legislative branch must also
    take responsibility for clarifying the mission of the agency and
    funding it in a timely manner.
        On behalf of the more than 300,000 American who rely at least in
    part on Forest Service timber for their livelihoods, I want to thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Parma. I would now like to
    introduce Dr. Kimiko Barrett, Wildfire Research and Policy Lead
    at Headwaters Economics.
        Dr. Barrett, you have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KIMIKO BARRETT, WILDFIRE RESEARCH AND POLICY LEAD,
                 HEADWATERS ECONOMICS, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

        Dr. Barrett. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Chairman
    Westerman, and members of this Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to provide perspective on the drafted legislation.
        I am Dr. Kimiko Barrett, a wildfire researcher at
    Headwaters Economics, a non-partisan, non-profit research
    organization based in Montana. My job and the work we do at
    Headwaters Economics is to ensure that people and communities
    are better prepared for a future of increasing fire.
        I also had the privilege of serving on the congressionally-
    established Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission.
    My contributions to the Commission drew from my expertise in
    risk reduction to neighborhoods and infrastructure, what we
    call the ``built environment.'' The Commission report lays out
    a roadmap of cross-cutting recommendations that Congress and
    members of this Committee can help realize. In particular,
    there are three overarching themes that I would like to
    highlight.
        First is to be proactive. We can build homes and
    neighborhoods to safeguard communities before a wildfire
    occurs. For far too long we have focused on managing wildfires
    through suppression and hazardous fuels reduction while
    overlooking the built environment. Yet, given the increasing
    scale and severity of wildfire risk, suppression and landscape
    treatments alone will not resolve this crisis.
        In recommendation No. 1 the Commission advocates for
    establishing a Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program
    involving interagency coordinating partnerships between the
    Federal land management agencies and others with expertise in
    hazard resiliency like FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, and
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This
    program would address the built environment gap in our wildfire
    approach and provide critical resources to the communities who
    need it most.
        Importantly, it is worth noting that this model has been
    adapted from a similar policy for mitigating earthquake
    hazards, specifically the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
    Program. In other words, we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
    Important lessons in program design from earthquake mitigation
    can and should be applied for community wildfire risk
    reduction.
        The second theme I want to highlight is that we need
    modernized tools for decision-making to help communities
    quickly and effectively become better fire-adapted. The
    Commission report calls for the creation of a multi-agency fire
    environment center. Such a center would be governed by Federal
    agencies with science and operational knowledge that would
    build upon our nation's robust fire research and help integrate
    currently fragmented data and technology into one seamless
    platform. A fire environment center would improve decision-
    making of risk reduction to both the built and the natural
    environment.
        The ability to analyze in real time wildfire conditions and
    behavior is essential for enabling more fire on our landscapes
    and reducing the fuels that threaten our communities. While it
    is tempting to think that we can mandate suppression of all
    fire, our national approach should reflect the understanding
    that fire fosters both healthy ecosystems and reduces the risks
    of future wildfires. Indeed, the Commission recommends
    dramatically increasing the amount of beneficial fire on many
    of our landscapes. Calls to return to a 24-hour suppression
    policy supersede local decision, and are in direct opposition
    to the Commission's recommendations.
        Third, none of these visionary new approaches would be
    possible without significant investments of dedicated funding.
    Given the transboundary nature of fire, sustained support is
    needed across multiple disciplines. No single entity or agency
    can do this alone. If we are going to treat the wildfire crisis
    like the national emergency that it is, consistent and
    predictable funding is critical, especially to rural and
    underserved communities most at risk.
        In summary, to address the wildfire crisis we need to build
    wildfire-resilient communities, use the best available science,
    and make upfront investments to avoid costly long-term impacts.
    The Wildfire Commission report provides the roadmap. We will
    have to learn to live with wildfires in the wildlands, but that
    does not mean we have to live with wildfire disasters in our
    communities.
        Thank you very much for your time and urgency to this
    issue.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Barrett follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Testimony of Dr. Kimiko Barrett, Senior Wildfire
                      Researcher of Headwaters Economics &
        Member of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer perspective on
    some of the themes in the draft legislation that is the topic of
    today's hearing.
        I am Dr. Kimiko Barrett, Senior Wildfire Researcher at Headwaters
    Economics,\1\ an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based
    in Montana. We work on community development issues with local, state,
    and federal partners around the country. Our Community Planning
    Assistance for Wildfire \2\ program--CPAW for short--has provided more
    than 75 communities with land use planning, technical assistance, and
    custom research to help them reduce wildfire risks. We also produce
    research and policy analyses for federal and local partners and create
    interactive tools to support data-driven decision-making--including
    wildfirerisk.org,\3\ a site created in partnership with the U.S. Forest
    Service designed to help community leaders understand and reduce their
    wildfire risk. We accomplish this work with support from the Forest
    Service and other federal agencies, private philanthropy, and community
    partners.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research
    group whose mission is to improve community development and land
    management decisions. https://headwaterseconomics.org/
        \2\ Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire: https://
    cpaw.headwaterseconomics.org/
        \3\ Wildfire Risk to Communities is a program of the U.S. Forest
    Service, created under the direction of Congress. It is available at
    https://wildfirerisk.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the last year-and-a-half, I also had the privilege of serving
    on the Congressionally established Wildland Fire Mitigation and
    Management Commission.\4\ As you know, the Commission gathered 50
    experts and representatives from federal agencies, the scientific
    community, the private sector, and Tribal governments. Our final
    report, published in September, offered close to 150 consensus-based
    policy recommendations to help Congress address the wildfire crisis. My
    contributions to the Commission drew from my expertise in risk-
    reduction strategies to homes, structures, and communities--what we
    largely reference as the ``built environment.'' My interest and
    expertise center on how we can proactively invest in safeguarding
    communities before a wildfire becomes a disaster.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See the full Commission report here: https://www.usda.gov/
    topics/disaster-resource-center/wildland-fire/commission
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At Headwaters Economics, we regularly see first-hand how
    communities are struggling to adapt to the wildfire crisis. The 75
    communities we have partnered with include Grand County, Colorado,
    where we are helping local leaders integrate land use codes that are
    better adapted to real-world wildfire risks; Tuolumne Rancheria, a band
    of Me-Wuk Indians in California that is working on defensible space and
    home hardening strategies that are also culturally appropriate; and we
    played a key role in the efforts of Austin, Texas, to create a Wildland
    Urban Interface building code that could reduce risks while also
    meeting the unique needs and desires of that community.
        It is not easy for any community, rural or urban, to bring together
    all the resources needed to adequately reduce the risks they face. For
    many communities, the need to comprehensively address wildfire risk
    exists alongside other pressing needs, such as housing affordability,
    transportation, and infrastructure development--testing local
    governments in unprecedented ways.
        The challenges of so many communities, coupled with the recent
    recommendations from the Commission, put a spotlight on the urgent new
    approaches to wildfire that are greatly needed in the United States.
    While there is no silver bullet, the Commission report lays out a
    roadmap of cross-cutting solutions that Congress can help realize.
        I am grateful for the opportunity today to highlight three
    overarching themes in the Commission recommendations that will require
    your visionary leadership.
    1. Be proactive rather than reactive

        If reducing risks to people, businesses, and livelihoods is at the
    core of our goals, we must reach for proactive--rather than reactive--
    strategies. This will require a new focus on one area that has been
    sorely neglected: preparing our communities ahead of disasters.
        For far too long we have focused on managing wildfires through
    suppression and hazardous fuels reduction while overlooking the built
    environment. Yet given the increasing pace, scale, and severity of
    wildfire risk, suppression and landscape treatments alone will not
    resolve this crisis. Our traditional focus on wildlands has failed to
    account for the critical role of home, neighborhood, and infrastructure
    design and construction. Just as communities are affected by this
    problem, so too are they part of the solution.
        This theme is reflected in Recommendation #1 in the Wildland Fire
    Mitigation and Management Commission report, which calls for federal
    agencies to invest in the built environment through a Community
    Wildfire Risk Reduction Program. The Commission recommends creating an
    interagency coordinating partnership that would include the Forest
    Service, FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, the Bureau of Land
    Management, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
    others to bring together expertise in land use planning, building code
    adoption, and wildfire risk so we can holistically address the need to
    proactively harden our communities against wildfire.
        A Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program would also be able to
    provide multifaceted support for communities through technical
    assistance, direct grants, financial incentives, private-public
    partnerships, workforce training, subsidies for disadvantaged
    households, and capacity building--all necessary for community-scale
    mitigation. Communities cannot do this on their own. Without financial
    incentives and subsidies, a Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program
    will not be successful.
        By bringing together dozens of existing resources we can also
    significantly reduce the complexity and application costs that prevent
    many communities, especially those in rural or underserved areas, from
    being able to access federal programs.
        Importantly, it is worth noting that this model has been adapted
    from a similar approach in managing and mitigating earthquake hazards
    to communities, specifically the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
    Program.\5\ We do not need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to
    hazard reduction and resiliency. Important lessons from earthquake
    mitigation and other disaster preparedness efforts can be applied to
    wildfire risk reduction in communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: https://
    www.nehrp.gov/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Modernize tools for decision-making

        To help communities quickly and effectively become better fire-
    adapted, we need modernized tools for decision-making. The Commission
    report (see Recommendations #104-106) calls specifically for the
    creation of a multi-agency ``fire environment center.'' Governed by a
    board of federal agencies with science and operational expertise, such
    a center should build on our nation's existing and robust fire science
    and help integrate currently fragmented data and technology into one
    interoperable platform.
        Modernizing our data and wildfire research systems can help
    communities access the best available science in real time so they are
    better equipped before, during, and after wildfires.
        Complementary to supporting risk reduction to the built
    environment, a fire environment center would inform valuable decision-
    making strategies for risk reduction to the natural environment.
    Beneficial fire reduces fuels on the landscape and reduces risk to
    communities. The Commission recommendations specifically call for
    ``dramatically increasing the amount of beneficial fire'' on our
    landscapes.
        While it is tempting to think we can mandate suppression of all
    fire, our national approach to wildfire should reflect the
    understanding that fire has an important role in our landscapes,
    fostering both healthy landscapes and reducing the risk of future
    wildfires. Calls to return to a 24-hour suppression policy are
    antithetical to allowing more beneficial fire, supersede local
    decision-making, and are in direct opposition to the Commission's
    recommendations.
        Fuel treatments and the use of beneficial fire will be necessary to
    reduce wildfire risk to communities and fire-adapted landscapes.
    Project permitting and planning, including processes like those
    required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), are
    necessary to implement such projects. The Commission found that federal
    land management planning and permitting efforts and requisite
    environmental analyses are often not completed at a pace commensurate
    with the increasing impacts of wildfire. As a result, there is a need
    for funding to support permitting personnel for planning and analysis,
    as well as collaborative and inclusive partnerships in communities.
    Additionally, we need consistent, flexible integration of evolving
    wildfire science that can inform strategic investments on the ground.
    Any NEPA reform should not be done at the expense of the best available
    science, community engagement, local decision-making, and collaboration
    with partners.
    3. Dedicated and sustained funding

        Finally, visionary approaches require investments of dedicated and
    sustained funding. Given the transboundary nature of wildfire, adequate
    and continued support is needed at all scales and across disciplines.
        Today, communities struggle to access limited funds spread across a
    confusing constellation of programs. The burden falls to local
    jurisdictions to navigate and piece together the limited programs that
    do exist in order to reduce risk to potential disasters. For example,
    Forest Service grants don't currently support home hardening efforts,
    while some FEMA grant programs do. However, applying for and
    administering FEMA and other federal grants requires a level of
    staffing and expertise that is often out of reach for rural and
    underserved communities.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Headwaters Economics. (2024.) A rural capacity map. https://
    headwaterseconomics.org/equity/rural-capacity-map/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, current levels of funding for risk reduction projects
    simply are not enough. For example, in the first rounds of funding in
    the Community Wildfire Defense Grants (CWDG) program, created under the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, requests for funding outstripped
    available dollars at a rate of four to one.\7\ In FEMA's Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, requests were
    more than double the available funding,\8\ and grants are
    overwhelmingly awarded to high-capacity, coastal communities.\9\ These
    programs are designed to be cost-effective--investing in projects that
    help communities avoid costly disasters.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Headwaters Economics. (2023.) Analysis of the first round of
    Community Wildfire Defense Grants. https://headwaterseconomics.org/
    natural-hazards/cwdg-first-round/
        \8\ FEMA. (2023.) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
    Grant Program FY 2022 Subapplication and Selection Status. https://
    www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-
    communities/after-apply/fy22-status
        \9\ Headwaters Economics. (2023.) FEMA's BRIC program continues to
    fund innovative risk reduction--but community capacity limits access.
    https://headwaterseconomics.org/headwaters/femas-bric-program-
    continues-to-fund-innovative-risk-reduction-but-community-capacity-
    limits-access/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If we are going to treat the wildfire crisis like the national
    emergency that it is, these programs should be funded consistently and
    predictably. There should be more funds available in streamlined ways
    so that more communities can access them. Investing in mitigation
    before disasters strike will yield large savings from avoided losses
    and is necessary to alleviate pressure on post-disaster federal
    programs, protect homes and businesses, and make communities safer and
    more prosperous.

    Conclusion

        The Wildfire Commission report provides the roadmap for future
    wildfire policy and a vision in which there is complimentary mitigation
    and management within both our communities and the wildlands that
    surround them. To be certain, our future will be one of increasing
    wildfires and the status quo cannot be maintained. We will have to
    learn to live with wildfires in the wildlands but that does not mean we
    have to experience disasters in our communities.

        Thank you for your time and your attention to this urgent issue.

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Dr. Barrett. Now I would like to
    recognize Mr. Cody Desautel, Executive Director of the
    Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and President
    of the Intertribal Timber Council.
        It is good to have you back, Mr. Desautel. You have 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF CODY DESAUTEL, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER
        COUNCIL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
               COLVILLE RESERVATION, NESPELEM, WASHINGTON

        Mr. Desautel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chair Westerman.
    And you covered half of my intro for me, so I appreciate that.
        In addition to serving as the Executive Director for
    Colville and President for Intertribal Timber Council, I also
    served on the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management
    Commission, which sent our report to Congress in September 2023
    with nearly 150 consensus recommendations to help improve how
    we prepare for, respond to, and recover from wildfires.
        On behalf of the ITC and its more than 60 member tribes, we
    thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives on this
    draft legislation.
        Tribes actively manage their forest to support their
    ecological, cultural, and economic goals. Despite our diligent
    efforts to manage our forests, we have experienced
    unprecedented wildfire impacts. Since 2015, the Colville
    Reservation has seen more than 700,000 of its 1.4-million-acre
    reservation burn in wildfires. Unfortunately, Colville is not
    alone, as many tribes have experienced devastating fire seasons
    over the past decade. 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.
        In addition to the wildfire risk from adjacent Federal
    lands, tribes are also impacted by limited suppression
    resources due to priority placed on fires burning in unmanaged
    Federal lands that pose a risk to communities and
    infrastructure. This scenario occurred on the Colville
    Reservation in 2015. Because other fires burning in the region
    were deemed threats to communities, suppression resources were
    prioritized to those incidents, leaving the North Star Fire to
    burn on the reservation with very little support from the
    National Fire System.
        For these reasons, the ITC commends Chair Westerman's
    intentions with this bill to prioritize fuel treatment in areas
    needed to protect communities and infrastructure, and authorize
    accelerated procedures to implement those projects. While ITC
    believes that treatment across the landscape are needed to
    reduce fire severity and post-fire effects, we understand the
    urgency of protecting communities most at risk of wildfire as a
    critical first step.
        In addition to the criteria used to prioritize fuels
    reduction projects, ITC recommends adding a provision that
    allows states and Indian tribes to identify and request
    additional areas for assessment and treatment.
        The ITC also appreciates that the bill authorizes tribes to
    request participation in fireshed assessments. Tribes are best
    suited to define risks, strategies for reducing those risks,
    and determining the benchmark goals for their communities.
        For the sake of parity, we request that Tribal Forest
    Protection Act projects be provided the same implementation
    authorities, such as the emergency NEPA procedures and
    categorical exclusions. This, along with the litigation reforms
    proposed in the bill requiring consideration of long-term
    effects of no action, could increase the use of TFPA.
        As an example, the Colville Tribe had a TFPA project
    recently litigated. The project shared 10 miles of boundary
    with the reservation, and was approved by the Forest Service in
    2014. The project was initially modified because of the 2015
    North Star Fire, and because the NEPA decision was litigated in
    2023 we are working on a new version of the project. Now, 10
    years later, we still have no treatment accomplished on the
    ground.
        While tribes understand the importance of environmental
    review, we also understand the potential impacts of taking no
    action. The ITC appreciates the inclusion of traditional
    ecological knowledge and the definition of best available
    science, as this can be critical to inform our shared
    management objectives.
        The ITC also appreciates the inclusion of cultural burning
    as a designated fireshed management project. The Commission
    supported and validated the use of beneficial fire, including
    prescribed fire and cultural burning for resource management
    objectives where they are appropriate.
        ITC supports the bill's provisions that address full tribal
    inclusion in the Good Neighbor Authority, and adding the Park
    Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to that authority.
        We also support better reporting of fuels reduction
    projects by type and effectiveness. A true accounting of
    footprint acres with a quantified risk reduction will help
    track our success and inform future investments and projects.
    Improving reporting is also in line with the Commission's
    recommendations for improved outcomes-based performance
    measures.
        ITC also supports the creation of an interagency group
    focused on technology development and deployment. The Wildfire
    Commission had 16 recommendations dedicated to integrating
    modern science and technology. On the whole, ITC supports the
    intent of this legislation to accelerate the pace and scale of
    high-priority fuels work on Federal lands.
        ITC also requests that the Committee review additional
    recommendations from the Wildfire Commission report,
    particularly those that involve tribes and tribal forest and
    fire management. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Desautel follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Cody Desautel, President, Intertribal Timber
                         Council & Executive Director,
                Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

        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, thank you for asking to hear our
    perspective on this draft legislation.
    Background

        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 for multiple uses, including
    clean water, habitat, economic revenue, jobs, cultural foods and
    materials and for other cultural purposes. Despite our diligent efforts
    to manage our forests with the limited resources we have we have
    experienced unprecedented wildfire impacts. Since 2015 the Colville
    reservation has seen more than 700,000 of its 1.4 million acres burn in
    wildfires. Unfortunately, Colville is not alone, as many tribes have
    experienced devastating fire seasons over the past decade.
        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.
        In addition to these adjacent threats, tribes must compete for fire
    suppression resources with federal lands that pose a risk to local
    communities across the country. In 2015 fires around the northwest were
    competing for suppression resources, including the Northstar fire on
    the Colville reservation. Because other fires burning in the region
    were closer to communities, suppression resources were prioritized to
    those incidents leaving the Northstar fire to burn on the reservation
    with very little support from the national interagency fire system. A
    similar situation occurred on the Yakama reservation in 2015, where Hot
    Shot crews were pulled from the Cougar Creek fire on reservation to
    respond to another fire deemed to be a higher priority because of it's
    proximity to communities. The Cougar creek fire ultimately burned more
    than 50,000 acres, mostly on the Yakama reservation.
        The impacts of wildfires are not limited to the reservation. Tribes
    retain treaty, reserved, and other aboriginal rights across much of the
    federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
    Management. When these lands don't receive adequate management, or are
    severely damaged by wildfires tribes feel the impact. This is
    particularly true for tribes with small reservations. In these
    situations, many of the culturally significant plants, animals, and
    places are under the management of another federal agency. When these
    resources are lost of damaged it limits their ability to practice the
    culture that defines them as people.
        For these reasons the Intertribal Timber Council looks forward to
    working with the committee on this legislation. The ITC commends
    Chairman Westerman, and this legislation's intention to prioritize
    fuels treatment in areas needed to protect communities and
    infrastructure, and authorize accelerated procedures to implement those
    projects. The ITC supports both goals and has long advocated for fuels
    treatment on federal lands at a pace and scale that is commensurate
    with the ecologic need to return these landscapes to a healthy,
    resilient condition. While the ITC believes that treatment across the
    landscape is needed to reduce fire severity and post fire effects, we
    understand the urgency of protecting communities most at risk of
    wildfire as a critical first step.
        The legislation primarily uses a combination of priority firesheds
    identified in the ``Wildfire Crisis Strategy'' and existing national
    Fireshed Registry ratings to prioritize fuels reduction projects. The
    ITC recommends adding a provision that allows states and Indian tribes
    to identify and request additional areas for assessments and treatment.
    Wildfire is a complex phenomenon that can be unpredictable. Many of the
    areas most devastated by wildfire in recent years do not appear on the
    Registry at all. Likewise, areas that have burned in recent years are
    treated at a lower risk of future wildfire. While that may be true in
    the very short term, large areas with standing dead snags may pose a
    much greater risk of catastrophic fires as time goes on. We recommend
    more research about how to calculate wildfire risk from these massive
    dead zones on federal lands.
        The ITC appreciates that the bill authorizes tribes to request
    participation in producing the fireshed assessments. Tribes are best
    situated to define risks, strategies for reducing the threat of those
    risks, and determining the benchmark goals for their communities. For
    the sake of parity, we request that Tribal Forest Protection Act
    projects on federal lands be provided the same implementation
    authorities, such as emergency NEPA procedures and categorical
    exclusions. This would be helpful in accelerating TFPA treatments
    across the country.
        A prime example of this is the Tule River Tribe's TFPA project in
    the Sequoia National Forest in California. The NEPA process for the
    project, intended to protect giant sequoias from stand-replacement
    fire, took roughly a decade to get through. By the time of
    implementation, wildfire was already affecting the sequoia stands.
    Congress ultimately stepped in to create emergency authorities for
    fuels treatment.
        The Colville tribe is working through a similar situation where a
    TFPA project that shares 10 miles of boundary with the reservation was
    approved in 2014, later reduced because of the 2015 Northstar fire, and
    had the NEPA decision litigated in 2023. Now--10 years later--we are
    working on a new version of the project with no treatment accomplished
    on the ground to date. While tribes understand the importance of
    environmental review, we also understand that we must live with those
    decisions and justify our actions to our tribal membership. Decisions
    that impact natural and cultural resources are not things we take
    lightly.
        The ITC appreciates the inclusion of traditional ecological
    knowledge in the definition of ``Best Available Science'' used in the
    fireshed assessments. This can be a critical tool to better understand
    the historic forest characteristics and fire behavior. It will be
    important to respect the tribal sovereignty of our 574 federally
    recognized tribes, and ensure we have a process for collection and
    protection of this data that meets the needs of each tribal government.
    The ITC also appreciates the inclusion of cultural burning as a
    designated fireshed management project. For many tribes this will be a
    critical tool to accomplish their risk reduction goals.
        The ITC supports the bill's provisions that address full tribal
    inclusion in Good Neighbor Authority, and adding the National Park
    Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to that authority. We also
    support extending the length of stewardship contracting authority. To
    ensure we have the infrastructure needed to accomplish these fireshed
    management goals we will need a healthy forest products industry. To
    achieve this, we must have long term commitments to forest products
    supply chains. The Wildfire Mitigation and Management Commission also
    recommended investments in wood processing facilities and the wood
    utilization sector more generally.
        The bill's provision on litigation reform mirrors existing
    direction from Congress in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Since
    federal forests are often managed by the whim of federal courts, we
    believe it is reasonable for Congress to direct courts to weigh the
    long-term effects of fuels reduction versus wildfire impacts to
    untreated areas. With approximately half of the reservation burning
    over between 2015 and 2021 we have firsthand experience with fire
    effects on untreated areas. Although we have an active forest and fuels
    management program, we are not funded to work at the pace and scale
    needed for our forest types. The consequence is high severity wildfire
    in many of untreated areas. It would be irresponsible to assume ``no
    action'' means ``no impacts'' as we continue to see the growing impacts
    past management practices and climate change.
        ITC would recommend that the Bureau of Indian Affairs be included
    as a member of the Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program. The BIA
    is included as a representative in the Fireshed Center and Public-
    Private Wildfire Technology Deployment and Testbed Partnership, and
    should serve in the same capacity to protect tribal interests in this
    program.
        We also support better reporting of fuels reduction projects by
    type and effectiveness. A true accounting of footprint acres with a
    quantified risk reduction will help track our success, and inform
    future investments and projects. We would recommend the work done by
    the Department of the Interior to consider the ``avoided costs'' of
    various fuels treatments.
        The ITC also supports the creation of an interagency group focused
    on technology development and deployment. The Wildfire Mitigation and
    Management Commission had 16 recommendations dedicated to the
    integrating modern science and technology. By collaboratively combining
    the resources of the federal agencies, academia, and private industry
    we can utilize existing tools, and develop new tools that improve our
    effectiveness in achieving these wildfire risk reduction goals.
        On the whole, the ITC supports the intent of this legislation to
    accelerate the pace and scale of high priority fuels work on federal
    lands. The ITC requests that the Committee review additional
    recommendations to Congress from the Wildland Fire Mitigation and
    Management Commission report, particularly those that involve tribes
    and tribal forest and fire management.

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Desautel.
    And now we are going to have questions for 5 minutes.
        First, I would like to recognize the Chairman, Mr.
    Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you
    to the panel, great testimony. I appreciate everybody's input.
    And hopefully, we can continue to work together as we develop
    the language to file the bill.
        And I am just going to try to go down the row as quickly as
    I can.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Westerman. Ms. Downey, you talked about mechanical
    thinning and prescribed burns. And we have heard it said, a
    picture is worth a thousand words. And I have a picture behind
    me that I think is worth 10,000 words. This is from the Bootleg
    Fire in Oregon, and we see an area that was thinned but not
    burned destroyed in the wildfire. We see an area that had no
    treatment that was really destroyed in the wildfire. And then
    there is this green band in the middle that was thinned and
    burned.
        Can you just elaborate a little bit on the need not just to
    do prescribed burns, not just to thin, but to use those in
    combination as a treatment?
        Ms. Downey. Chairman Westerman, thank you, and I agree that
    the image you have from the Bootleg Fire highlights the power
    of combining those different tools. That example really
    highlights it, and I think the science also continues to
    highlight that, as well.
        I mentioned in my testimony the new meta-analysis that
    looks at, when you are able to combine those tools of
    mechanical thinning and prescribed burns, that is when you are
    able to really see that reduced risk of wildfire and the
    reduced severity going forward. So, when you are able to
    combine those tools and use both of them in tandem and
    responsibly, you can have some really incredible benefits.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
        Mr. Parma, you bring a unique perspective, coming from the
    private sector and a mill owner. On the business side, what is
    the largest cost in your business?
        Mr. Parma. The largest cost in our business is the fiber,
    actually the trees that we use. That is where most of our cost
    comes from.
        Mr. Westerman. But if you look at the inputs into your
    business, are not the log costs the highest, the resource cost?
    That is more than the labor cost, the electricity. Typically,
    that is how it is in a mill environment.
        And the reason I am asking that question is, if you wanted
    to expand your operation, what is the No. 1 thing you have to
    be sure of if you are going to invest capital in an operation
    producing wood products?
        Mr. Parma. Yes, again, it gets back to the fiber, to the
    actual trees. If there are trees available that we can harvest,
    that we can use to make product, that is where we will probably
    put another plant.
        Mr. Westerman. Right. And it would be foolish to build a
    mill and expand your production capacity if you didn't have the
    fiber to go into it. That is just common sense. Yet, we have
    seen a loss of infrastructure in the West, and we know how
    critical it is to be able to have a market for this material
    that needs to be thinned. So, hopefully we can do more with the
    stewardship contracting, and we can encourage mill owners to
    have confidence that they can invest their capacity or expand
    their capacity and know that that supply is going to be there.
        And if you look at the U.S. market, we still get about a
    third--a little less than a third--of our wood products from
    Canada, yet we see millions of acres of assets burn up every
    year that could be creating jobs in rural areas and adding to
    the U.S. economy and, hopefully, lowering prices for building
    homes and other things.
        Dr. Barrett, you said several great things. You talked
    about being proactive. I have said that so many times in this
    Committee. I also add we have to be pragmatic.
        And you talked about building wildfire-resilient
    communities, talking about hardening infrastructure, which I
    totally agree with that. But can we, in a sense, harden the
    forest, as well?
        I know programs like Firewise, that are focused on making
    structures that aren't going to catch on fire in a sense, could
    we harden the forest to wildfire so that they look like this
    strip in the middle, versus the other ones?
        Dr. Barrett. Thank you for that question, Chairman. We can.
    I think what is important, though, is that in as much as we
    harden the forest, we complement that with hardening the
    communities that are most threatened, as well.
        Previous to that picture you had a picture of a home
    burning, and I can tell you there is about a 90 percent chance
    that home ignited from an ember. Once that ember lands in the
    home and starts to ignite it, burning it, then neighboring
    structures are threatened, and it is no longer a forest
    problem, it is a structural ignition problem, and that requires
    a different set of expertise and a different set of mitigation
    measures.
        Mr. Westerman. I agree 100 percent. We were coming back
    from a CODEL last year after the fire in Lahaina, and we went
    over and toured the damage. It was a grass fire, then it became
    a structure fire, and then it became a massive structure fire.
    We saw glass melted out of automobiles, aluminum, magnesium. If
    it wasn't steel, it was pretty much melted. And it takes 2,000
    degrees to melt glass, so an unbelievable high-intensity
    wildfire once it got into structures. So, I am all for
    hardening structures. And in that wildland-urban interface we
    have to do a much better job both with forest management and
    the structures.
        Mr. Desautel, I had the great opportunity to go travel
    around with you on the Colville land. And you know, my hat is
    off to you for the work that you all are doing in a very
    difficult situation. And you pointed out we visited that site
    where you, the Colville, had done everything right, as far as a
    forest management standpoint. But you had a wildfire come in
    from the Forest Service that took out, you had the green strip
    here that still got destroyed because the fire was so hot.
        We are trying to give more authorities to tribes to do what
    you do best, and that is to manage your lands, to go out on the
    Federal estate and do management. How eager would the Colville
    be to manage the lands that adjoin your forest so that you
    could keep those Federal fires from coming in on your land?
        Mr. Desautel. Colville would be a very willing partner in
    that. We have two Tribal Forest Protection Act projects that
    are on projects adjacent to the Colville, again, one held up in
    litigation, the other one working through the process, hoping
    to see a NEPA decision on that very soon that does not get
    litigated, but recognize that, in the example that we saw, that
    if you don't do things at scale, it is really kind of anecdotal
    that, when you look at treatment across the landscape, it has
    to be large enough that when you have those high-intensity fire
    events, largely driven by wind, that they will withstand or
    have lower fire severities when those fires hit.
        So, I think it is critical that we do work on both sides of
    the fences and working with our neighbors, whether those be the
    Forest Service, BLM, or private, is absolutely critical to
    really trying to get a handle on this wildfire crisis.
        Mr. Westerman. And you made a great point about making sure
    the tribes have the same authorities that the Federal land
    managers have when it comes to categorical exclusions and NEPA,
    and that is well noted.
        I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr.
    Bentz from Oregon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bentz. Well, thank you so much for being here today,
    and I am going to be asking questions about the content of the
    bill. So, if it turns out that the person I asked the question
    of doesn't know anything about it, feel free to select one of
    your fellow folks, and point at them, and we will go there.
        We will start with you, Mr. Desautel. And I am curious, the
    watershed space is of great interest to me, and the value of
    the forest in acting as a sponge to take up water and then
    release it over time is far more important, perhaps, than it
    has ever been.
        I have the privilege of being Chair of the Water, Wildlife
    and Fisheries Subcommittee of Natural Resources. And, of
    course, water is everything to fish, and not to mention
    agriculture, and not to mention all of the other folks that
    rely upon the water as it comes down from the forests. So, my
    question to you is, this bill suggests that we would be able to
    use watersheds as a foundation for asking for alacrity in
    trying to protect our forests. Do you agree?
        Mr. Desautel. Yes, I do agree, for one, that watersheds are
    just an appropriate scale to look at treatments and a way to
    prioritize. But I completely agree with you from a water
    priority perspective, too, that when you look at tribes--for
    the vast majority, if not all tribes--water is one of the most
    sacred and critical things that they try to protect, from a
    natural resource perspective.
        Mr. Bentz. Ms. Downey, I had occasion to stop by the
    University of California at Davis 3 weeks ago and speak with a
    water expert there, and she was talking about the ever-
    increasing dryness of our forests. And the conversation came up
    in an interesting way. I was asking about the impact of warmer
    weather upon the farmland out across the Central Valley of
    California. And she was explaining, of course, the obvious,
    which is as it gets hotter, more water is drawn out of the
    soil, it turns into vapor, leaving the salt. So, we were
    actually talking about salt.
        But in the course of the conversation she mentioned that
    the forests were suffering the same consequence of this
    evaporative loss of water as things got warmer, thus really
    resulting in much drier forests. Is that your opinion, also? I
    am assuming everybody on the panel agrees with that consequence
    of hotter, warmer, drier climate.
        Ms. Downey. Congressman, I can't speak too much to the
    actual water tables there, that is a little bit outside my
    scope. But I would absolutely agree that hotter, drier
    conditions are a factor fueling our wildfire crisis.
        And your point on the connection with water, I mean, so
    many of our watersheds, especially in the West, are reliant on
    those healthy forest ecosystems. Where I am in Bozeman,
    Montana, if a fire were to rip through the forest surrounding
    our community, we would be out of water in 3 days. So, the
    interconnection of water and the health of our forests cannot
    be overstated.
        Mr. Bentz. Yes, and so the question would be, do the people
    in Bozeman actually understand that getting back into the woods
    is a requirement of maintaining the water that they get from
    their tap? Do they get it? Does the greater population
    understand how close they are to not having water?
        Ms. Downey. That is a great question, and I would like to
    credit the Forest Service and the city of Bozeman and a lot of
    local collaboratives in helping to make that point. So, I do
    think there is a strong effort there to emphasize that
    connection.
        I will also recognize that PERC, where I work, we have been
    really lucky to be working on a film looking at just defining
    what is a healthy forest. Why should the general population
    care about not just having these dense, overstocked forests,
    but instead, well-managed and restored ecosystems for exactly
    the reasons you are discussing, because they have real
    implications for those of us who live there every day.
        Mr. Bentz. I think Newt Gingrich said that the way you get
    the law changed, you change public opinion. So, the real
    question is, how are you and others letting people know of the
    need for a bill just like the one that Chair Westerman is
    bringing that builds and responds to the incredible danger,
    almost existential, for some of our cities?
        I mean, obviously, it is. How do you guys get the word out?
    How do you tell people about this?
        Ms. Downey. It is a big challenge, but one that I know we
    are eager to take on. And I know many of the other panelists
    here are also working on similar issues of how do we start to
    change that public opinion, how do we start to change the
    messaging that, when you step off the plane in a Western
    community and see these dense, green forests, we have to
    recognize there is also a risk there.
        So, I think there is a lot of work that can be done, but I
    know that is something that we are eagerly taking on and
    working to communicate.
        Mr. Bentz. Well, I appreciate that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I am going to take a
    couple of minutes to ask some questions here.
        Mr. Parma, the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, you guys
    put out some good data, it appears, quarterly. And are you
    familiar with that, that is coming out of your organization? We
    receive it in regards to harvest on Federal lands, and
    particularly U.S. Forest Service lands.
        Mr. Parma. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. And we are seeing from the data that, in terms
    of net, nationally there actually is not an increase in the
    amount of timber coming off from the U.S. Forest Service lands.
    Is that accurate?
        Mr. Parma. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Tiffany. And do you guys have a reason or two, a
    prominent reason or two to attribute that to? Because I think
    about the additional money that has been put in, and yet we are
    not seeing additional harvesting. What are the reasons for it?
        Mr. Parma. Yes, I would go back to Good Neighbor Authority,
    stewardship, all of those are opportunities that are aren't
    quite being used, I think, to their full ability. Both products
    like that would also help increase the amount of timber.
        Mr. Tiffany. What was that last point again?
        Mr. Parma. The Good Neighbor Authority and stewardship,
    stewardship contracting.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, if we would do more of that?
        Mr. Parma. Yes, and there is a fix that needs to be done in
    the Good Neighbor Authority. There are five or six states that
    do a good job of it now, there are more that would like to do
    it.
        But as we all know, when it comes to national forest, state
    land, county land, everything is checkerboard anymore.
    Especially as you go east from the Rockies and that, it is hard
    to do management on just one ownership. Where they are allowed
    to have, like I said, with that Good Neighbor Authority fix, if
    we get that, we will get more opportunity that way.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I know I heard the examples about a
    decade ago that the golden-winged warbler was being considered
    for being put on the endangered species list, and it turns out
    its habitat is early successional forests. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Parma. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, you think about these U.S. Forest Service
    lands that are not being managed. We are actually creating or
    have the potential to create an endangered species as a result
    of that.
        Mr. Parma. Right. And we have the data that we are not,
    according to the plans that we have for the Lake States area,
    in particular, where the golden-winged warbler habitat is, they
    are not meeting their young forest objectives. So, we are
    losing opportunity there to actually improve habitat for
    another species by doing timber harvest.
        Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Desautel, so the Cottonwood fix is in the
    discussion draft. Do you think that is a good thing?
        Mr. Desautel. Yes, anything that speeds up process, limits
    the risk of litigation is a good thing to work at the pace and
    scale we need to. I think it has been mentioned by even Deputy
    Chief French before that process, I think, is a bit of a
    problem for us.
        And particularly when we look at the rate of change and the
    number of acres impacted annually by wildfires, we are
    definitely seeing wildfire as the largest managing factor on
    the landscape, compared to the things that we are doing as
    human beings.
        Mr. Tiffany. Have you specifically seen Cottonwood
    litigation affect your operations?
        Mr. Desautel. Well, we had a project litigated. I am not
    sure how close the comparison was to the Cottonwood litigation,
    but it was opposition of a project that we had proposed, I
    think largely because of its potential implications to a
    designated roadless area and its eligibility for wilderness.
        But I do know that our intentions in treating that were to
    give us opportunities to suppress fire, were we to get one in
    that location. And, unfortunately, while that was being
    litigated, we had a very large fire season in 2021 that burned
    50,000 acres on the reservation just south of where that
    project was to be completed. Fortunately, we got it held on the
    reservation side, so it didn't end up on the Forest Service,
    but I think it demonstrates the potential that is there if you
    don't do that work. And, unfortunately, we hadn't done enough
    work even on our side of the border to stop that once it got to
    that drainage that we had planned the activities for.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, the Intertribal Timber Council supports
    doing something in regards to Cottonwood to get a fix to it?
        Mr. Desautel. Yes, I believe so. I mean, it is always
    dependent on the language, but definitely supportive of things
    that help process.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So, is it the case that at times the
    Forest Service is not a good neighbor?
        Mr. Desautel. The Forest Service could be a better neighbor
    in scenarios.
        I am thankful that the Colville National Forest, which is
    on our northern boundaries, is one of the more active forests
    in the country. But the Okanogan Wenatchee struggles with
    different demographics, and they definitely do less treatment
    than what the Colville does. So, there is definitely room for
    improvement.
        Mr. Tiffany. Because most of the U.S. Forest Service lands
    in Wisconsin are in my district up in northern Wisconsin, and I
    have heard that from county forest, state foresters, private--
    there is a lot of private forest land in Wisconsin--that at
    times, because of the lack of harvest, you end up with disease
    and insect infestations, that they really become a problem for
    their neighbors. So, it is of great concern.
        Ms. Downey, we heard with our previous panel in regards to
    it may be double the cost to be able to get a project done as a
    result of litigation. Have you seen that? Has your
    organization, PERC, seen examples of something like that?
        Ms. Downey. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, litigation is a
    major challenge. You brought up the Cottonwood fix, and the
    national forests surrounding Bozeman, where I live, is ground
    zero for that Cottonwood Decision.
        And what we saw, again, is this is the forest that is our
    watershed. If this forest goes up in flames, we are out of
    water in 3 days. That project was collaboratively designed,
    there was a lot of community buy-in on that, and that was
    litigated. Over 15 years went by when that was all tangled up,
    and at the end of the day the litigation finally was resolved.
    Litigation has still continued, but work has been allowed to go
    on, and the project is moving forward exactly as it was
    originally laid out.
        All of those years of delay and costs and time and
    everything where our community was at risk didn't end up
    actually changing the outcome of the project.
        Mr. Tiffany. And which project was that, again?
        Ms. Downey. The Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, is that moving forward now?
        Ms. Downey. Yes, we have been able to move forward, which
    is excellent. I have been able to go up and see some of the
    work happening firsthand, and it looks wonderful.
        There is still some litigation continuing, but at least the
    injunctions have been lifted.
        Mr. Tiffany. Does it appear that project will get
    completed? I mean, are you optimistic at this point?
        Ms. Downey. At this point I am optimistic, yes. The Forest
    Service is very committed to seeing that through.
        Mr. Tiffany. Dr. Barrett, I am going to close here. You had
    three points that you were making, and No. 2, you were talking
    about having a commission, I think, something like that. And
    did I hear it accurately that it would be public officials that
    would serve on this commission that you highlighted in Item No.
    2?
        Dr. Barrett. I highlighted two potential programs that are
    being proposed in the Commission recommendations. One was a
    community wildfire risk reduction program, which is explicitly
    called out in Westerman's drafted legislation, and then
    additionally, a proposed fire environment center. So, if that
    is the one that you are referencing----
        Mr. Tiffany. That is, yes.
        Dr. Barrett. Correct, yes. So, this is an interagency joint
    office with shared governance structure, but with one dedicated
    director who would be responsible for the budget, the hiring,
    and the administration. It would be an interoperable data
    sharing and technology platform.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. Well, would there be private actors that
    would be allowed on this also?
        Dr. Barrett. I would believe that they would be part of
    that larger governing board.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. Because I was just wondering if I was
    hearing that there would not be private actors that would be
    allowed there also. So, they are not excluded?
        Dr. Barrett. No. Correct.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. And on point No. 3 you talked about
    additional resources needed, additional money being needed. I
    have a great skepticism about that. I mean, you are hearing
    some of the back-and-forth that we are having that we allocated
    significantly more money, billions of dollars of more money to
    do a variety of things in regards to these natural resources
    issues that we had before us, including wildfire, and yet you
    heard from the U.S. Forest Service official that they are
    actually not getting more work done. So, that is really a
    concern. Is the answer just money?
        Dr. Barrett. The answer is partly money, certainly. We do
    need additional financial incentives and investment and
    subsidies, particularly to communities to be able to do the
    mitigation measures needed for structures, neighborhoods, and
    their larger community in reflection and complementary to what
    is occurring on the wild lands around them. So, certainly,
    money is part of it.
        But it goes beyond just money. As articulated in the
    Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program that is part of this
    bill, there are additional functions that are required,
    including technical assistance for expertise that goes beyond
    what traditional Federal land management agencies are
    responsible. There is also a need for financial incentives, for
    subsidies, for research and risk assessments, for building code
    adoption, for support for land use planning, and to support
    local collaborations on the ground between public and private
    partners.
        Mr. Tiffany. So, something that would be really helpful is
    if you could identify a source of money that is already
    existing.
        I mean, we sit here as a nation in $34 trillion in debt,
    and the original reason why I ran for our State Legislature
    years ago was because of the fiscal problems that we had. And,
    of course, they are even more severe at the Federal level. I
    think it is really irresponsible for us to put new money in.
    And if you can find existing pots of money that may be out
    there that we could access to be able to accomplish some of
    those goals, I know, certainly on this side of the aisle, I
    think you are going to find a greater receptivity to what you
    are proposing, and would be really helpful for us to be able to
    advance the goals that you have laid out.
        Dr. Barrett. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes. OK, Mr. Stauber, you get 5 minutes, good
    to have you here.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is called pay-fors.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Mr. Stauber. I am happy to see a great Minnesotan on our
    panel today, and I thank all of you for being here.
        Mr. Parma, thank you for coming to Washington and
    testifying on behalf of Minnesota's forestry sector. We really
    appreciate it.
        I am happy to hear you discuss the Good Neighbor Authority
    in your testimony. As I shared, I have seen this program work
    incredibly well in northern Minnesota. That is all the reason
    more that we need to expand it for tribes and counties. Can you
    expand or share more on this?
        Mr. Parma. Yes, Good Neighbor Authority just gives us more
    opportunity to get more acres treated on the national forests.
    Multiple tribes and counties already have forestry programs
    that do timber sales, set up timber, do the administration of
    it. So, it would just give more opportunity, as we heard
    earlier, one of the things the Forest Service said is they were
    short on people. This would give more people more boots on the
    ground to get opportunities to get things done.
        Mr. Stauber. Yes, it is a win-win-win.
        Mr. Parma. Yes.
        Mr. Stauber. Can you talk a little bit about the provisions
    allowing direct sales on priority firesheds?
        Mr. Parma. Sure. That was set up in 1976, if I remember
    right. And what has happened is it was never changed. With all
    the inflation we have had since 1976, it was never changed. The
    amount was kept the same. By just fixing that, just getting it
    up to date on what it should be at, the minimum value of the
    timber, it would help out with a lot of small logging
    businesses that are hurting right now. They would love to have
    that opportunity. It would help to get more acres treated, and
    actually help a lot, even out West, where they could get
    opportunities to do projects that are too small for a lot of
    people, but would be perfect for some of these other
    businesses.
        Mr. Stauber. While our forests in Minnesota do face the
    risk of wildfires, we luckily do not face as large of a threat
    as certain states out West. That said, forest management is
    still incredibly important. Can you speak to the importance of
    proper management of forest in Minnesota and similar areas of
    the Upper Midwest?
        Mr. Parma. Sure. And we talk about the East not being as
    fire prone, but as Mr. Tiffany will attest to, on Saturday we
    had over 300 fires in the state of Wisconsin alone. So, it is
    not just out West, it is also out East. So, getting more
    management done, getting more forest fire resistant is
    important for all of us. And there is definitely opportunity
    there to get it done before we lose it.
        Mr. Stauber. Mr. Parma, in the first panel the Forest
    Service Chief and I talked about allowing the private industry
    to have some input and conversation. Do you feel that you have
    a voice, as a private industry, with the Forest Service?
        Or would you like to have a heavier and a more influential
    voice because you are the boots on the ground?
        Mr. Parma. I guess, as far as voice goes, I mean, we are
    heard at the table, for sure. Sometimes I wonder if it goes in
    one ear and out the other, but that happens. But I think we
    have a lot of opportunity to get things done on the ground, and
    we have tools that we have been given. The GNA is one,
    stewardship----
        Mr. Stauber. Yes.
        Mr. Parma. There is designation by prescription,
    designation by description, opportunities where they don't need
    to do a lot of the work on the ground. We can get that done
    with just things that we already do in industry already.
        Mr. Stauber. Yes, but do you think they are listening? I
    mean, that was my premise of my question to the Forest Service
    Chief. We have private industries and experts in the private
    sector that can help you make decisions. And that is the goal,
    to make sure that the Forest Service works with the private
    industries so their voices are heard, not just listened to, but
    actual action taken after you have given the input from your
    perspective of boots on the ground, the industry experts, and I
    consider you an industry expert. So, Mr. Parma, thank you for
    coming and representing the great state of Minnesota.
        To the other witnesses, thanks for your testimony.
        Again, Mr. Chair, it is called the pay-for, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Tiffany. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Stauber. Yes, I will yield.
        Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Downey, do you see reason for optimism? I
    think I have been in this place for 4 years, become much more
    familiar with the western wildfires and what is going on. Do
    you see reason for optimism that we are going to do a better
    job as a country for what really has been a disaster going on
    for the last 10 to 20 years?
        Ms. Downey. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent question,
    and I think where I see optimism is that there is now broad
    support and recognition for the need to actually apply these
    tools and to do active restoration work through mechanical
    thinning and prescribed burns and management on the ground. So,
    that is where I do have optimism.
        I think, in order to be able to then harness that
    enthusiasm and make it more easily applied on the ground
    through a lot of the reforms that we are talking about today,
    through limiting disruptive litigation, through accelerating
    the rate at which things are able to move through the
    environmental review process, that bringing in the private
    partners, states, counties, and tribes, that is where we can
    then take that enthusiasm and that broad buy-in and recognition
    that we need to do something, and turn that into outcomes on
    the ground.
        So, I guess my optimism sort of hinges on our ability to
    make some of these reforms and to harness that enthusiasm.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
        Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to thank
    all of our witnesses for joining us here today. Many of you
    traveled from long distances. I appreciate your testimony, and
    I appreciate the Members for their questioning.
        Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for our witnesses today, and we will ask that they
    respond to these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of
    the Subcommittee must submit questions to the Subcommittee
    Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, April 22, 2024. The hearing record
    will be held open for 10 business days for those responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection,
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                            Statement for the Record
                        U.S. Department of the Interior
                   Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Westerman)

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement
    for the Record on the discussion draft. The Department of the Interior
    (Department, DOI) notes its strong preference to testify on bills after
    they have been introduced. Given the breadth of subject matter
    contained in the text of the bill, the Department did not have adequate
    time to conduct an in-depth analysis and receive input from the many
    agencies impacted, and it did not have sufficient time to develop the
    detailed, thorough testimony that is appropriate for a hearing on these
    matters in time for the hearing. We are providing the following
    preliminary comments on the 75-page draft bill but would like to
    preserve the opportunity to submit additional input on the bill after
    it is introduced, if necessary. The Department defers to the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) on provisions of the draft bill
    impacting USDA Forest Service (USFS) programs.
        The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes that all Americans are
    impacted by the heavy burdens that accompany wildfires, which are being
    made more intense by climate change. The Department works closely with
    the USFS, states, Tribal Nations, and local communities to reduce
    wildfire risk and restore the ecological health of our forests and
    rangelands.
        The success of DOI's Wildland Fire Management program is predicated
    on coordination with our interagency, state, and Tribal partners. These
    partnerships are vital to the Department's success in carrying out its
    stewardship responsibilities, particularly fuels management work and
    post-wildfire restoration efforts; they are also integral to the
    interoperable approach that is the hallmark of the nation's wildfire
    response activities.
        Any efforts to increase fuels management, or in general improve
    Wildland Fire Management work, will be more successful with
    authorization of permanent, comprehensive wildland firefighter pay
    reform, as proposed and included in legislative proposals accompanying
    the President's Budgets for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025.
    Title I--Landscape Scale Restoration

        Title I, Subtitle A of the draft bill, Addressing Emergency
    Wildfire Risks in High Priority Firesheds, would designate fireshed
    management areas; establish a Fireshed Center and firesheds registry to
    support coordinated wildland fire data, science, and technology with
    Federal and non-Federal partners; facilitate shared stewardship
    agreements with states and Tribes; and limit National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for hazardous fuels treatments in
    fireshed management areas.
        Several provisions of the draft bill align with recommendations
    made in the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Final
    Report (Report) to Congress. The Report recommends greater cooperation
    among partners to actively invest in technologies and mitigation
    strategies to reduce wildfire risk and to increase the pace of scale of
    hazardous fuels treatments on Federal, non-Federal, and Tribal lands.
    The Department also notes that there is a nexus between the USDA's 10-
    year Wildfire Crisis Strategy--which identifies the priority firesheds
    that the discussion draft proposes to designate as fireshed management
    areas--and the Department's 5-Year Monitoring, Maintenance and
    Treatment Plan to Address Wildfire Risk. Both strategies establish
    roadmaps for collaboratively addressing wildfire risk and building
    resilience across landscapes.
        The Department would like to work with the Sponsor and the
    Subcommittee to ensure that the proposed fireshed management areas
    would be established with DOI data and input and appropriately
    incorporate landscape prioritization. Similarly, the Department
    recommends that membership and appointments to the proposed interagency
    Firesheds Center created by section 102 of the bill be given equal DOI
    and Tribal consideration. Additionally, there is potential overlap
    between the responsibilities of the Fireshed Center and the Joint
    Office for Wildfire Science and Technology that is proposed in the
    President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2025. The Department is exercising
    flexibilities under the current suite of management authorities
    provided by Congress, including implementing procedures for several
    categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels to reduce wildfire risk and
    protect communities, infrastructure, and natural and cultural
    resources. We remain committed to ensuring that appropriate
    environmental reviews and analyses are considered for particular
    projects. The Department would like to work with the Sponsor and the
    Subcommittee on definitions and other technical changes in this Title
    to ensure that DOI and Tribal interests, goals, and priorities are
    addressed.
        Subtitle B of Title I, Expanding Collaborative Tools to Reduce
    Wildfire Risk and Improve Forest Health, amends the Agricultural Act of
    2014 to allow revenue and payments under Good Neighbor Agreements (GNA)
    received from timber sales to be retained and used by the applicable
    Governor, Tribe, or county for restoration services under GNAs and for
    the administration of GNAs through 2029. Additionally, Subtitle B would
    amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to allow the BLM and
    USFS to enter into stewardship contracting projects to retain and
    expand existing forest product infrastructure and increase the maximum
    allowable period for a contract from 10 to 20 years for all contracts.
    In the event of a cancellation of a contract lasting more than five
    years, the bill directs the agency to provide 10 percent of the
    agreement or contract amount to the entity providing services. Lastly,
    the discussion draft also directs the DOI and USDA to establish intra-
    agency strike teams to assist NEPA reviews, preparation, and
    implementation associated with fireshed management projects within the
    fireshed management areas that would be designed by the bill.
        As a general practice, the BLM provides full funding for multiyear
    projects even though the BLM has the authority to fund these contracts
    incrementally. The BLM notes that providing incremental funding would
    necessitate the inclusion of cancellation and termination clauses in
    the event that the BLM is not provided appropriations to fund
    obligations beyond the current fiscal year. If the BLM awards a
    contract that is not fully funded at award, requiring a fixed 10
    percent cancellation or termination cost may be inadequate in some
    cases and too much in others, depending on the nature of the project
    and site. The Department would appreciate the opportunity to work with
    the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to include a mechanism in the bill
    that provides suitable cancellation and termination costs.
        Subtitle C of Title I, Addressing Frivolous Litigation, contains
    reforms related to litigation of fireshed management plans; limits the
    obligation to reinitiate consultation under the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) on approved BLM land use plans when a new species is listed or
    critical habitat is designated or new information reveals effects on
    listed species or critical habitat that were not previously considered;
    and establishes a discretionary arbitration process pilot program as an
    alternative dispute resolution process for objections or protests to
    forest management activities designated by the Secretary concerned. The
    Department has not had adequate opportunity to review and analyze these
    provisions and would like to preserve the opportunity to submit
    additional input on these provisions.
    Title II--Protecting Communities in the Wildland Urban Interface

        Title II, sections 201-203 of the discussion draft would authorize
    a DOI Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program to support interagency
    coordination in reducing wildfire risk in the wildland urban interface
    and a Community Wildfire Defense Research Program to promote research
    and investments into wildfire resistant designs; address wildfire
    suppression policies; and expand research for community wildfire
    defense.
        The Department welcomes the opportunity to facilitate partnerships
    with local communities and private entities through the creation of
    these two programs. However, the Department notes that other Federal
    agencies may be better suited to implement and administer the proposed
    Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program, which we understand to be a
    broad-based technical assistance and grants program. Furthermore, DOI
    notes that other Federal agencies, such as FEMA and the U.S. Fire
    Administration, should be equal partners in the proposed Community
    Wildfire Defense Research Program considering their ongoing involvement
    in funding research into wildfire resistant technologies and
    structures. Finally, although the suppression provisions of Title II,
    section 202 apply only to the USFS, they have broad implications to
    interagency wildfire response efforts, present potential legal issues,
    and--in the long-term--run counter to our collaborative efforts to
    effectively reduce wildfire risk on Federal and Tribal lands.
        Title II, section 204 amends section 512(a) of the Federal Land
    Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) by changing the definition of
    ``hazard tree'' to include trees or parts of trees that, if they fell,
    would be likely to come within 50 feet, instead of 10 feet, of an
    electric powerline. Additionally, section 204 would require agency
    consultation with private landowners when identifying hazard trees for
    removal on private lands. Finally, section 204 reduces approval
    timelines for vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation
    and maintenance plans from 120 days to 60 and 67 days, respectively,
    for plans and modifications and, in each case, makes approval automatic
    at that point.
        The BLM is working to protect electric powerlines and associated
    infrastructure in the event of catastrophic wildfire. In several
    states, the BLM is coordinating with electrical utility companies to
    identify areas of high risk for wildfire and is sharing risk assessment
    data to assist utility companies with identifying areas for vegetation
    treatments. Consistent with BLM policy, power companies may reduce risk
    in their rights-of-way (ROW) through local vegetation management plans
    and maintenance operation plans. Electrical utility companies are not
    required to notify the BLM of maintenance or mitigation work along the
    ROW if it is determined there is high risk for wildfire. Pursuant to
    section 512 of FLPMA, the BLM also published new regulations to address
    the risks of wildfire to and from powerlines on BLM-managed public
    lands on April 12, 2024. The Department would like to work with the
    Sponsor and the Subcommittee to ensure that the bill language is
    consistent with current regulations and supports amending section 512
    to facilitate removal of hazard trees within 50 feet of electric
    powerlines.
        Title II, section 205 of the discussion draft establishes a
    categorical exclusion for the development and approval of plans
    submitted under section 512(c)(1) of FLPMA and the implementation of
    any routine activities conducted under such a plan. The use of this CX
    would not be allowed in established wilderness areas, nor would it
    extend to the establishment of a new permanent road. The Secretary
    would be required to decommission any temporary roads not later than
    three years after the action is completed. Finally, the activities
    authorized for the use of the proposed CX would be exempt from section
    7 of the ESA, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
    (NHPA), or any other applicable law.
        It is important to note that the BLM already has some CXs that it
    can rely on for compliance with NEPA for certain projects that
    facilitate emergency stabilization work after a wildfire and that can
    be used to manage fuel load and trees which are dead, dying, diseased,
    injured, or which constitute a safety hazard in certain circumstances.
    The Department supports the goals of the discussion draft to enhance
    and expedite actions to reduce wildfire risk in powerline ROWs.
    However, the Department believes that new CXs are better developed
    through the established administrative agency process than through
    legislation. In addition, we are concerned that the proposed CX's
    waiver of the requirements set forth in the ESA and NHPA, and its
    exemption from the requirements of all applicable laws, could
    jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered
    species, or result in damage to important historic and cultural
    resources, and have other serious unintended consequences. We would
    appreciate the ability to provide technical assistance regarding its
    scope and to clarify whether extraordinary circumstances would apply.
        Further Title II, section 206 directs the Secretaries of the
    Interior, Agriculture, and Defense to jointly develop and submit to
    Congress the ``Seeds of Success'' strategy to enhance the domestic
    supply of seeds, increase interagency coordination, and provide a
    comprehensive approach to native plant materials development and
    restoration. The BLM currently has a Seeds of Success Program and a
    National Seed Strategy for Restoration and Rehabilitation.
    Additionally, the BLM participates in the Plant Conservation Alliance,
    a public-private collaboration among 17 federal agency Members and more
    than 400 non-federal Cooperators working to protect native plants by
    ensuring that native plant populations and their communities are
    maintained, enhanced, and restored. The BLM would like to work with the
    sponsor to increase the capacity and ability of these existing efforts.
    Title III--Transparency and Technology

        Title III, section 301 of the discussion draft directs USDA and DOI
    to establish demonstration projects on USFS- and BLM-managed lands to
    support the development and commercialization of biochar. It also
    authorizes a competitive grant program to carry out research and
    development. Biochar is created when plant materials--such as wood,
    bark, switchgrass and the like (generally referred to as ``biomass'')--
    are heated in a low or no oxygen atmosphere. Biomass resulting from
    fuels reduction treatments or logging activities can be used to produce
    biochar, which can then be used to enrich soil and sequester carbon
    that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere if biomass were
    left aboveground to decompose, or if it were burned.
        The BLM has explored uses for biochar as early as 2012 through an
    agreement with Utah State University, Utah Biomass Resources Group.
    More recently, in 2023, the BLM and USFS generated biochar from
    otherwise unusable biomass resulting from the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire in
    Oregon. The BLM continues to study how biochar can be used to benefit
    soil as well as the cost of generating biochar relative to other
    biomass use alternatives. The Department is open to further research
    regarding developments of biochar technology and efforts to improve
    cost efficiency of its use.
        Title III, section 302 of the draft bill would establish reporting
    requirements for hazardous fuels projects and establish a program for
    testing new wildfire prevention, detection, communications, and
    mitigation technologies. The Department notes that many of the
    reporting requirements outlined in section 302 are redundant with
    metrics that are required by other legislation, do not fully account
    for annual hazardous fuels acres treated, or may not be currently
    feasible. We would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee
    on modifications to this section to address these issues.
        Title III, section 303 would require the DOI and USDA to establish
    a deployment and Testbed Pilot Program for new and innovative wildfire
    prevention, detection, communication, and mitigation technologies. The
    Department notes that it is already investing in innovative
    technologies to protect communities and the public from wildfire risk.
    The Department would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee
    on technical edits to section 303 of the draft bill to ensure that the
    definitions of ``covered agency'' and ``covered entity'' are
    sufficiently broad to cover all potential partners and that the key
    priority technologies and priority areas address current wildland fire
    management needs.
    Indian Tribes and Tribal Lands

        Finally, the Department is committed to improving the stewardship
    of our Nation's Federal forest lands by strengthening the role of
    Tribal communities in Federal land management, honoring Tribal
    sovereignty, and supporting the priorities of Tribal Nations. The
    Department is concerned that the discussion draft does not provide
    Tribes with the same opportunities for partnerships as would be
    available to States. The discussion draft also omits the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) from the bill's list of Federal land management
    agencies. The Department notes that Tribes and the BIA collectively
    manage over 18 million acres of Tribal and allotted trust forest lands,
    respectively.
        Forest and ecosystem health does not stop at the border of Tribal
    lands, making it imperative that Tribes and the BIA be treated as co-
    equal to states and other Federal land management agencies. The
    Department would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to
    ensure parity for Tribes, Tribal lands, and the BIA. The scope of work
    necessary to reduce wildfire risk in firesheds will require the
    judicious use of prescribed fire. The cultural use of fire by Tribes is
    essential and may offer new solutions to ongoing barriers. We also note
    that the draft bill contains inconsistent terminology related to Tribes
    and Tribal Governments. The Department would like to work with the
    Sponsor and the Subcommittee to ensure the proper terms are used in
    each section to ensure the correct Tribal entity is captured for the
    intended purpose. Finally, Tribes often have historic, cultural, and
    spiritual ties and reserved treaty rights to non-Tribal lands, such as
    state and Federal lands, and we recommend requiring Tribal consultation
    to ensure that Tribes are afforded the opportunity to provide input on
    management of non-Tribal lands and on which data is made publicly
    available.
    Conclusion

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
    Record.

                                     [all]