U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–916 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–227 

S. l, THE WILDFIRE PREVENTION 

AND MITIGATION ACT OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 25, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 25, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Crapser, Bill, State Forester, Wyoming State Forestry Division ........................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso ........................... 19 

Moretti, Miles, President/CEO, Mule Deer Foundation ....................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 29 

Kruse, Dylan, Policy Director, Sustainable Northwest ........................................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 40 

LEGISLATION 

The text of S. l, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 ............... 134 

(1) 

S. l, THE WILDFIRE PREVENTION 

AND MITIGATION ACT OF 2017 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Boozman, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Now that the markup is completed, I call this 

hearing to order. 

Today we are having a hearing on Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation, the Act of 2017. It is a discussion draft. The discussion 

draft we consider today focuses specifically on issues that have 

been referred to this Committee. It combines tools for habitat conservation for mule deer, sage grouse, and other wildlife, and 

streamline processes for addressing specific areas that need immediate attention. 

The three titles include bipartisan initiatives from six different 

members and represent many months—if not years—of work to 

give land managers the tools that they need to prevent catastrophic 

wildfires. 

It does not include a budget fix for the simple reason the budget 

issues are outside the jurisdiction of this Committee. Ultimately, a 

budget fix should be paired with tools to reduce forest density for 

improved wildlife habitat and healthier forests, and the ability to 

react quickly to mitigate environmental harms after a fire. 

On September 27 this Committee held its first hearing on the 

catastrophic damage caused by wildfires across the country. We 

heard testimony of homes burned, children unable to attend schools 

because of poor air quality, damaged city water supplies, and historic forest destruction. 

Since that hearing, fires have continued to burn in California 

and across the West, with devastating effect. According to the latest numbers from the USDEA, ‘‘Year to year, there have been 

52,277 fires, covering 8.82 million acres across all jurisdictions, 2.3 

million of which are on national forests.’’ To put this into perspective, that is nearly 7 times the State of Delaware, 12 times the 

State of Rhode Island. 

2 

The cost of these fires is real: lives are lost and family history 

and livelihoods are destroyed in an instant. The communities and 

ecosystems will be needing rebuilding for years. We must ask ourselves what kind of future are we leaving for the next generation 

when we fail to conserve Federal forests that overwhelm the sky 

with thick smoke and ash when they burn. 

As a physician, I see many parallels between human health and 

forest health. These catastrophic fires are a symptom, not the underlying problem. I believe we have to take a holistic approach. On 

the one hand, we must take preventive action so that, when fires 

occur, they don’t burn so hot, so long, and so fast and destroy everything in their path. Additionally, we must also enable restoration to ensure that, when fires do occur, agencies have the tools 

they need to restore and improve wildlife habitat, access for recreation and whole forest ecosystems. Both of these things must be 

paired with a comprehensive budget fix. 

Before hearing from our witnesses today, I would like to turn to 

Ranking Member Carper for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To our witnesses, I had a chance to welcome you all personally, 

but in public I want to say, welcome. We are glad you are here. 

Since the last time we met to discuss wildfires, just about a 

month ago right here, 21 major wildfires have ravaged the State 

of California. These fires have destroyed over 8,000 homes and 

buildings, scorched more than 245,000 acres, and tragically taken 

some 42 lives. More than 11,000 firefighters from I think about 18 

States and Australia are still working to contain these fires. 

My wife and I were out in California about a week and a half 

ago, and from San Francisco down to San Jose we were struck by 

the haze, the smoke that was still in the air, especially in the 

northern part of the Bay area. A lot of people were wearing masks 

almost 100 miles from where the fires were taking place. 

Challenging fire conditions persist throughout California, but 

now that the October fires are waning, cleanup begins. Chemicals 

present in burned out homes and buildings may cause new health 

and human safety concerns. We need to act to address wildlife risk 

now more than ever. We also need to be thoughtful and strategic 

as we do that. 

During our September hearing our colleagues and witnesses 

seemed to agree on several issues, ranging from the urgent need 

for Federal funds to address fire to the possibility that narrowly 

tailored policy solutions should also be considered. 

Unfortunately, that bipartisan consensus is not well reflected in 

the draft legislation that we are considering today. The Wildfire 

Prevention and Mitigation Act does incorporate two bipartisan 

bills, but it also includes broad changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. I am concerned about the negative implications 

of these proposed reforms which would be layered on top of existing 

underutilized forest management authorities. 

This management reform-only approach is not going to solve our 

nation’s wildfire problem. The draft bill does not acknowledge or 

3 

address root causes for increasingly severe wildfire seasons, such 

as climate change or increased development near forestlands. It 

also fails to provide adequate funding resources to the Forest Service. 

I have mentioned the Forest Service’s funding challenges before, 

but the facts are worth reiterating. In 1995 only 16 percent—16 

percent of the Fire Service’s budget was dedicated to fire suppression. Since 2015 the Forest Service has been spending more than 

half of its annual budget fighting fires. More than half. 

In order to meet fire suppression needs, the Forest Service borrows money from other important programs, including those focused on forest management and restoration. This practice, known 

as fire borrowing, is not sustainable. We have to get ahead of this 

problem. It is not getting better; it is getting worse, and it prevents 

the agency from taking necessary action to prevent fire. 

According to Secretary Perdue, firefighting activities will likely 

consume two-thirds—two-thirds of the Forest Service budget by 

2021. Two-thirds by 2021. When Secretary Perdue announced these 

projections at a bipartisan press event last month with our Senate 

colleagues, he asked Congress to focus on a permanent funding fix. 

He also reported that the Forest Service is cooperating well with 

local communities and does not necessarily need legislative management reforms. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. We look forward 

to hearing from each of you this morning who have traveled, in 

some cases long ways, to share your expertise, your counsel with 

us today. 

Mr. Chairman, I do hope we will also be able to refocus our efforts and develop a truly bipartisan approach to better prevent and 

address wildfires across our nation. Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

We have today with us three individuals who will be testifying. 

We will hear from our witnesses. Today we have Mr. Bill Crapser, 

who is the State Forester for the State of Wyoming; Mr. Miles 

Moretti, who is the President and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation; and Mr. Dylan Kruse, who is the Policy Director for Sustainable Northwest. 

I want to first introduce Mr. Crapser, who serves as Wyoming’s 

State Forester and recently served as the President of the National 

Association of State Foresters. 

I am very pleased, Bill, that you join us today. You have served 

as the Wyoming State Forester since 2003. As part of your leadership of the Wyoming State Forestry Division, you know that collaborative work across the many private, State, and Federal boundaries is the key to healthy forests across Wyoming. 

As a key member of Governor Mead’s Task Force on Forests, Bill 

helped to develop a series of recommendations to reduce the threat 

of destructive wildfire through vegetation management, to enhance 

forest health and wildlife habitat across migration corridors, and to 

expand outdoor recreation opportunities in healthy forests. 

Bill provides critical expertise and is a valuable resource when 

addressing challenging issues like those we will discuss today. 

4 

So I appreciate you making the trip, Bill, to be with us. And before asking you to testify, I would like to recognize Senator 

Merkley to introduce his constituent who is here as well. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 

be able to welcome Dylan Kruse, who has made the trip from Oregon to testify. He serves as the Policy Director for Sustainable 

Northwest, an organization focused on resolving conflict by developing solutions that improve community and economic well being, 

while preserving healthy forests. 

Mr. Kruse also serves as a member of the Real Voices for Conservation Coalition, where he works with people across the western 

United States in a collaborative manner to develop solutions to 

challenges facing our public lands and our natural resources. 

I know that Mr. Kruse has been a great resource for my staff. 

His work on natural resources and public land issues will provide 

insight to this Committee as we discuss the Wildfire Prevention 

and Mitigation Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Kruse, for making the trip out here and for your 

work to bring people together from across a broad array of perspectives. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley. 

I also note that Mr. Moretti, who is here, you were born in 

Evanston, Wyoming, I understand, and grew up in the Bridger Valley. So we welcome you as well. 

With that, I would like to remind the witnesses that your full 

written testimony will be made part of the official hearing record, 

so please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes so we may have 

time for questions. 

Mr. Crapser, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF BILL CRAPSER, STATE FORESTER, 

WYOMING STATE FORESTRY DIVISION 

Mr. CRAPSER. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, members of the Committee. My name is Bill Crapser. I 

serve as the Wyoming State Forester. I am also the immediate past 

President of the National Association of State Foresters. 

Through the 2008 Farm Bill, State foresters were tasked with developing State forest assessments and action plans for all ownerships, including Federal. In 2013, our Governor, Governor Mead, 

commissioned the Task Force on Forests. This was a diverse group 

of Wyomingites who worked collaboratively for over a year to create 

a vision for our forests. The Task Force’s No. 1 recommendation 

was to endorse and implement the strategies and direction laid out 

by our State Forest Action Plan. 

In Wyoming, our State Forest Action Plan identifies the areas of 

greatest risk for catastrophic wildfire, as well as insects and disease. Much of these at risk forest areas are on Federal land managed by the USDEA Forest Service. For a variety of reasons, the 

Forest Service has not treated the majority of at risk forested areas 

as identified in our plan. Much of the challenge for Federal managers is due to overly burdensome environmental regulations that 

are, in many cases, doing more harm than good to Wyoming’s forests. Frankly, we are quite frustrated. 

5 

It is not just Federal lands that are impacted by this lack of active management. Wildfires and insects and disease know no 

boundaries, and virtually all catastrophic wildfires in Wyoming 

burn through multiple ownerships. 

The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 addresses 

many of the regulatory challenges our Federal partners face. Arbitration to resolve disputes would be helpful. The use of categorical 

exclusions for forests at risk, or wildfire and forest needing habitat 

improvement would also be helpful. The ability to use CEs, or categorical exclusions, for making decisions on salvaging burned and 

beetle killed timber so that the wood will still have value when sold 

would be most helpful. Expansion of the Good Neighbor Authority 

that has been a huge success so far would really be helpful. There 

is increasing opportunity through this Authority for States to implement federally approved projects, NEPA completed, with State 

personnel. We applaud the bill’s sponsors for this thoughtful piece 

of legislation. 

NASF has a policy platform with specific and detailed Federal 

forest reform—a copy is attached to my written testimony—as well 

as a Forest Resource Committee and Fire Management Committee 

comprised of State foresters from around the nation, and could 

offer assistance to these important issues. We believe we can help 

the Committee in fine tuning the details of this bill. In addition, 

we would ask that the Committee consider language which would 

encourage Federal managers to consult their State Forest Action 

Plans and work closely with State foresters to ensure Federal resources are focused on the highest priorities. 

While regulatory reform is a significant part of today’s challenge 

in addressing our overgrown and insect and disease prone forests, 

there are other factors that would help as well. We need a solution 

to the way Federal wildfire suppression is funded. This fire season 

has been one of the most devastating in history. The Forest Service’s budget for fire suppression has grown from less than 20 percent to more than 50 percent of the agency’s total budget. This will 

have repercussions not only on Federal land, but for the funding 

of State and private forestry programs across the country. These 

programs include State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance, which fund much of the nation’s initial attack on Federal 

lands. 

In Wyoming and across the nation, a private forest landowner 

who works with our staff and with the forest stewardship program 

is almost three times as likely to manage his forest as a landowner 

without a management plan. Helped by State Fire Assistance and 

Volunteer Fire Assistance, every county in Wyoming now has a 

Community Wildfire Protection plan. Also, much of our wildland 

fire equipment and training which we use to respond to both private and Federal fires comes from this program. In addition, 

through the support of community forestry programs, half of Wyoming’s communities are designated as ‘‘Tree City USAs.’’ This has 

a huge impact on the quality of life, stormwater control, air quality, 

and carbon capture in these communities. 

Again, we applaud the Chairman and the Environment and Public Works Committee for making the health of our Federal forests 

6 

a top priority. I know the nation’s State foresters stand ready to 

work with you to address these most important challenges. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crapser follows:] 

7 


29916.001

Bill Crapser 

Wyoming State Forester 

Bill graduated trom the University of Montana in 1980 with a B.S. 

degree in Forest Management. After graduating from college in 

1980 Bill spent 23 years working for the forest products industry in 

various positions from logging foreman to Natural Resource 

Manager, in Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. 

In October of2003 the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners appointed Bill State 

Forester of Wyoming. In this position Bill leads the Wyoming State Forestry Division. 

The division is responsible for the management offorested state trust lands, fire 

management on state and private lands, and provides assistance forestry programs to 

landowners and communities across the state. 

Throughout his career Bill has been involved in many organizations and groups, serving 

as the Vice President of the Montana Wood Products Association, chairman of the 

Central Rockies Sustainable Forestry Committee, and chairman of the National 

Association of State Foresters Forest Health Committee. Bill is a past chairman of the 

Council of Western State Foresters, and is currently the Past President ofthe National 

Association of State Foresters. 
8 


29916.002

Testimony of Bill Crapser, Wyoming State Forester 

Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works 

for a hearing on the 

Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 

October 25,2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee. My name is Bill Crapser. I serve as Wyoming's State Forester and 

Administrator of the Wyoming State Forestry Division. I am also the immediate past President 

of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF). While I am not officially representing 

NASF today, my views are aligned with NASF policy positions and I believe they are reflective 

of the views ofthe nation's state foresters. I appreciate the opportunity to submit written 

testimony as the Comrnittee considers important opportunities to streamline the environmental 

analysis processes and encourage more active management of our nation's federal forests. 

As State Forester of Wyoming I have responsibility for planning for all ofWyoming'sforests 

irrespective of ownership. Through the 2008 Farm Bill, State Foresters were tasked with 

developing state forest a.ssessments and action plans for all ownerships including federal 

ownerships. In 2013, Governor Mead commissioned the Task Force on Forests. This was a 

diverse group of Wyomingites who worked collaboratively for over a year, to create vision for 

the future of our forests. The Task Force's number one recommendation was to endorse and 

implement the strategies and direction laid out in the State's Forest Action Plan. In Wyoming 

our state forest action plan identifies the areas of greatest risk for catastrophic wildfire as well as 

insects and disease. Much of these at risk forested areas are on federal lands managed by the 

USDA Forest Service (Forest Service). For a variety of reasons the Forest Service has not 
9 


29916.003

treated the majority of at risk forested areas as identified in our plan. Much of the challenge for 

federal managers is due to overly burdensome environmental regulations that are, in many cases, 

doing more harm than good to Wyoming's forests. Frankly, we have been quite frustrated. 

Federal managers are not aggressively thinning or using prescribed burning or other tools on our 

state's federal forests in large measure because of expensive and time-consuming environmental 

analysis processes. We can cite examples where while waiting for additional studies or decisions 

to be made, we watch at risk federal forests burn in catastrophic wildfires. 

It is not: just federal lands that are impacted by this lack of active management. Wildfires and 

insects and disease know no boundaries and virtually all of the catastrophic wildfires in 

Wyoming burn through multiple ownerships. If state land managers or private landowners treat 

their forested lands and the federal forests are still overgrown, fire-prone thickets, we have not 

addressed the problem. 

The "Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of2017" addresses many of the regulatory 

challenges our federal partners face. Streamlining the implementation of the Endangered 

Species Act will be helpfuL Arbitration to resolve disputes will be helpful. Restoration targets 

will be helpfuL The expansion of the use of categorical exclusions (CE's) for forests at risk to 

wildfire o: forests neediag habitat improvement, will be helpful. CE's are environmental 

documents which the agency can complete in months instead of years. The ability to use CE's 

for making decisions on salvaging burned and beetle killed timber so that the wood will still have 

value when sold, will be most helpful. Receipts from salvage sales provide the main source of 

funding for reforestation of Wyoming's burned federal forests. If the wood loses its value 
10 


29916.004

awaiting environmental studies, then the wood is not sold and there is no fhnding for reforesting 

our federal forests. Expansion of Good Neighbor Authority is also very helpful. There are 

increasing opportunities through this authority for the state to implement federally approved 

projects (NEP A completed) with state personnel. We applaud the bill sponsors for this 

thoughtful piece of legislation. 

NASF has a policy platform with specific and detailed ideas for federal forest reform (copy 

attached) as well as a Forest Resouree Cornn1ittee and a Fire Management Committee, comprised 

of State Foresters from around the nation that can offer assistance on this important issue. We 

believe we can help the Committee in fine tuning the details of this bill. In addition, we would 

ask that the Committee consider language which would encourage federal managers to consult 

their state's forest action plan and work closely with State Foresters to ensure federal resources 

are focused on the highest priorities. 

While regulatory reform is a significant part oftoday's challenge in addressing our overgrown 

and insect and disease prone forests, there are other factors which will help as well. We need a 

solution to the way federal wildfire suppression is funded. Nationally, this fire season has been 

one of the most devasta~ing in recent memory. First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers are 

with those who have lo~t loved ones. Some 50,000 wild fires have burned almost 9 million acres 

across our country causing untold damage to communities and forests. Federal wildfire 

suppression costs in Fis<:al Year 20! 7 have exceeded $2 billion dollars, making 2017 the most 

expensive year on record. Over the last few decades, the Forest Service's budget for fire 

suppression has grov.-n from Jess than 20 percent to more than 50 percent of the agency's total 
11 


29916.005

budget. If trends contiu'.le, the vast majority of the Forest Service budget will be consumed 

fighting fires leaving limited funding available to improve forest resiliency, which reduces the 

risk of wildfire and the costs of suppression. This will also have repercussions for the funding 

for state and private forestry prog~ams (which address national priorities). These programs 

include State Fire Assistance (SFA) and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VF A), which fund much of 

the nation's initial attack on federal forest lands. These state and private forestry programs also 

include funding for insect and disease treatment programs, community forest programs and our 

work with private landowners to manage their forests. All of these are critical for rural America. 

In Wyoming and across the nation, a private forest owner who works with our staff through the 

Forest Stewardship Program, is almost three times more likely to manage his forest than a 

landowner who does not have a plan. Helped by State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire 

Assistanc~, every couniy in Wyoming now has a Community Wildfire Protection plan. Also 

rriuch of cur wild land fire equipment and training which we use to respond to federal fires, 

comes from this program. In addition, through the support of community forestry programs half 

of Wyoming's communities are designated "Tree City USA's". This has huge impacts on the 

quality of life, storm water control, and air quality and carbon capture in these communities. 

Again we applaud the Chairman and the Environment and Public Works Committee for making 

the health. of our federal forests a top priority. While this bill focuses on federal forests, it Vvill 

also significantly help all of the nation's forests and the communities which depend upon them. 

I !mow the nation's state foresters stand ready to work with you to address these most important 

challenges. 
12 


29916.006

This policy position was approved by the NAS;;' Executive Committee on Febmary 9, 2016 and expires on February 9. 2021 

unless renewed, updated, or otherwise acted upon by the NASF Executive Committee or NASF membership. 

lntrodut:tion 

National Association of State Foresters 

Preferred Reforms to Federal Forest land Policy 

Approved February 9, 2016 

* Federal lands reforms recommended In this document focus on Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. 

Ofthe approximately 750 million acres afforest land in the United States, 20 percent are managed by 

the USDA Forest Service (USFS). Another six percent are managed by the Department of the Interior 

{DOl) Bureau of Land Management {BLM). The amount of federally owned forest in each state varies 

from very high percentages in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain Regions to relati•Je!y lower 

amounts in the East. 

Federal forest land hold'ngs can have significant impacts on surrounding ownerships <:nd on~ state in 

general. Wildfire spread and insect and disease infestations do not recognize ownership boundaries. 

Where forests have lost vigor and resilience, often due to a lack of management, a catastrophic event on 

federal lands can quickly become a damaging event on other properties. In addltior:, 0ver one-hc.lf qi the 

nation's water supply originates in federal forest headwaters and that supply can be negatively 

impacted by catastrophic events occurring on federal forest lands. 

Where f~deral forest lands dominate the landscape, they have a significant effect on forest markets and 

forestproducts industry infrastructure. In geographies where federal forest lands account for the 

majority of the forested acres, and given that federal timber supplies have sharply declined from historic 

levels, forest markets ar-d industry infrastructure have diminished to the point where private 

landowners have difficulty marketing their timber and thus managing their forests. Federal lands can 

have tremendous socio-economic benefits for adjacent communities and broader geographical regions. 

Our federal forest lands are under serious threat. Entire landscapes continue to experience deteriorating 

health problems and uncharacteristic landscape change as a result of insect and d:sease epidemics, 

invasive species, catastrophic wildfire and more. Intentional managemer.t actions are necessary to 

improve :;he resilience of federal forest lands. 1:1 reg!ons with a mixture of ownerships, the varying 

objectives of different ow11ers lead to provisio:l of a well-rounded suite of forest-related benefits. A 

prerequisite for success is landscape level coordination that include the full participation of federal 

partners, as well as federal managers that are capab:e of and empowered to implement the on-theground actions identified within collaborative planni:Jg efforts. 

As administrators of the 'orestry agencies of all SO states, the US territories and the Distr:ct of Columb!a, 

the members of the Natkmal Association of State Foresters (NASF) are responsible for the health, wellbeing and socio-econom!c benefits of non-federal forest resources within their jurisdic:ions. State 

liP age 
13 


29916.007

This policy position was approved by the NASF Executive Committee on February 9, 2016 and expires on February 9, 202/ 

unless renewed, updated, or otherwise acted upon by the NASF Executive Commitlee or NASF membership. 

forestry agencies and federal agencies already work together in many places, engaging in productive 

dialogue, cooperation, and partnerships; nevertheless, a variety of opportunities to enhance these 

efforts exist. What occurs on federal lands can impact the ability of NASF members to carry out their 

responsibilities in an effiCient and successful manner. 

In light of these potentic: impacts, NASF has adopted a statement of general principles regarding 

reforms to federal land management policy. The statement reads: 

Significant changes in federal policy for forest land management under the authority of the USFS 

and BLM are needed to ensure the provision of a range of benefits from federal forests. 

Federal forest lands provide critical goods and services, such as forest products and jobs, clean 

air and water, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat and numerous other forest-based · 

amenities. 

Only by accelerating the scope, scale and p3ce of on-the-ground management, consistent with 

approved mana::;ement plans, wi!l we be able to restore ourfederal forests to a more 

sustainable, resilient condition. 

• Without a viable forest products sector, ongoing forest management activities to maintain longterm sustainability of social, economic and ecological benefits across forestlands of all 

::rvmerships will not be possible. 

This pol;cy statement serves to build on these principles- providing background on the issue, outlining 

concerns more specifically and providing a checklist of potential reforms. 

legislative Background 

An estim'lted 80 different laws regulate the management of federal lands. A subset of those principa: 

laws include: 

F0rest Service Or.ganic Administration AC-t of 1897 

Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of 1908 

The Weeks Law, .Act of 1911 

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 

• Administrative Procedures .Act of 1946 

Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 

Wilderness Act of 1964 

o Roadless /\rea Conservation Rule- 2001 

• Multiple Use an~ Land Classification Act of 1964 

National Forest P.oads and Trails Act of 1964 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Clean Water Act ,t;mendments of 1972 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 

Endangered Species Act of_1973 

Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 

Federal land Pelky and Management Act of 1976 

National Forest Management Act of 19?6 

o USFS Plar,ning Rule- 2012 

21Page 
14 


29916.008

l11is policy position was approved by the NASF Executive Committee on February 9, 2016 and expires on Febntmy 9. 2021' 

unless re.r::nved, updated, or otherwise acted upon by the NASF Execulive Committee or NASF membership. 

The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 

• Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 

.Agricultural Act. of 2014 

The laws and regulations governing the management of federal forest lands reflect society's evolving 

values, needs, and demands. The complex interactions and multiple effects created by federal 

legislation and rule-making, subsequent interpretation by courts and risk-averse agency analyses has 

caused f~deral forest lands to fall short in the delivery of a balanced and sustainable set of benefits. 

NASF Concerns with Federal Forest Land Policy 

NASF believes federal lands should deliver a robust array of environmental (biodiversity, dean water, 

wildlife habitat, etc.), social (stable communities, recreation, aesthetic values, etc.) and economic (forest 

prcduc\:5, jobs; payments to counties, etc.) benefits. Currently they do not do so sufficiently. We 

describeour concerns m:lre specifically below. 

,-:;,,vironmentalCurrent and past approaches to wildfire suppression and a largely hands-off ap!Jroach to forest 

management have led to widespread insect and disease infestations and fuels build-up that 

drastically alter or eliminate landscape-scale swaths of forest ecosystems 

Stresses caused by long-term drought and other climate factors are, in some instances, 

amplifying these conditions 

Landscape-scale forest health decline and fuels build-up have led to substantial increases in the 

severity and magnitude of catastrophic wildfire; in some cases: 

o Altering soil structure, 

o Emitting increased levels of carbon and other air pollutants, 

o Damaging habitat, including endangered species critical habitat, and 

o Impacting water quality and quantity through erosion and sedimentation; this is 

especially problematic when it leads to the acceleration of water supply reservoirs 

sedimentation 

o Damagir,g private structures and causing human fatalities 

A lack of budget support for vegetation management and restoration programs, as well as a lack 

of alignment in vlews about appropriate management and response approaches among stake 

holders hampers utilization of damaged trees and reforestation efforts after catastrophic fire 

A significant back~log of roads and trails maintenance projects creates threat; to wa~er qL•ality 

e-nd public safety, hampers management, and reduces recreational opportunities 

• /,lack of active management creates a significimt imbalance in forest age classes which is 

manifested in: 

o A Jack of early successional habitat for species dependent on that fo~est type, a>~d l<ter, 

o A risk of wholesale alterations in forest ecosystems-as large blocks of forest reach their 

natural lifespan in more highly condensed timeframes, creating !arge blocks of dead and 

dying trees. 

Socio-Economic3IPage 
15 


29916.009

This policy position was appr3ved by the NASF Executive Committee on February 9, 2016 and expires on Februaty 9, 2021 

unless rer.ewed, updated, or o!herwise acted upon by the NASF Executive Committee or NASF membership. 

!ncreasingly high wildfire suppression costs continue to erode federal agency non-fire program 

budgets and divert resources away from other national and state priorities, such as: 

o Implementing vegetation management (pre-commercial thinning, timber sales, 

restoration projects, fuels mitigation} to reduce the risk of future· catastrophic wildfire; 

o Funding Cooperative Forestry Programs that assist non-federal landowners, address 

state priorities enumerated in State Forest Action Plans, and implement actions that 

address forest health and wildfire risks across boundaries; 

o Maintair.ing roads, trails and facilities; and 

o Conduc:ing research. 

Diverting fiscal resources from programs that complete the critical preventive forest 

management work leads to substantially higher direct and indirect costs associated with wildfire 

(suppression, ecosystem service costs, post fire impacts, etc.} 

Reductions in federal forest timber harvesting has weakened or eliminated iocal and regional 

brest products markets, which has in turn made it more difficult for private forest landowners 

~o manage their properties 

Rural counties dominated by federal forest lands are suffering severe financial hardships 

because these lands fail to provide sufficient in-lieu-of-property tax revenues and adequate raw 

materials to support taxpaying industries and employees 

.• f;ederalland management agencies operate at a net loss financially, as federal forest land 

r:1anagement recoups only a small portion of the costs through revenue generating activities. In 

contrast, many state forest management operations (e.g. Oregon, Idaho, and others} cover their 

costs and gene rete a positive flow of income back to beneficiaries. 

A lack of federal forest management is a missed opportunity for creating a range of jobs through 

contracting and direct employment 

-;-he m3ny restrictions, limitations and uncertainties related to federal forest management tend 

t·J lead to an inability to realize the full potential of partnerships and their resources- including 

funding and ma!'power- to complete active management on federal lands. Often ·~liis results 

from projects de·;eloped over a number of years by collaborators acting in good faith, only to 

see their efforts 'rnmediately halted by litigation from outside interests. 

Communities in landscapes dominated by federal forest lands have experienced economic 

declines with multiple negative repercussions, such as: 

o Financial stress, increased poverty levels and dependence on social welfare, and 

o An inab!'!ty to support !ocal instituti':>ns and infrastructure (e.g. hospitals, schools, 

libraries, road maintenance, and water-treatment systems} 

• A lack of budget support has resulted in recreational facilfties on federal lands being closed or 

poorly maintained, and cultural and historic ~esources left unprotected 

!:-~ability and/or p'i'rceived inability to provide the multitude of benefits federal i3nds could 

optimally offer has diminished local commu:-~ity support for the federal ;;;gencles entrusted w!th 

r.:;anagement 

/flstitutional-

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEt' A) and the C!ean 

Water Act (CWA} are used by ~arrow interests to marginalize the delivery of a broad and 

balanced set of €'1Vironmental, social a:-~d economic benefits 

4(Page 
16 


29916.010

This policy position was approved by the NASF Executive Committee on February 9, 2016 and expires on February 9, 2021 

unless renewed, updated, or othenvise acted upon by the NASF Executive Committee or NASF memtership. 

As currently implemented, compliance with federal regulations requires subst.antial time and 

financial investment before any on-the-ground management can occur, greatly reducing the 

ability to manage federal forest lands at a scale necessary to catch up with the needs to improve 

forest health 

• Litigation, or the threat of litigation, has created a risk-averse agency culture and tends to bias 

managers towards low-risk projects that may not necessarily be the highest priority for 

achieving the goal of creating resilient, sustainable forests 

The current Forest Service National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule (planning 

'rule) does not direct the delivery of a balanced set of environmental, social and economic 

l?enefits and instead treats economic and social benefits as by-products and less of a priority 

than environmental benefits 

There is an urge~t need for increased investment and action on federal lands to meet the 

?gencies' forest management, policy, and multiple-use missions 

NASF De:;ired Policy Reforms 

i?eforms that would deliver a more balanced set of social, environmental and economic 

benefits-

·Provide specific internal agenc·1 direction on planning rule implementotion to emphasize a 

"balanced delivery of social, environmental and economic benefits 

Provide specific internal agency direction on planning rule implementatio'l to place greater 

emphasis on the need for National Forest Plans to address priorities identified in State r-arest 

Action Plans 

Update the policy statements of key federal forest laws to establish: 

S!Page 

o that their purpose is to deliver and continuously improve upon the delivery of a 

balancec~ set of social, environmental and economic benefits; 

o that any ::ubsequent language in any of these laws cannot be construed to suggest that 

any one set of benefits is more unilaterally important than the otl,ers; 

o that balance is considered achieved when the mix of social, environmental and 

economic benefits has been optimized at a landscape-scale: 

Where the process of optimization recognizes 

that each of the desired goods and services to be provided has a 

practical uppeo and lower limit, 

that delivered goods and services have interdependent relationships 

that can be generally described (providing more of one may lower or 

increase the ability to provide another) 

that the ultimate goal is to provide the maximum amount of all goods 

and services desired given these limits and relationships; and 

that much of the information that can be applied to estimate a balanced 

set of optimized benefits is more subjective than qua!1tifiable and 

therefor subject to value-based decisions 

o that when found to be delivering a balanced set of social, environmental and er:onomic 

benefits, .federal forest management plans and the actions that flow from them are 

considered in compliance with other relevant federal laws (ESA, NEPA, CWA) 
17 


29916.011

This policy position wos approved by the NASF Executive Committee on Febntary 9, 2016 and expires on Febmary 9, 2021 

unless renewed, updated, or othenvise acted upon by the NASF Executive Committee or NASF membership. 

Pass new legislation that permanently funds a "payment in lieu of taxes" {PILT) program for local 

governments based on the property tax rates imposed on surrounding private forest land 

'Om bed community scale economic development more deeply in the objectives of National 

forest plans. 

1v1onitor the application of the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) as states ar.d the USFS enter into 

GNA agreements and implement projects. Direct the USFS to complete periodic review of the 

' zpplicationofthe tool to identify areas for improvement. 

Reforms that would lower casts of agency administration, planning, regulatory compliance and 

litigatio;~-

Implement NEPA in ways that are more productive; i.e., 1) utilizing landscape scale planning, 

or 2} develcping desired condition documents with smaller scale projects meeting CE 

(categorical exclusion) requirements tiered to those documents, or 3) Implement other 

strategies w:-tich produce more on-the-ground results. 

Ensure that the option to only use two project alternatives- "Action" and "No Action" in an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) is used effectively to create greater efficiency and better 

decision-making 

~ Amend ESA to allow the USFS and BLM to make Section 7 determinations 

Eliminate the concept of planning cycles and establish a process ·whereby plans and their 

implementation are continuously evaluated and revised 

Encourage interagency collaboration early and throughout project planning cycles 

..; Ensure that the implementation of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA} rules allow 

broad-based, active and collaborative participation by stakeholders and state agenci~s in 

the development of national forest plans 

~. Ensure that the process for administrati·lely challenging USFS projects (currently the 

"objections".;Jrocess) supports: 

6lPag~ 

o Clear standards for who can be at the table as the USFS considers altering 

chaE:=nged decisions, and that this can include: 

Parties who challenge a decision 

Parties who defend a decision, and 

Collaborative groups if they submitted recommendations on the project 

adopted formally by the collaborative group 

o Limits on the scope of what can be challenged 

o Rest..-ictions to the timeframe under which challenges can be .rresented and 

deciskms made 

Ensure that ~:1e legal process for ciJallenging· agency decisions supports: 

o limics to the scope of what can be heard in court, 

o Requ'ring that those who bring forward legal challenges are rr.ore financially 

respcnsible for the costs of litigation; and 

o Creating alternatives to judicial review that are less tiMe cons•Jming, costly and 

precedent setting 

lncentivize collaboratives and establish specified processes and formal mechanisms for 

project planning and judicial review for projects developed through a local collaborative, 
18 


29916.012

This policy position was approved by the NASF Executive Commillee on FebruaJY 9, 2016 and ec<pires on February 9, 2021 

unless rcr;cwed, updated. or othenvise acted upon by the NASF Executive Committee or NASF membership. 

This would Include making them substantially more difficult to litigate given the good-faith 

effort on the part of diverse Interests that goes into these projects 

Reforms that would enable vegetation management to be carried out at a scope, scale and pace 

sufficient to create more sustainable and resilient landscape conditions -

Install a funding mechanism and ensure adequate financial support for fire suppression 

activities, including through the use of emergency funds, such that other budget items will 

not have to be accessed to pay for shortages in suppression dollars 

• Authorize greater involvement in federal forest management activities by state and local 

governments 

Fully utilize o;xisting federal authorities to enter Into long-term agreements in order to 

strengthen .fa rest industries and assure sufficient supply to amortize new investment 

Encourage f?deral agencies to consult with the State Forester and document the results of 

State Forester consultation to coordinate an all-lands approach duringall phases of forest 

managemer,t, fuels reduction, and land transfer plan development and implementation; this 

·. should include how federal forest management plans consider and respond to State Forest 

Action Plans 

Streamline all administrative processes in cases that would allow timely salvage of fire 

damaged trees and quick reforestation 

o Establish this function as a vegetation management priority 

Retain all e<:rned revenue from forest management within the USFS and/or as payr.1ent to 

counties 

Simplify, clarify and realign current land-use allocations at a broad level to more 

appropriate:y meet project activities and priorities in defined areas. 

o Expand the appropriate use of large-scale (15,000 acres+) Categorical Exclusions for: 

71Page 

o Actions and activities agreed upon by local collaboratives, 

o Reducing wildfire risk, 

o Responciing to insect and disease outbreaks; and 

o Address:'1g a shortage of early successional wildlife habitat and er.suring the creation 

and mahtenance of a diverse range of habitat. 
19 


29916.013

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "S. ___ , the Wilqfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017" 

October 25, 2017 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Bill Crapser 

Chairman Barrasso: 

1. Mr. Crapser, can you recall situations in Wyoming where wildfires or insects and disease spread 

to Wyoming state lands, private lands and communities because the Forest Service was unable 

to treat affected federal forest lands? 

Yes. Scenarios as you mention are commonplace in forest management now across Wyoming and 

much of the west. Dense and over-stocked forests stands that have not have active management 

over the past few decades have become prone to both wildfire and insect epidemics. 

• In the Black Hills of Wyoming, the Black Hills National Forest has a large interface with 

state and private landowners, both where it borders these lands on the periphery and as 

numerous private inholding throughout. The most recent mountain pine beetle epidemic had 

large impacts to these state and private landowners and resulted in the need for increased 

resources. 

• On the Medicine Bow National Forest in southeast Wyoming, there has been a history of 

forest management from the early 1900's up until the early 90's when a number offorest 

policies were put in place that significantly limited the scope and scale of forest 

management activities. This reduction in management ability allowed the Medicine Bow 

National Forest to grow into an overstocked and unmanaged condition that set the stage for 

one of the largest bark beetle epidemics the forest has ever seen. Today the aftermath of the 

epidemic remains and is contributing to erratic fire behavior that has never before been seen 

on the forest. 

2. Mr. Crapser, do you think the categorical exclusions in this draft bill would help your federal 

partners to improve management of high-risk acreages in federal forests in Wyoming? 

Yes. While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) is well intentioned, it typically requires 

extensive time and resources before a project can be implemented. Sometimes things get 

overlooked or are not considered during the planning process by a federal agency. Categorical 

Exclusions have the potential to help fill these gaps or provide a more appropriate review on smaller 

projects. Having larger categorical exclusions would provide a more comprehensive tool and allow 

agencies better flexibility to address conditions on the ground in a meaningful and timely manner. 

3. Mr. Crapser, please describe the level of coordination you and your staff have with your federal 

partners? How often do federal agencies confer with you about fuels priorities and potential for 

cross-boundary opportunities? Are there ways to improve coordination between federal 

managers and you and your state staffi 
20 


29916.014

At the Wyoming State Forestry Division, my staff communicates with federal partners almost 

regularly, often times on a daily basis. I feel we make good progress in our outreach efforts to 

actively engage with these partners, recognizing that each entity (federal and state) may have 

different strengths. When we are able to coordinate and look across-boundaries, it becomes evident 

that we can get more work done in a more efficient manner together, rather than working alone. 

Coordinating with the numerous federal partners we have can be challenging though. Federal 

project planning and implementation needs to have coordination with good communication, but 

given the large turnover and detail or temporary positions in staffing these agencies have, it can be 

challenging or sometimes frustrating building and coordinating new relationships over and over. 

Opportunities and tools that give State Forestry Agencies the ability to leverage existing resources 

that benefit our federal partners, allows the state agencies to be more relevant. Examples like the 

Good Neighbor Authority and Forest Action Plans are tools that require strong coordination but 

have the ability to pay dividends to both sides in progress and results. 

4. Mr. Crapser, the 91

h Circuit's Cottonwood decision requires the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management to reinitiate consultation as required under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act at the individual plan-level following the listing of a species or the designation of 

critical habitat. As the State Forester for Wyoming, you are responsible for forest management 

and protection throughout the state on all lands. How would you foresee such a consultation 

requirement impacting forest management in Wyoming and across the United States? 

While the decision wouldn't directly affect State or private lands. I'm very concerned about the 

potential effects on tederal forest management. The effects would be proportional to the number of' 

listing or critical habitat decisions by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for species on 

federal lands. For each USFWS listing or critical habitat decision, the consultation process would 

take an estimated 6 to 12 months, including both Forest Service and BLM time to prepare a 

Biological Assessment and USFWS time to prepare a Biological Opinion,. This would create a 

significant additional workload for the Forest Service and BLM and would divert staff from 

ongoing project environmental analyses, would delay project decisions, would delay 

implementation of forest management projects, and would significantly affect forest products 

companies that rely on the Forest Service or BLM for their timber supply. This would also create a 

significant additional workload for the USFWS and would divert stalrtrom species recovery 

projects or project consultation. including forest management projects. 

5. Mr. Crapser, in your written testimony you mention forest action plans. What role should forest 

action plans play in making decisions on federal lands in the futun:? 

Forest Action Plans are an important document produced by each state with input and feedback 

from our federal and local partners. I believe Forest Action Plans can act as a larger, state-wide 

view towards focusing management efforts where they are needed. While a National Forest or 

BLM District may only focus on a specific forest or area of the state, Forest Action Plans can help 

link management efforts across boundaries and produce a coordinated management response. 
21 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Crapser. 

Mr. Moretti. 

STATEMENT OF MILES MORETTI, PRESIDENT/CEO, 

MULE DEER FOUNDATION 

Mr. MORETTI. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking 

Member Carper and members of the Committee. My name is Miles 

Moretti. I am the President and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation. 

We are the premier wildlife conservation group working on mule 

deer, black-tailed deer, and their habitat. I also am a proud professional member of the Boone and Crockett Club, and have served 

as a past Chair and current Board Member of the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the 

draft Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017. The draft legislation is an important step toward the enactment of bipartisan 

solutions to address a national forest health crisis which addresses 

the threat of catastrophic wildland fires in a manner that yields 

significant benefits for wildlife populations and their habitat. 

In particular, the Foundation appreciates the inclusion of the 

Sage Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration 

Bill, which was coauthored by the senior Senator from the State of 

Utah—Senator Hatch—and Senator Heinrich, in cooperation with 

sportsmen’s conservation organizations, the private sector, and 

other stakeholders. 

And I would like to say that when we put this bill together with 

Senator Hatch and Senator Heinrich, and we had groups like 

Boone and Crockett, National Wildlife Federation, and the American Petroleum Institute all give quotes in a press release, I had 

people call me and say, I don’t know what is in your bill, but if you 

can get all those people to help sponsor this bill and support this 

bill, I am for it. 

So, with that, in order to achieve our mission, the Foundation 

works with a diverse cross-section of Federal and State government 

partners, nonprofit conservation organizations, and the private sector, particularly the oil and gas industry, to undertake projects to 

create, restore, and protect sage habitat. 

While the motivation for engaging in these projects may differ 

across these partnerships, the model of working together to achieve 

our shared goal of reversing declining trends in the populations of 

sage dependent species has proven successful time and again. 

A primary impediment to replicating the successful collaborative 

model is the onerous and unnecessary and duplicative requirements of a full National Environmental Policy Act review of 

projects that would be better allowed to proceed under a categorical 

exclusion. 

While we have moved forward on many projects in the West, we 

have three projects that are being held up by the lack of NEPA 

being conducted by BLM. In my experience, time delays resulting 

from current NEPA requirements stem not only from a lack of 

human and financial resources, but from the fact that a full NEPA 

review, when applied to projects for which NEPA was intended to 

apply, are inherently time consuming. We are not asking to pass 

this bill to circumvent the process, but to expedite the process on 

22 

projects using proven practices that we know will have net conservation benefits. 

My ask of you today is that you help us restore our forests and 

rangelands to a healthy condition by giving us the tools and flexibility to accomplish that tool, and we believe that whatever form 

that takes, we need action now. There is just so many wildfires in 

the West, and they are becoming such catastrophic events that we 

need to get proactive. The hands off approach has not worked. We 

need a hands on approach to working with our partners in restoring healthy forests and rangelands. 

Thank you for your time and allowing me to testify before you 

today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moretti follows:] 

23 


29916.015

Miles Moretti 

President/CEO 

Mule Deer Foundation 

Miles Moretti became President/CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation in 

October 2006. MDF's president serves as chief executive officer and is 

charged with implementing policies and programs of the Foundation for 

mule deer and black-tailed deer. Since, Miles has been in the position of 

President/CEO, MDF has become one of the fastest growing wildlife conservation groups in the 

United States. 

Previously, Miles worked 30 years for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in various 

positions. When he retired, Miles was the Deputy Director and had served as Acting Director of 

the agency. 

Miles has extensive experience in working with a diverse array of conservation groups, 

sportsman, industry and private landowners on many difficult wildlife issues. Miles career has 

been one of believing in working collaboratively. 

Miles has served on several national committees and is currently on the Wildlife Hunting 

Heritage Council. Miles is past Board Chairman oflnterrnountain West Joint Venture. Miles is 

past Chairman of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (A WCP). Miles is a current Board 

member of the North American Grouse Pattnership. Miles is a member of the Theodore 

Roosevelt Conservation Partnership's Policy Council and past hoard member of California 

Outdoor Heritage CounciL Miles has also served as a member of the Pacific Flyway Council and 

served as chair. Miles has served as a member and chair of the Colorado Fish & Wildlife 

Council. Miles served on the Association ofFish & Wildlife Agencies Federal Budget & 

Legislative committee as its Vice-Chair for several years. 

Miles is a Life Member of the Mule Deer Foundation and a Life Member ofNRA, a member of 

the Wildlife Society, a professional member of the Boone & Crockett Club and a member of the 

National Wild Turkey Federation. 

Miles is also a published author, recently writing a chapter for Boone & Crockett's book " A 

Retrospective of Mule Deer". Miles also writes articles for MDF, the member magazine for the 

Mule Deer Foundation. 

Miles grew up in Southwest Wyoming and developed a passion for hunting, fishing and wildlite 

at an early age. This passion for wildlife led Miles to a career in Wildlife Management. 

Miles has a B.S. in Wildlife Management !rom Utah State University and an M.S. in 

Range/Wildlife Resources from Brigham Young University. Miles and his wife, Julie, have two 

daughters and reside in North Salt Lake City, Utah. 
24 


29916.016

Testimony for the Record of 

Miles Moretti 

President and CEO 

Mule Deer Foundation 

Before the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Regarding 

Committee Draft of the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 

October 25, 2017 
25 


29916.017

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper and Members of the 

Committee: 

My name is Miles Moretti, and I am the President and CEO of the Mule Deer 

Foundation (MDF), the only wildlife conservation organization dedicated to 

ensuring the conservation of mule deer, black-tailed deer and their habitat. I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the draft Wildfire 

Prevention and Mitigation Act of2017 (WPMA). The WPMA seeks to address the 

existing forest health crisis on National Forest System land, and expedite and 

prioritize forest management activities to achieve wildlife habitat and ecosystem 

restoration objectives. In particular, MDF appreciates the inclusion of Title II and 

its provisions on Sage Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and 

Restoration on Public Lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

I have served as the President and CEO ofMDF since October 2006 and in that 

time MDF has been one of the fastest growing wildlife conservation groups in the 

United States. I am also a professional member ofthe Boone and Crockett Club. 

Founded by Theodore Roosevelt, the Boone and Crockett Club is America's 

founding sportsmen-conservation organization and I am proud to offer the Club's 

shared support of the important legislation being considered here today. Finally, I 

am also the past chair and a current Board Member of the Intermountain West 

Joint Venture. The Mule Deer Foundation is an active partner on many of the Joint 

Venture's Sage Habitat Initiative which unites a diverse cross section of partners 

from federal and state government agencies, non-profit organizations and industry 

behind a shared goal of achieving healthy populations of sage grouse and sage 

dependent species through on the ground projects. 

Previously, I served thirty years for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

retiring as Deputy Director. Additionally, I have served on several committees 

such as the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, Pacific Flyway, the Colorado 

Fish & Wildlife Council, and the Association ofFish & Wildlife Agencies Federal 

Budget & Legislative Committee. While I currently reside in Utah, I am a native of 

the Chairman's great state of Wyoming. I have a B.S. in Wildlife Management 

from Utah State University and an M.S. in Range/Wildlife Resources from 

Brigham Young University. 

I've been involved in forest health, wildlife and land management projects and 

related policy efforts my entire career, and I can say without question that I have 

never seen a time when bipartisan and bicameral collaboration to enact natural 

2 
26 


29916.018

resources legislation was more urgently needed than the draft bill the Committee is 

considering here today. I state this conclusion for the following reasons: 

The devastation resulting from catastrophic wildfires still burning in California and 

other states is making it clear to all Americans that "forest health" policy has far 

reaching impacts beyond just wildlife habitat, the forest products industry and 

outdoor recreation. Addressing the health of our forests is also vital to the very 

existence of countless businesses that drive local and regional economies, the 

protection of homes and, most importantly, addressing threats to human health and 

safety. 

Forest Management 

MDF supports the adoption of policy changes proposed in this draft legislation that 

seek to remove unnecessary impediments to deploying the active management 

practices needed to improve the health of our forests while also ending the vicious 

cycle that continues to erode funding available for forest health projects as a result 

of"fire borrowing." Together, these bipartisan provisions will improve forest 

health, save lives, protect communities, enhance fish and wildlife habitat and 

improve the rural economy. 

MDF is also encouraged that the draft bill focuses on wildlife habitat benefits and 

other ecological results. We support providing federal land management agencies 

tools to accelerate the pace of restoration projects by improving the efficiency of 

environmental review processes, such as action/no action alternatives for 

collaborative projects, a minor fix to the highly-regarded Good Neighbor Authority, 

and improvements to restoration-based categorical exclusions. 

Additionally, MDF supports meaningful litigation reforms that ensure that the time, 

money, and effort expended in the comis is focused on substantial issues and 

informed by substantial evidence. Today the courts can be used to delay projects in 

protest utilizing claims later to be found inconsequential. We support provisions 

that will take steps on this issue. 

Title If-Sage Grouse and A1ule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration 

MDF strongly supports Title II of the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act on 

Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration. This Title will 

allow conservation partners to move quickly on landscape habitat restoration 

projects that have a tremendous benefits for reversing declines in the populations 

3 
27 


29916.019

of mule deer, sage-grouse and other species dependent on sagebrush rangelands. 

MDF greatly appreciates Senator Hatch and Senator Heinrich for working together 

and with a broad cross section of stakeholders including sportsmen conservation 

organizations and the oil and gas industry to craft this important provision which 

has also been introduced as stand-alone legislation. 

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Pinon and Juniper forests have been 

encroaching on key sagebrush habitat at a rapid rate. This invasion erodes and 

fragments sagebrush habitat and provides artificial roosting and nesting sites for 

sage-grouse predators. Wildlife managers in the West have long worked to convert 

Pinon and Juniper stands to sagebrush because doing so increases forage and soil 

water availability, which benefits big game populations, particularly mule deer. 

Sage-grouse and mule deer populations are suffering from the encroachment of 

invasive Pinon and Juniper trees into their primary habitat. To help safeguard and 

reinvigorate sagebrush habitats, we need to cut down the lengthy, cumbersome 

review process for vegetation management projects that use proven practices to 

restore sage habitat through Pinon and Juniper removal. This draft legislation 

would allow the Bureau of Land Management, wildlife organizations and the 

private sector to more effectively partner together to restore sagebrush habitat as a 

means to ensure healthy populations of these iconic Western species into the 

future. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. The Mule Deer Foundation 

greatly appreciates the Committee for working together to craft this important 

legislation and we look forward to working with you to move the bill through the 

Senate. 

Background 

Mule Deer Foundation 

Since 1988, MDF has been dedicated to restoring, improving and protecting mule 

deer habitat (including land and easement acquisitions) resulting in self-sustaining, 

healthy, free ranging and huntable deer populations. The Mule Deer Foundation is 

the only conservation group in North America dedicated to restoring, improving 

and protecting mule deer and black-tailed deer and their habitat, with a focus on 

science and program efficiency. MDF is a strong voice for hunters in access, 

wildlife management and conservation policy issues. MDF acknowledges 

regulated hunting as a viable management component and is committed to 

4 
28 


29916.020

recruitment and retention of youth into the shooting sports and conservation. We 

encourage and support responsible wildlife management with government 

agencies, private organizations and landowners and encourages responsible and 

ethical behavior and awareness of issues among those whose actions affect mule 

deer. 

Boone and Crockett Club 

As the oldest wildlife conservation organization in North America, it is the mission 

of the Boone and Crockett Club to promote the conservation and management of 

wildlife, especially big game, and its habitat, to preserve and encourage hunting 

and to maintain the highest ethical standards of fair chase and sportsmanship in 

North America. Founded in 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird 

Grinnell, the Boone and Crockett Club was the champion of the earliest sciencebased wildlife management efforts and legislation and the first legislations funding 

wildlife conservation, including the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson), 

and the Federal Duck Stamp Act. The Club was also an initiator and champion of 

the first National Parks, including Yellowstone, Glacier, Denali, and Grand 

Canyon as well as the first legislation for wildlife, including the Timberland 

Reserve Bill, Yellowstone Protection Act, Lacey Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

and Alaskan Game Laws 

Intermountain West Joint Venture OWJV) 

As the largest of the U.S. Habitat Joint Ventures, the IWJV was established in 

1994 to catalyze bird habitat conservation through the collaborative power of 

diverse public-private partnerships. My fellow Board members and I share a 

common passion for bird and other wildlife habitat, as well as a strong desire to 

nurture and grow partnerships with other entities in order to accomplish significant 

and meaningful conservation work in the Intermountain West. 

The IWJV operates across all or parts of 11 western states and encompasses some 

of the most diverse and intact landscapes in the West. Important habitats in this 

region include wetlands, sagebrush-steppe, cottonwood-lined riparian galleries, 

grasslands, aspen woodlands, and Ponderosa pine woodlands and savannahs. 

5 
29 


29916.021

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "S. ___ , the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017" 

October 25, 2017 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Miles Moretti 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. Mr. Moretti, according to your foundation's website, the greatest single factor in the declining 

mule deer population is "loss and degradation of habitat." Can you explain the role junipers and 

pinon pines play when it comes to the destruction of mule deer habitat? What has been the 

overall impact on the species? 

Answer: 

Thank you Chairman Barrasso for your question. The number one reason for the decline of 

Mule Deer in the West is loss of habitat. Mule Deer depend on Sagebrush habitat in the winter 

months. Throughout the West due to a variety of causes we have lost millions of acres of 

Sagebrush. One major factor in this loss is with the invasion of Pinyon-Juniper into the 

Sagebrush habitat. PJ is a very aggressive invader species and will quickly choke out the 

Sagebrush and other desirable plants basically leaving a PJ Forest with little or no nutritional 

value to Mule Deer, Sage Grouse, Livestock and other wildlife. As a result, many wildlife 

species to not have enough food to carry them through the long cold winters. 

Pinyon-Juniper also depletes the water table as they mature and invade other habitat types. This 

results in a very xeric environment where nothing else can grow or be reestablished. Today, 

many mule deer herds in the West are near their historic low in numbers. With aggressive 

programs like; State Wildlife Mule Deer Initiatives, Federal Healthy Rangeland programs, the 

NRCS's Sage Grouse Initiative working with the Mule Deer Foundation's Stewardship Habitat 

program great progress is be made. 
30 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Moretti. 

Mr. Kruse. 

STATEMENT OF DYLAN KRUSE, POLICY DIRECTOR, 

SUSTAINABLE NORTHWEST 

Mr. KRUSE. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My 

name is Dylan Kruse, and I am the Policy Director at Sustainable 

Northwest. We are a regional nonprofit located in Portland, Oregon, developing solutions to natural resource challenges that 

maintain working lands and promote environmental stewardship. I 

appreciate the chance to speak with you all today, as the subject 

matter could not be more urgent. 

Sustainable Northwest is a strong supporter of active forest management that sustains ecosystem resiliency, supports natural resource livelihoods, and protects life and property. Unfortunately, 

the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act will do little to address 

the underlying challenges affecting the health of our Federal forests, and omits critical opportunities to address the rising costs and 

threats of wildfire. 

We are troubled by proposals that shortcut environmental laws, 

create bureaucracy, and introduce unnecessary authorities likely to 

cause increased tension in land management planning and decisionmaking. 

Regarding Title I of the bill, we recognize the need for a legislative fix to conflicting court decisions about consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. We commend the Committee for swift 

resolution on this matter, but urge you to work with interested parties to improve the legislation based on two principles: that forest 

restoration projects should be permitted to proceed in a timely 

fashion, and that we should not diminish the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. 

We are particularly troubled by Title III of the bill. Section 311, 

on Environmental Assessments. Discretion and timely decisionmaking are imperative in the production of any environmental review, and we expect agencies to exercise prudence to satisfy sufficiency. However, the Forest Service should retain independent decisionmaking authority that relies on its technical and scientific expertise when selecting the appropriate criteria and level of detail 

to be incorporated into analysis. 

In Section 314, on an Alternative Dispute Process, introducing a 

binding arbitration process with agencies and restricting the ability 

of the public to file legal challenges undermines essential tenets of 

our democratic process. We appreciate the intent to reduce litigation and expedite legal resolution, but have not seen evidence proving that arbitration will result in a different outcome than judicial 

review. It also prohibits case law for future precedent and is vague 

on expectations and qualifications for arbitrators. 

And Section 332 to 336 on Categorical Exclusions, we agree that 

there is a pressing need to increase the pace and scale of restoration, but the Forest Service already has at least 25 internal categorical exclusions, as well as 5 additional authorities in statute. 

CEs and streamlined options already exist for insect and disease 

31 

treatments, hazardous fuels reduction, protection of water sources, 

and salvage logging. This is not to say that review of NEPA is not 

warranted. 

We are pleased to note that the Forest Service experts are already reviewing environmental authorities and opportunities for efficiency. We urge the Committee to let the agency complete this 

process and propose new approaches based on data driven analysis. 

So, as far as alternatives for success, in contrast to the broad reforms in the proposed legislation, we suggest a more targeted approach that addresses the causes of extreme wildfire, reforms budgets, and utilizes existing authorities. 

First of all, we must fix fire funding. Unlike other natural disasters, the Forest Service and Department of Interior are required to 

pay for wildfire response out of their annual budgets and transfer 

funds when they exceed their allocation. More than 50 percent of 

the Forest Service budget is consumed by wildfire suppression. By 

2021 it will be 67 percent. We must address this now. 

We need to seek a comprehensive solution. Alternative bipartisan 

proposals such as the Wildland Fires Act of 2017 more effectively 

address the causes of wildfire and provide resources to prepare for 

and prevent future wildfires. This includes funding to at risk communities, investment in forest products infrastructure and work 

force, and incentives for cost savings to complete restoration. 

We need to use the tools we already have. The 2014 Farm Bill 

authorized stewardship contracting, Good Neighbor Authority, insect and disease designations, and designation by prescription and 

description in timber sales. These tools have been embraced by 

partners, as you have heard, but have just recently been adopted. 

We need to support collaboration. Oregon and Washington are 

home to 33 forest collaboratives. A recent academic review of the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program showed that 

75 percent of respondents said the program resulted in decreased 

conflict, and 61 percent had seen decreased litigation. Federal 

agencies should adopt collaborative recommendations to the maximum extent possible. 

We need to get ahead of the problem. We continue to take a reactive approach to wildfire, instead of proactively addressing its 

causes. In Oregon and Washington alone, there are over 2 million 

acres of forests that have already completed NEPA but have yet to 

be carried out due to funding. These projects will reduce fuel loads, 

improve forest health, and allow fire to return in a controlled and 

beneficial way. But Congress must be willing to pay for them. 

And thus we must invest accordingly. Landscape restoration will 

only be implemented with appropriate investment from Congress. 

This includes funding for collaborative initiatives and programs 

that cut across ownership boundaries, leverage resources, and 

achieve integrated outcomes. However, funding levels in President 

Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget propose a dire and austere vision 

for our Federal lands and rural communities. Instead, we should 

sustain land management agency funding levels as included in the 

fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill. 

In closing, with these conditions in place, significant gains could 

be made to improve the health of our landscapes, create natural resource jobs, and secure the safety of rural and urban communities. 

32 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kruse follows:] 

33 


29916.022

Dylan Kruse 

Policy Director 

Sustainable Northwest 

Dylan is responsible for state and federal legislative activity and agency 

engagement, and represents the organization's broad market and public 

policy priorities. He is also coordinator of the Western Juniper Alliance, a 

50 member partnership to accomplish rangeland restoration, produce sustainable wood products, 

and create jobs in juniper supply and market chains along the West Coast. In addition, he is the 

organization's bioenergy lead, and works on wood biomass utilization and energy projects across 

the Northwest. Dylan is co-chair of the Oregon Forest Biomass Working Group, is on the board 

of the Biomass Thermal Energy Council, and holds a seat on the steering committee of the 

National Rural Assembly. Before joining Sustainable Northwest, he attended Lewis & Clark 

College in Portland, OR and received a B.A. in International Affairs. His work at Sustainable 

Northwest has linked his diverse interests of resource management, conservation, renewable 

energy production and economic development. 
34 


29916.023

Testimony of Dylan Kruse, Policy Director, Sustainable Northwest 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing on the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 

October 25, 2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. My name is Dylan Kruse, and I am the Policy Director at Sustainable Northwest, as well 

as a member of the leadership team of the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition. Sustainable 

Northwest is a regional non-profit located in Portland, Oregon working on forest, range, energy, and 

water-related initiatives to resolve conflict and maintain healthy working landscapes that are good for 

community and economic well-being. The Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition is a West-wide 

network of practitioners committed to collaborative, equitable, long-tasting solutions to natural 

resource challenges that are grounded in people and place. Both organizations are committed to 

enhancing the quality of life in rural communities and the continuation of a natural resource-based 

economy in the West. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today about wildfire, forest management, and 

ecosystem restoration, as the subject matter could not be more relevant or urgent. Nearly nine million 

acres have burned on federal lands in 2017. Ash and smoke have made air quality unsafe across the 

West. Almost $3 billion in taxpayer dollars have been spent on fire suppression this year-- a historical 

record, And the tragic loss of life and homes in California reminds us again what's at stake. This shift to 

more severe and expensive fire seasons has been called the new normal, and that is a terrifying 

prospect. It is indeed time for action. 

Sustainable Northwest is a strong supporter of active management and wildfire risk reduction that 

sustains ecosystem resiliency, supports natural resource livelihoods, and protects human life and 

property. We were instrumental in the creation of some of the nation's first forest collaboratives, and 

proudly continue our work today to develop solutions to natural resource challenges that maintain 

working lands and promote responsible environmental stewardship. 

Unfortunately, the concepts proposed in the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act will do little to 

address the underlying challenges affecting the health of our federal forestlands, and omit critical 

opportunities to address the rising costs of wildfire management and threats to communities. We are 

troubled by proposals that short cut environmental laws, create additional levels of bureaucracy, and 

introduce unnecessary and redundant new authorities that are likely to cause increased tension and 

threats of litigation in land management planning and decision-making, 

Areas of Concern 

First and foremost, we recommend considering the three titles in the bill independently, as they address 

disparate issues, and any bipartisan and productive solutions that they may contain are compromised in 

an otherwise controversial package. 

Regarding Title I of the bill, we recognize the need for a legislative solution to conflicting court decisions 

about consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service under the Endangered Species Act at the 

programmatic level following the listing of a new species or designation of new critical habitat We 

commend the committee for prompting a swift resolution to this matter, but believe the title can be 

improved from its present form. We urge the Committee to work with interested parties to improve the 

legislation based on two principles: 1) That forest restoration projects should be permitted to proceed in 
35 


29916.024

a timely manner, and; 2) That we should not diminish the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. We 

believe that it is possible to retain the agency's obligation to reinitiate consultation, but not allow for 

projects to be enjoined while consultation is being completed. Plan level consultations have been 

demonstrated to have both conservation and efficiency benefits, but agencies should not be required to 

conduct them when they are unnecessary or redundant. 

We are particularly troubled by the following provisions in Title Ill oft he bill: 

Section 311. Environmental Assessments: Discretion and timely decision-making are imperative 

in the production of any environmental review, and we expect federal agencies to exercise 

prudence and responsibility in the deployment of staff and financial resources. However, we 

believe the Forest Service should retain independent decision-making authority that relies on its 

technical and scientific expertise when selecting the appropriate criteria and level of detail to be 

incorporated into an analysis. Elimination of the ability to conduct Environmental Impact 

Statements and examine a range of alternatives when it may be warranted is particularly 

concerning. A greater emphasis on efficiency and satisfying minimum thresholds of sufficiency 

are encouraged in preparation of environmental reviews, but arbitrary page limits and deadlines 

for document production are unnecessary. 

Section 313. Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects: Changes in this section would 

undermine the fundamental purpose, intent, and benefits of stewardship contracting authority, 

and propose a revenue sharing model that will provide little to no financial benefit to the 

majority of the nation's rural counties. A recent analysis showed that sharing 25% of retained 

receipts with counties would generate just $4.3 million nationwide, while resulting in less 

partner match, fewer management outcomes, and reduced direct investment in service work 

and jobs in forest and watershed restoration'. Rural public lands counties need a permanent and 

sufficient funding solution to resolve their fiscal needs, and this proposal provides minimal 

relief. 

Section 314. Pilot Alternative Dispute Process: Introducing a binding arbitration process with 

agencies and restricting the ability of the public to file formal legal challenges undermines longstanding and essential tenets of our democratic process. While we appreciate the intent to 

reduce the threat of litigation and expedite legal resolution, we have yet to see meaningful 

evidence to suggest that arbitration will result in an outcome different or more efficient than 

existing judicial review. Furthermore, the prevalence and impact of litigation is often 

exaggerated. A recent Government Accountability Report showed that only two percent of fuel 

reduction projects from 2006 - 2008 were litigated, affecting approximately one percent of acres 

proposed for management." Litigation and threat of a challenge to a forest management project 

is extremely frustrating for many partners, but it should not serve as justification to alter core 

judicial principles. 

Section 332-336. Categorical Exclusions: While we agree there is a pressing need to increase 

the pace, scale, and quality of federal forest restoration, the federal land management agencies 

already have extensive tools and authorities to complete necessary management objectives. 

This is certainly not for a lack of streamlined review mechanisms. The Forest Service handbook 

lists at least 25 existing categorical exclusions, as well as five additional authorities provided in 

statute'". Despite the range of exclusions already available to agencies, they are used sparingly 

due to the need for more detailed analyses, an appropriate focus on larger landscape scale 
36 


29916.025

planning, and increased threats of legal scrutiny and challenges. Proposed Categorical Exclusions 

in the bill could also be considered redundant. Categorical Exclusions already exist for insect and 

disease infestation treatments of up to 3,000 acres in the 2014 Farm Bill. Reduction of 

hazardous fuels and protection of municipal water sources is addressed in the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act of 2004. Finally, the Forest Service already has a Categorical Exclusion for 

salvage logging of up to 250 acres. 

This is not to say that periodic review of management tools and opportunities to improve the 

efficiency of the NEPA process is not warranted. We are pleased to note that Forest Service 

NEPA experts have already initiated a comprehensive review of existing environmental review 

authorities, opportunities for increased efficiency, and recommendations for additional 

management tools that will eliminate burdensome review and expedite the NEPA process. Our 

recommendation is to let agency experts complete this procedure and propose new categorical 

exclusions and NEPA efficiencies based on experience and data driven analysis. 

More planning work is needed to address the extent of our management needs, but it is also 

worth noting that we are failing to fully implement projects that have already completed the 

NEPA process. As a result, there is a massive backlog of fuels reduction and forest health 

improvement actions that are cleared for implementation, but have yet to be carried out due to 

inadequate funding. It is imperative that we focus our attention on using the extensive options 

already available, and implement projects that are currently sitting on the shelf. 

Alternatives for Success 

In contrast to the broad reform concepts in the proposed legislation, we suggest a more targeted 

approach that directly addresses the causes of extreme wildfire, budgets and incentives, and bipartisan 

solutions to restore the health and resilience of our federal forests. This can be done by more effectively 

utilizing existing Congressional authorities, embracing the concept of shared stewardship, supporting 

local knowledge and innovation, and providing adequate investment in the agencies that are tasked 

with management and protection of our federal lands. I would propose to the committee that we 

already have the tools needed to address these challenges, and that we must support implementation 

with a corresponding investment to get the work done. We offer the following recommendations for 

consideration by the Committee as it continues to debate these issues. 

Fix the fire funding problem 

The most urgent and immediate opportunity for Congress is to change the way we fund wildfire 

suppression. This dilemma has been examined at length for several years, but it bears repeating, as a 

solution is needed more urgently than ever. Unlike other natural disasters, the Forest Service and 

Department of Interior are required to plan and pay for wildfire response out of their annual budgets. 

But longer fire seasons, increased development in the wildland-urban interface, and millions of forest 

acres with saturated fuel loads are leading to skyrocketing costs of wildfire response. In recent years, 

more than SO percent of the Forest Service budget has been consumed by wildfire suppression, and by 

2025, it could be upwards of 67 percent''. To make matters worse, in bad years like 2017 when the 

agencies exceed their annual allocation, they are forced to borrow from other programs to cover costs. 

This includes some of the very programs that help restore forests and make them resilient to future 

wildfires. This is a counterproductive and outdated mechanism that needs to be changed immediately. 

Unfortunately, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 fails to address this core deficiency. 

Seek a comprehensive solution 
37 


29916.026

Alternative bipartisan proposals, such as the recently introduced Wildland Fires Act of 2017, more 

effectively address the causes and effects of extreme wildfire, and provide corresponding resources to 

prepare for and prevent future costly wildfires. This includes funding to at-risk communities to plan and 

prepare for wildfires, investment in forest products infrastructure and workforce to complete land 

management, and incentives for cost savings and authorization of surplus funds to complete additional 

restoration and wildfire risk reduction. 

Use the tools we already have 

There is no shortage of policies, authorities, and tools that facilitate working in partnership across 

ownership boundaries. The 2014 Farm Bill permanently authorized the Stewardship Contracting 

Authority, Good Neighbor Authority, state insect and disease designations with an accompanying 

Categorical Exclusion, and designation by description and designation by prescription in timber sales. 

These tools have been readily embraced by federal, state, and non-governmental partners, but have just 

recently been adopted and have ample room for expansion. 

For example, over 30 states have signed Master Stewardship Agreements to utilize Good Neighbor 

Authority, but nearly all of them were executed in just the past two years. Furthermore, 57 million acres 

of National Forest System lands have been designated as at risk for insect and disease infestations under 

the 2014 Farm Bill authority, and are permitted to use a Categorical Exclusion to treat up to 3,000 acres 

of a landscape. As of January 2017,74 projects have already been proposed, and 63 are using the 

Categorical Exclusion. 

The takeaway is that there is significant room for creativity, flexibility, and innovation within existing 

policies, programs, and authorities to unlock efficiencies and improved outcomes. Rather than rushing 

towards further policy reform, it is best to first use the tools we have, develop a track record of 

performance, and then make amendments as necessary. 

Support collaboration and shared stewardship 

The past decade has seen a demonstrable shift in federal agencies' embrace of collaboration in the 

project planning and decision-making process. Today, Oregon and Washington are home to 33 forest 

collaboratives, including at least one group on each of the region's 17 national forests. This philosophy 

has expanded to rangelands, culminating in comprehensive partnerships between landowners, local, 

state and federal governments, and non-governmental organizations addressing issues like Sage Grouse 

conservation. 

We have ample evidence that collaboration is working across the West. For example, in eastern 

Oregon's dry forest ecosystems, 63% of acres with signed Forest Service NEPA decisions in the past five 

years have incorporated input from local collaborative groups. Since 2009, the average NEPA decision 

area with collaborative involvement is 24,000 acres, and just 10,000 acres without collaborative 

involvement. Collaboration has also contributed to a 45% increase in the annual average of acres with 

signed NEPA decisions between 2012 and 2015 compared to 2009- 2011. 

This success is not limited to Oregon. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 

showcases national examples of how collaborative, landscape scale restoration produces diverse and 

outsized results for its level of investment. The acreage across the 23 CFLRP landscapes represents 

roughly 11% of total National Forest System lands not in wilderness or road less area designation. 

However, in 2016, these acres provided 20% of the Forest Service's hazardous fuels reductions 

accomplishments, 15% of the timber volume sold, 16% of the terrestrial habitat enhanced, and 30% of 
38 


29916.027

the forest vegetation improved. A recent academic review of internal and external CFLRP partners 

showed that 75% of respondents said the program resulted in decreased conflict, 61% said they had 

seen decreased litigation, and 27% said they had found ways to make consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act more efficient. 

As we seek to increase the pace and scale of restoration, federal agencies should adopt collaborative 

recommendations to the maximum extent possible, especially when consensus can be attained. State 

federal partnerships also require agencies to move beyond bureaucratic constraints and seek creative 

solutions for enhanced outcomes. This means fostering a culture where agency staff are empowered to 

take risks and are rewarded for behavior that results in innovation, efficiency, and enhanced results. 

Get ahead of the problem 

We have an opportunity and obligation in the West to reduce the impact of future events. For too long 

Congress has fallen back on a reactive approach to uncharacteristic wildfire instead of proactively 

addressing the causes. In Oregon and Washington alone, there are over 2 million acres of forestland that 

have already received environmental review and approval for restoration, but have yet to be carried out 

due to inadequate funding'. These projects will reduce fuel loads, improve forest and watershed health, 

and allow fire to return in a way that can be controlled and as a benefit to the land. But doing so would 

require $350 million distributed over several appropriations cycles';. We have shovel ready work and 

landscape level solutions, but Congress must be willing to pay for them. Doing so will protect fire 

fighters and communities, put people to work in the woods, and decrease the massive costs of future 

wildfire suppression. It's time to stop playing catch up, and get ahead. 

Invest accordingly 

Implementation of the landscape level planning and collaborative agreements that have been facilitated 

in recent years is imperative, but will only be accomplished with appropriately scaled investment from 

Congress. This includes full funding for collaborative large landscape initiatives and programs that cut 

across ownership boundaries, leverage private resources, and achieve integrated outcomes. However, 

the suggested funding levels for the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture in President 

Trump's FY 2018 budget propose a dire and unnecessarily austere vision for our federal lands and rural 

communities. If adopted, these funding levels would jeopardize the ability of state and federal agencies 

to implement commercial and restoration activities on public lands. Rather, we should sustain land 

management agency funding levels as included in the FY 2017 omnibus appropriations bill. In particular, 

this should include full funding for collaborative, all lands management programs, including the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, continued investment in the Joint Chief's 

Restoration Partnership, and support for implementation of state Sage Grouse conservation plans. 

Coupled with surge funding to address the backlog of forest restoration, infrastructure, and wildfire risk 

reduction needs, significant gains could be made in the next decade to improve the health of our federal 

landscapes, create good paying jobs in natural resource industries, and secure the safety and well-being 

of rural and urban communities across the West. 

; http:/ /www.ru ra lvoicescoa lition.org/issue-pa pers/#stewa rdshi p 

"U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Information on Appeals, Objections, and Litigation Involving 

Fuel Reduction Activities, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008," GA0-10-337, Report to Congressional 
39 


29916.028

Requesters, March 2010), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/301415.pdf 

;;; https:/ /www .fs.usda.gov /I nternet/FSE _ DOCU M ENTS/stelprd3826583 .pdf 

;v https:/ /www .fs. fed. us/sites/defau lt/files/20 15-Fire-Budget -Report. pdf 

v Forest Service communication, October 2017 

"Forest Service communication, October 2017 
40 


29916.029

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled "5. _, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017" 

October 25, 2017 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Dylan Kruse 

Ranking Member Carper: 

1. In your testimony, you recommended that the Forest Service better utilize existing tools for 

active forest management. Would you elaborate on which authorities you believe to be most 

underutilized and why? What can be done to encourage the Forest Service to fully utilize its 

existing authorities? 

In my opinion, the most underutilized authorities are those provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (HFRA), which was passed with the intent of expediting fuels reduction and protecting communities 

and watersheds. HFRA provides NEPA streamlining tools (action/no action alternative analysis), a 

Categorical Exclusion for silvicultural assessment, as well as judicial review relief in the form of 

expedited timelines, shift in balance of harms analysis, and limited duration of injunctions. Many of the 

same tools and new authorities proposed in recent federal forest reform legislation are already 

authorized under HFRA. According to U.S. Forest Service data, the agency has used this authority just 

215 times between 2011 and 2016. This was bipartisan and broadly supported legislation intended to be 

used significantly more by its sponsors and proponents. 

The Forest Service may not be using certain authorities for a number of reasons. They could be 

perceived as controversial and likely to increase the threat of legal challenge. It is also possible that 

agencies simply choose to use alternative tools that are more suited for the scale of restoration need 

and to satisfy the recommended prescription. Because a CE is not used does not mean an action is not 

being conducted; it may simply be at a larger scale or with an alternative preferred outcome. This does 

not, however, guarantee that the most efficient decision is being made by the agency to implement the 

project, and is worth further examination. 

In my opinion, it is more critical to inquire how the agency can accelerate its program of work, increase 

management activities, and capture efficiencies in planning and implementation. For that reason, we 

are pleased that the agency is already conducting an internal review of use of its authorities and 

planning processes. The intended result is a comprehensive, national approach to reforming agency 

culture, policies, and procedures for implementing laws and regulations with the realities of current and 

future on-the-ground resource objectives and public benefits by winter 2018/spring 2019. The outcome 

of this assessment will ideally lead to recommendations to encourage the Forest Service to more fully 

utilize its existing authorities, as appropriate. 

2. At our previous hearing about wildfires on September 27'", both members of this Committee and 

our witnesses expressed a strong interest in forest co/laboratives. You mentioned in your 

testimony that Sustainable Northwest was instrumental in the creation of some of the nation's 

first forest coflaboratives. Would you share with the Committee your perspective on why forest 

coflaboratives are effective? What can Congress, federal agencies and industries do to help 

bolster national forest co/labaratives? 
41 


29916.030

Collaboratives are instrumental in developing social license and agreement to increase the pace, scale, 

and quality of forest restoration in partnership with federal land management agencies. They are 

laboratories of innovation, implement new authorities, take risks with new techniques, and leverage 

financial and in· kind resources to contribute to land management planning and monitoring. By working 

with forest collaboratives, agencies can receive real time input on project planning, feedback on local 

stakeholder priorities, and establish zones of agreement and consensus on decision-making that can 

foster efficiencies and increased performance in future project development. 

Opportunities for Congress: Congress can support forest and rangeland collaboratives by funding large 

landscape initiatives and programs that cut across ownership boundaries, leverage private resources, 

and achieve integrated outcomes. This includes programs like the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program, Joint Chiefs Initiative, and state Sage Grouse conservation plans. 

A key point of emphasis is that implementation of the landscape level planning and collaborative 

agreements that have been facilitated in recent years will only be accomplished with appropriately 

scaled investment from Congress. However, the suggested funding levels for the Department of Interior 

and Department of Agriculture in President Trump's FY 2018 budget propose a dire and unnecessarily 

austere vision for our federal lands and rural communities. If adopted, these funding levels would 

jeopardize the ability of state and federal agencies to implement commercial and restoration activities 

on public lands. Rather, we recommend sustaining land management agency funding levels as included 

in the FY 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, adopting a comprehensive wildfire funding fix, and pursuing 

increased proactive investments to address the significant restoration backlog on the national forest 

system. 

Opportunities for Agencies: The past decade has seen a demonstrable shift in federal agencies' 

embrace of collaboration in the project planning and decision-making process. As we seek to increase 

the pace and scale of restoration, federal agencies should adopt collaborative recommendations to the 

maximum extent possible, especially when consensus can be attained. State- federal partnerships also 

require agencies to move beyond bureaucratic constraints and seek creative solutions for enhanced 

outcomes. This means fostering a culture where agency staff are empowered and encouraged to take 

risks and are rewarded for behavior that results in innovation, efficiency, and enhanced results. 

To support collaboration, we recommend timely and efficient completion of the U.S. Forest Service 

forest plan revision process. These plan revisions serve as the foundation and establish sideboards for 

project planning and collaborative engagement. We also recommend including regulatory agencies in 

the collaborative process as landscape scale projects are developed and proposed, as opposed to on the 

back-end of project design. Project planning should also Incorporate adaptive management and 

monitoring components to sustain the trust of partners and build further zones of agreement. 

3. In your testimony, you suggested o targeted approach that directly addresses the causes of 

extreme wildfire. Would you provide the Committee with your perspective on those causes, and 

specifically why wildfires ore becoming foster, more frequent, more intense and costlier? 

There is widespread consensus that climate change is a contributing factor to extreme wildfire seasons 

that we have been increasingly experiencing. Recent studies have shown that human-caused climate 

change has caused over half of the documented increases in fuel aridity since the 1970s and doubled the 
42 


29916.031

cumulative forest fire area since 19841• These longer, hotter seasons and increased drought are now 

interacting with extensive fuel build up from 100 years of fire suppression to create more extreme 

wildfire events that are costlier and more dangerous to contain. Not only are we fighting fire longer each 

year, but the fires we are fighting are more complex and require more sophisticated containment 

strategies. 

The other major factor leading to increased fire suppression costs is the significant increase in 

population living in the wildland urban interface (WUI). The percent of homes in the WUI increased by 

over five percent between 2000 and 2010. As of 2010, the WUI of the lower 48 states includes about 44 

million houses, or one in every three houses in the country. The highest WUI concentrations are in 

California, Texas and Florida'. Protecting life and property is the top priority for fire managers. 

Therefore, significantly more resources are deployed to ensure these outcomes across a rapidly 

increasing WUI geography. Preparedness and suppression costs increase accordingly. 

4. As your testimony mentions, the Forest Service now hos explicit authority to use categorical 

exclusions to undertake forest management actions on up to 3,000 acres. I understand they have 

used this authority approximately 40 times, on average, for only about 1,000 acres. We heard 

testimony last month that the Forest Service has not fully utilized this authority. Why do you 

believe this is the case? The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 proposes increasing 

these categorical exclusions to 6,000 acres. Would you talk about the possible unintended 

consequences of implementing such a broad expansion, particularly before the Forest Service has 

fully implemented its existing authorities and before Congress has addressed the agency's 

funding needs? 

The Forest Service may not be using this authority to a greater extent for a number of reasons. First of 

all, its authorization was relatively recent, and also included a state-led landscape designation process 

before CEs were to be proposed and implemented. A learning curve and delays due to a required 

geographic designation process is not unexpected. It's also possible that CEsare simply the wrong tool 

for ecosystem need and the ecological prescription. CEsare intended to have no significant direct, 

indirect, or cumulative impacts. There is fairly widespread agreement that to address the scale of forest 

health need across the National Forest System, we should be implementing projects across tens or 

hundreds of thousands of acres that do indeed have significant impacts, albeit positive ones. For these 

landscape level challenges, it's often more appropriate to use tools like a programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement and programs like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Adequate 

agency funding and staffing to complete these analyses would do significantly more than small CEs to 

improve forest health and reduce wildfire risks. Rather than failing to use the authority, the agency may 

be choosing to use tools better suited for the job. 

The unintended consequences of expanding this authority to 6,000 acres (and eliminating cumulative 

impacts analysis), is that we are pushing the tool well beyond its intended purposes and setting 

concerning precedent Again, CEs are designed for projects that have no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects. However, it is extremely difficult to identify 6,000 acres where management actions wouldn't 

have such impacts. Management actions at that scale are essentially categorical exclusions in name only, 

and represent a fundamental departure from the expected environmental review process. Furthermore, 

1 B. Harveya, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, no. 42 (October 2016). 

2 https:/ /www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/48642 
43 


29916.032

it is possible that major expansions of already controversial tools like CEs create a disincentive for 

collaboration. Many stakeholders, especially environmental organizations, participate in collaborative 

groups to pursue improved management outcomes within an agreed upon regulatory framework. The 

introduction of drastically expanded CEs without bipartisan support sends a top down message that 

these authorities are to be implemented more frequently and at problematic scales. This could be 

perceived as an attempt to change the "rules of the game" and potentially increase the likelihood of 

skepticism and tension in collaborative groups that have worked to build cooperation and trust. 
44 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Kruse. 

I thank all of you for your testimony. We will now turn to some 

questions. 

Mr. Crapser, how would this legislation before us today lead to 

increased programmatic efficiency and effectiveness in what you 

do? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Mr. Chairman, I think any tools in the Forest 

Service’s toolbox potentially help with their efficiency. If you look 

at the CE language, there has been some hesitancy on the agency’s 

part to utilize some of the CEs under the current Farm Bill. I think 

the big thing that it does, it gives them more tools, it gives them 

more options when they look at any management concerns. 

Senator BARRASSO. When we talk about tools, the Good Neighbor 

Authority can be an important tool that allows the Forest Service 

to work with States so they can perform watershed restoration, forest management services. Congress enacted two different Good 

Neighbor Authorities under the Department of Interior a couple of 

years ago. Do you see benefits in a single national Good Neighbor 

Authority as provided by this Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation 

Act? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. I think any time we have 

conflicting authorities, even though they are relatively the same, it 

causes confusion. As I understand it, the current Authorities, one 

that was in the Appropriations Bill, will actually expire a year from 

now. I believe the other one is long term, the one that was in the 

Farm Bill. There are some issues with road construction and road 

reconstruction in the two. Having one that is consistent would be 

helpful for both States and for the Federal agencies. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Moretti, kind of a two part question 

about NEPA. Do you believe that the existing NEPA structure is 

sufficiently effective and flexible in terms of promoting effective forest management? And then the second part is why do you think it 

is necessary to have categorical exclusions, which we outline in this 

Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017, to help expedite 

the forest management projects? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, overall, the NEPA process as the law is good, 

but it has been interpreted so many different ways, and it is holding up our projects and has become so cumbersome. And what we 

are also finding is the agencies no longer have the budget and the 

manpower to deal with NEPA on these projects that we are working on that are projects that are probably going back into an area 

that had NEPA done on them over 20 years ago, 30 years ago. 

We are doing maintenance in a lot of these areas. We are trying 

to reduce this invasion of pinyon-juniper that is coming in and invading sage habitat and mule deer habitat. So we believe that the 

categorical exclusions can help us expedite this process, get this 

going as you see what is going on in the West, whether it is on 

BLM land. People forget that over 2 million acres of sage grouse 

habitat burned up this year, and a lot of that was pinyon-juniper 

country that just burned into the sage habitat. So it is more that 

we need expedited, to have the flexibility to get out there and get 

these projects done. 

Senator BARRASSO. It seems that environmental laws and regulations affecting forest management projects do play an important 

45 

role in protecting wildlife and habitat, but projects are often halted; 

not over compliance issues, but by litigation and appeals of the litigation. This Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act would establish a pilot arbitration process to conduct alternative dispute resolutions over forest management activities. 

Do you see value in this legislation’s arbitration provision in 

terms of solving some of the disputes that basically have an impact 

on the work that is trying to be done? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, I think anything that brings the parties to 

the table to work it out, and hopefully they would be able to work 

it out before there is a decision, so there isn’t a winner and a loser. 

But believing that getting people face to face around a table and 

working things out, and finding those touchpoints that are causing 

the conflict. I think when reasonable people get together, they can 

make reasonable decisions. 

Senator BARRASSO. And Mr. Crapser, the Wildfire Prevention Act 

makes several references to collaboration. Can you provide the 

Committee with maybe a couple of examples of collaboration in our 

State that have benefited Wyoming’s natural resources? And as a 

State forester, how do you think of the term collaboration? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had some great 

successes on both recreation collaboratives and on forest management vegetative collaboratives across the State, in the Big Horns. 

In the western part of the State, on the Bridger-Teton we have an 

active collaborative working right now that I think will come up 

with some good solutions, some community based solutions. 

I think collaboration, like a lot of buzz words, we love to throw 

the term collaboration around and collaboratives around, and I 

think a lot of times it requires us to just old fashion work together 

and roll up our sleeves and talk to one another to see what is the 

best for our forests. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you all. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask my Democratic colleagues, anybody on a tight timeline? If so, I will yield to you. Anybody? I see 

none. OK, good. In that case, I will take 15 minutes. Not really. 

All right, here we go. 

My colleagues know one of the things I always search for when 

we have a hearing on an issue about which there is not unanimity 

is that I like to use a panel like you to help us find the common 

ground where it is missing. 

Let me just ask this multi-part question, but first, ask each of 

you to briefly mention three things we talked about here today 

where you think there is agreement among the three of you. Three 

things. Important points. 

Mr. Crapser. 

Mr. CRAPSER. Listening to my colleagues on the panel, I would 

think we would be in agreement that collaboration and folks working together is a good thing; you can make better decisions. I think 

utilizing the Good Neighbor Authority and the Federal agencies 

working closer with the State, with the State Forest Action Plans, 

with the State Wildlife Plans, I think we would probably all be in 

agreement that that is a positive thing. And I think at the end of 

46 

the day the other thing we all would find in agreement, we probably all want what is best for the forests, for the wildlife, and for 

the folks that recreate and live around our forests. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

How do you pronounce your name, Miles? 

Mr. MORETTI. Moretti. 

Senator CARPER. Moretti. Thank you so much. Mr. Moretti. 

Mr. MORETTI. Ranking Member Carper, I appreciate that question because I think we all agree that what we have done in the 

past has not worked, and that we are facing some extreme conditions that we have never faced before, and we need to be proactive 

and we need to be aggressive, and that is everything in funding, 

fixing those administrative barriers to getting the job done. And I 

think as my friend from Wyoming says, I think we can all agree 

that—bottom line—we want to see a healthy forest and healthy 

rangelands. 

We may disagree on how we get there, but I think our end goals 

are all the same. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Carper, I definitely agree with my colleagues 

on the panel. We certainly want to see active management for improved forest, watershed, and community conditions. I think we all 

agree on the need for a comprehensive wildfire funding fix; I think 

we all see a clear and defined role for collaboration to help get us 

to those outcomes; and I think we all agree on the need to invest 

in our Federal land management agencies to get the work done. 

Senator CARPER. That is quite a bit of agreement. 

Let me just ask you a follow up question. Where is the most significant disagreement, the most significant disagreement that we 

face, from your perspective, and how would you recommend that 

we address that disagreement to reach our differences? 

Very briefly, Mr. Crapser. 

Mr. CRAPSER. Senator, I think the devil being in the details, as 

the old saying goes, is probably—— 

Senator CARPER. I have never heard that before. 

Mr. CRAPSER [continuing]. Where most of the disagreement 

would come. I think on how we get there, I think there is, for whatever reason, lack of trust between different communities involved 

in natural resources on trusting that other parts of the community 

are really out for the same thing that they are and are trying to 

do the right thing. So I think the biggest area of disagreement is 

understanding or misunderstanding of the trail we want to follow 

to get to where we need to go. 

That is kind of—I didn’t really answer your question, I feel, but 

that is, I think, the biggest issue we face. 

Senator CARPER. OK. And again, there is a second part to the 

question. That is the biggest. How do we bridge that. 

But go ahead, Mr. Moretti. What I am really interested in is how 

do we go about bridging the major difference that you see. The 800 

pound gorilla in the room, if you will; how do we bridge that? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, I have always found that the way you bridge 

and get together with disagreements is you sit around the table 

and look each other in the eye. And everybody is going to come to 

the table with their agenda, and I think that the trust has to be 

47 

there, and if you don’t have the trust that people are there trying 

to do the right thing, and everybody thinks that you have some 

hidden agenda, I think if we can put that on the table and sit down 

and hammer it out, again I go back to reasonable people can come 

up with a reasonable solution, and we need that out there. 

I mean, we are literally dying out there. Our forests are dying; 

we are having catastrophic fires that are taking human toll, and 

we need help. So we have to get serious people to the table to figure out how to fix this. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Same question, Mr. Kruse. 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Carper, trust is certainly the operative word 

there. I think for certain members of the natural resources community this distrust is fostered by the notion that we are changing the 

rules of the game, when we begin to look at certain reforms especially to bedrock environmental policy like NEPA. Our recommendation as far as overcoming that distrust is, again, to focus 

on all of the authorities that we have. 

What can we do with stewardship contracting? What can we do 

with Good Neighbor Authority? What can we do with our categorical exclusions, with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act? We already have lots of tools to do action, no action, alternatives, to expedite judicial review, and those have been passed by Congress in 

a bipartisan fashion. This is a question of leadership, and it is a 

question of investment and funding. 

And if we are creating the conditions for success, and we have 

already enabled a playing field where we can succeed, it is about 

direction from this Congress to those agencies and to the general 

public about what we are trying to accomplish. But we certainly 

have the tools and the resources available to us as far as the mechanisms to meet the rule of the law, to meet environmental stewardship and get work done, but we have to invest in it, and we have 

to foster that bipartisan spirit, rather than change and move the 

goal posts. 

Senator CARPER. Excellent. Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here. I think Senator Carper’s question about what we 

can agree on was really very, very good, and that is what we try 

and do, and those are the things that we ought to be able to get 

done. I think everybody in this room, listening to you all, listening 

to your testimony, agrees that we can’t continue to spend 50 percent of the dollars that we spend on fire suppression. It just makes 

no sense at all. 

So I would like for you to talk, whoever wants to jump out, and 

then we will go down the panel, tell me about when you are spending that many dollars on that and you don’t have any money to 

really do the job on managing things, tell me the impact of that. 

Tell me why that is such a huge problem. 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, Senator, I can tell you from our standpoint 

what happens a lot of times, we are out on the forests, around the 

BLM, we are doing projects, doing active management, and a lot 

48 

of times we will get shut down come the fire season because everybody is gone, and then they are having to pull their budget back. 

So, you know, projects that we have, we have contractors on the 

ground, and we are ready to go, and we just can’t move forward; 

we have to shut down, and then we may not get started until the 

next year; it may be delayed. So those are the kinds of things that 

affect us, and the agency gets shut down, and basically they do 

nothing but fight fires during that fire season, and there needs to 

be a better way of conducting business. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And in not managing the ecosystem, doing the 

management because of what you describe, you are pulling this off 

all over the country; what is the effect of that? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, we don’t get the projects done that can help 

alleviate the problem we are talking about. So with some active 

management and being proactive in these areas, we can go in and 

we can make sure that the forest is in a good, healthy condition. 

We have actually had projects in Arizona where some large 

wildfires have happened, and when they have gotten to one of 

these projects that we have done, mostly for wildlife, the fire has 

slowed down; it has not gone out, but it has slowed down. And a 

lot of times these projects that we are doing serve as kind of a fire 

break and are really helpful. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Kruse, before you do, it is sad, we have 

heard testimony here about people in fire prone areas, people who 

have had devastating fires and talking about the managed areas, 

many of them private areas that are managed well, and then you 

have the areas that we are managing, and they are raging infernos 

compared to the other and really part of the problem. 

Mr. Kruse. 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Boozman, I agree with Mr. Moretti, certainly. The challenge associated with the funding budget situation 

is that we are unable to do the work on the ground because it is 

consumed by fire funding. The Forest Service has become the Fire 

Service. And a comprehensive wildfire funding fix includes access 

to disaster funding; it minimizes the need to do those transfers, so 

the agency doesn’t halt its work during fire season, and it freezes 

or minimizes the cannibalization of the agency’s budget because of 

the rising cost of the 10 year average. The result of that is potentially hundreds of millions of additional dollars that are freed up 

to do this management work on the ground; to do that thinning, 

to do that fuels reduction, to do those prescribed burns to protect 

communities. 

I mentioned 2 million acres of forestland in Oregon and Washington that have already been approved for NEPA to go through 

that management process. With money we could save from a fire 

funding fix, we could get that work done. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAPSER. Senator, kind of as my colleagues have already 

talked about, it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that we are in 

right now. We have high fuel loadings, poor forest conditions, large 

fires. The Fire Service uses all their money to fight fires, so they 

don’t do their hazardous fuels work, and we just keep going down 

49 

the road. It impacts the Forest Service’s ability to do Federal land 

management. 

It also impacts, where we are at with wildland fires now, the 

State’s ability to help private landowners. As you know, large parts 

of State Forestry’s budgets come from the Forest Service for State 

and private projects. Those funds are somewhat up for grabs during fire borrowing. Also, our folks are helping the Forest Service on 

fires, so we have the same issues during the summer. So it ends 

up being a self-fulfilling prophecy again, just that we keep moving 

into a worse and worse situation. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you. And we do appreciate all of 

your all’s hard work very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

The order I have based on arrival of the Democratic members is 

Senator Merkley next, then Senator Harris, and then Senator 

Whitehouse, if that is agreeable to you in the order in which you 

have arrived. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Moretti, I believe you were speaking to the fact that when 

thinning and hazardous fuels are reduced, the forest can become 

much more naturally resistant to fires. Did I understand that correctly? 

Mr. MORETTI. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. And Mr. Crapser, would you agree with that? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Yes, Senator, I think I would. 

Senator MERKLEY. And Mr. Kruse? 

Mr. KRUSE. Yes, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. So I was very struck. I was visiting eastern 

Oregon this last weekend, and central Oregon, and I went up to a 

forest outside of Sisters, where the fires had raged, and they were 

coming toward the town, and they stopped. And why did they stop? 

Well, because this forest had been thinned, it had had its hazardous fuels removed, some many years ago, and it had a 15 year 

or so prescription burn done that had reduced the grass and brush 

that had grown up over those years. And it really helped the Forest 

Service get in and fight the fire, also, because it was much easier 

to move about in this forest that had been thinned. 

So it seems like we have several things that I think everyone 

agrees with, and I will just say them out loud. We need to fix fire 

funding so that we are not continuously draining all the other programs in the Forest Service; that thinning and hazardous fuels reduction has a positive outcome both for forests as timber stands, 

as healthier ecosystems that supply saw logs to the mill, and it 

makes the forest more resistant. 

Are there any of those points that any of you would disagree 

with? 

[All witnesses shook their head in the negative.] 

Senator MERKLEY. So we have, just in Oregon and Washington, 

as you pointed out, Mr. Kruse, 2 million acres. I know we have 1.6 

million acres in Oregon, so I guess a smaller number in Washington State, that have already gone through the environmental 

process. The only thing that stops us from adopting this strategy 

50 

which produces saw logs, makes the forest healthier, makes it fire 

resistant is funding. So why not concentrate on getting the funding 

to do these things and the fire borrowing, and get the funding to 

do the work up front? 

My concern about some of the proposals is when there is that 

easily available and very effective solution, as soon as many of us 

hear, well, let’s authorize no environmental review and clear cuts, 

it is just the timber wars of the past, instead of actually a strategy 

to make the forests healthier, supply saw logs. Why go back to the 

timber wars of the past if we have the solution sitting right in front 

of us? 

Mr. Kruse. 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Merkley, I agree strongly with what you are 

suggesting. I think part of the challenge that we have here is a series of categorical exclusions that have expanded beyond what the 

intent of a categorical exclusion should, by definition, be, which is 

having no direct impact, no indirect impact, or no cumulative impacts. So we are taking a tool that can and appropriately be used 

in certain situations and being expanded to something that it 

should not be. 

More importantly, as you mentioned, we should be focusing on 

those existing authorities to actually address these challenges at a 

landscape scale. We should be investing in programs like the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. We should be 

doing programmatic environmental impact statements. 

We want to have an impact on the land, as you noted. That is 

not accomplished with the category of exclusion that has no impact. 

We shouldn’t be treating 1 or 3 or 6,000 acres at a time; we should 

be treating hundreds of thousands of acres. And with adequate 

funding and authorization of those programs and utilization of all 

of our existing authorities, we can and should be able to do that 

without returning to the rhetoric and the conflict of the timber 

wars. 

Senator MERKLEY. I do think many of you or maybe all of you 

have spoken to the cycle we are trapped in of we are just depleting 

the funding on the front end to do the hazardous fuels and the 

thinning, and then we are spending it on the back end. And breaking that cycle is something I think Democrats, Republicans, and everyone on every side of this could agree with. 

We have a mill up in John Day, Oregon, that was going to go 

out of business, and I met with the millworkers and said I would 

do everything I could to help keep that mill open. But you couldn’t 

do it through a timber sale because that didn’t give the at least 10 

year horizon that the owner needed to be able to invest in equipment for the mill. 

So we were able to do it through a stewardship agreement. And 

that meant that the forest was healthier, they got a steady supply 

of saw logs, so they employed more people at the mill. In a small 

town, that is a really big deal. 

And I am out of time, but you are welcome to respond if the 

Chair will allow it. Why not focus on these tools that are right before us that everyone on this panel agrees with? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Senator, I think there is a lot of good tools out 

there that we can already use; however, not all the West, not all 

51 

the Forest Service is as far ahead on NEPA documents as I think 

Washington and Oregon obviously are. One advantage that I see in 

categorical exclusions, or one of the advantages I see in categorical 

exclusion is, first, to clarify, a CE is an environmental document, 

it is part of NEPA, it is covered under NEPA. And it takes about 

7 months to put together the analysis for a CE; it takes about 2 

and a half years for an EA or an environmental assessment. 

While I think a lot of our tools are very good that we have, I 

think we have had a tendency, because of fire borrowing, because 

of lots of other reasons that you have talked to that we do have 

to address, to not have a sense of urgency. On some of the mountain pine beetle areas, some of the fire salvage areas, I think in 

those areas, in particular, there is a need of urgency to try to get 

things done in a fairly rapid form. 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Merkley, I don’t want to belabor the point 

because I certainly and strongly agree with your comments. I do 

just want to thank you. To the point we have had a lot of great 

successes in Oregon and Washington, and that is a testament to 

the leadership that we have had in our region, so thank you for 

your continued advocacy to identify and pacify our funding fix. 

Thank you for your advocacy to fight for surge funding in this 

Congress to get additional investments to help our communities recover from the devastating fires we have seen this year, including 

the Chetco Bar and the Eagle Creek fire in Oregon. We are reeling 

from that. We need to help rebuild our communities, and we need 

to get additional investments to start to get ahead of the problem. 

So thank you for your leadership on that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley. 

I am going to introduce letters and testimony in support of the 

Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017. There are 78 testimonies and letters received from a diverse group of stakeholders 

representing conservation and sportsmen’s group, farmers, ranchers, counties, water and irrigation organizations, forestry job creators, all in support for the staff draft bill into the record. Without 

objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

52 


29916.033

October 23, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

& Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & 

& Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

As you know, our nation is experiencing another catastrophic wildfire season. Over 8.8 million acres have 

already burned this year and we may break the record that was set just two years ago. Some of the worst 

devastation has occurred on overstocked, unhealthy federal forests, where wildfires have affected millions 

of Americans living in nearby communities and polluted the air with toxic smoke. We need Congress to 

reform the federal forest management policies that are a key cause of the worsening wildfire seasons and 

deteriorating forest health, as well as addressing the broken and unsustainable fire funding model. 

At a recent hearing before your Committee, you heard from a wide array of industry, conservation, and 

state government interests in support of a comprehensive approach to these significant- but solvableproblems. 

We commend you for taking some of the best ideas from the bills discussed at your September 27th hearing 

and incorporating them into the draft bill under consideration at this weeks' hearing. These provisions 

include meaningful policy and legal reforms to increase federal forest management and thinning activities. 

The legislation will prevent unnecessary litigation against needed forest management projects, expediting 

NEPA analysis while preserving public input and involvement, and provide an array of new tools to 

expedite projects designed to meet a variety of forest management objectives. Reducing fuels, particularly 

in our Western forests, and creating a variety of habitat ages and types, are critical to the long term health 

of our public forests and rangelands. 

Our organizations applaud your efforts to address both crises facing our National Forests and public lands. 

This legislation represents a significant step towards addressing the management questions. We urge you 

to rapidly conclude bipartisan negotiations so that this Congress can enact both fire funding and forest 

management reform legislation this year. 

Sincerely, 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Forest Resource Council 

American Loggers Council 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group 

Associated California Loggers 

Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho 

Associated Oregon Loggers 

Association of O&C Counties 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition 

California Forestry Association 

Colorado Timber Industry Association 

Federal Forest Resource Coalition 

Forest Resources Association 

Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association 

Hardwood Federation 

Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities 

Idaho Forest Group 

Intermountain Forest Association 

Michigan Forest Products Council 

Minnesota Forest Industries 

Minnesota Timber Producers Association 
53 


29916.034

Missouri Forest Products Association 

Montana Logging Association 

Montana Wood Products Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

New Mexico Forest Industry Association 

Pennsylvania Forest Products Association 

Professional Logging Contractors of Maine 

Public Lands Council 

Sierra Cascade Logging Conference 

Sierra Pacific Industries 

Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association 

Treated Wood Council 

Washington Forest Protection Association 

Washington Hardwoods Commission 

West Virginia Loggers Council 
54 


29916.035

II 

President~ Dennis Sun, Ca~per 

Region I Vice President· JD Hill, Ranchester 

Region III Vice President- Mantha Philips, Casper 

Region V Vice President· Reg Philips, Dubois 

October 23, 2017 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

RE: Wildfire Prevention & Mitigation Act of 2017 

First Vice President- Scott Sims, McFadden 

Region II Vice President- Steve Paisley, Wheatland 

Region IV Vice President- Bill Resor, Jackson 

Executive Vice President- Jim Magagna, Cheyenne 

The Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) has represented the ranching industry of 

Wyoming for over 145 years. The vast majority of our members hold grazing permits or leases 

on National Forests and/or BLM managed public lands. The ability to graze these lands is 

essential to maintaining the viability of their ranching operations. 

Grazing on forested lands precedes establishment of the National Forest System and remains 

one of the most wide-spread multiple uses of these lands today. However, the reliability of 

grazing on National Forests has continually diminished due to failure to properly manage our 

forest resources and the inability to have timely dependable decisions on grazing-related 

matters. WSGA believes that your proposed legislation takes major steps to address both of 

these factors. 

Appropriately and timely vegetative management is critical to maintaining healthy resilient 

forests. Vegetative management includes both the timber resource and the forage resource. 

Today our national forest managers have the skills and access to the scientific knowledge 

needed to maintain resilient forests. Through partnerships with the forest products industry 

and the ranching industry they have the tools necessary to achieve proper management. 

Unfortunately, today the vast majority of timber removal contracts and grazing permit renewals 

are met with litigation. These decisions are challenged even though they are well within the 

parameters of resource management plans that have been developed with full public input. 

Title I of this Act would provide significant relief from litigation that directly contributes to the 

degradation of our forest resources and the proliferation of wildfires. 

When wildfires sweep through forests, affected livestock grazing allotments are lost for several 

seasons. Infrastructure, including fences and water developments, is destroyed and often must 

be rebuilt at the expense of the permittee. Resulting fallen timber can make it difficult for 

livestock to move through the allotment even after forage has regrown. 

"Shaping and Living T11e Code of71Je West" 

P.O. Box 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82003• PH: 307.638.3942 • FX: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: INFO@WYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.WYSGA.ORG • BLOG: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
55 


29916.036

Barrasso 

Wildfire Prevention & Mitigation Act 

Page 2 

Title Ill of the Act provides essential relief from the "analysis paralysis" that routinely plagues 

decision-making on forest projects. In Subtitle A this is accomplished by providing for the use of 

Environmental Assessments in lieu of full Environmental Impact Statements, limiting 

alternatives to the proposed action and a no action alternative, limiting the size of these 

documents and providing a firm time frame for their completion. These are all important steps 

in restoring "common sense" to the decision-making process. 

WSGA is particularly pleased with the broad definition given to "ecosystem restoration" in 

Subtitle B of Title Ill. Grazing permittees are beneficiaries of many of the restoration activities 

identified in this Subtitle. In addition, livestock grazing can be a valuable contributor to many of 

these restoration activities. 

Subtitle C Categorical Exclusions will provide a clear incentive to the Forest Service to act in a 

timely manner to restore resources damaged by a broad array of natural events. Currently, the 

delay in taking actions to remediate these impacts is often delayed for years pending 

completion of environmental documents. 

Implementation of many of the provisions of this Act will be dependent on development of 

partnerships between the Forest Service and private sector enterprises including timber and 

grazing. WSGA is committed to working with the Forest Service to foster these relationships. 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our input. 

;:· /ll-;rc/ 

Jim Magagna 

Executive Vice President 

"Shaping and Living The Code of The West" 

P.O. Box 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82001 • PH: 307.638.3942 • FX: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: INFO@WYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.WYSGA.ORG • BLOG: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
56 


29916.037

October 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As Congress continues to consider a response to the wildfires that defined the summer of2017 

for much ofthe American West, the undersigned sportsmen's conservation organizations-who 

collectively represent many American hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts-write today in 

support of the draft Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of2017 (WPMA). 

The most recent loss of life and property in California shows that we are not talking only about 

"forest health" here but also about human lives. A confluence of factors is driving record-setting 

wildfire seasons, including hotter and drier conditions, longer duration fire seasons, lack of 

consistent active management of our national forests, litigation and inadequate funding levels for 

the US Forest Service's forest health and restoration accounts. Catastrophic wildfire is the most 

high profile symptom of the issue of forest health, but millions more acres of our nation's forests 

are at severe risk from fires, insects and disease. It would be worse to do nothing for five or ten 

years than it would be to try almost anything during the same period oftime. 

Since the 2014 Farm Bill, various proposals for further improving forest management and finally 

fixing the wildfire funding framework have come up just short of enactment in Congress. We 

believe it is time to agree on as many as possible to accelerate the urgent work needed in the 

National Forests. 

Federal land management agencies need new authority to accelerate the pace of restoration 

projects by improving the efficiency of environmental review processes, such as action/no action 

alternatives for collaborative projects, a minor fix to the highly-regarded Good Neighbor 

Authority, and improvements to restoration-based categorical exclusions modeled after the 

bipartisan provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. 

The fire crisis has refocused forest policy on to the restoration of wildlife habitat benefits and 

other ecological conditions. We urge the committee to tind agreement on such details as 

acreage-limits on projects (which we believe is secondary to the imperative of completing more 

restoration projects of any size). 

Additionally, our organizations support meaningful litigation reforms that ensure that the time, 

money, and effort expended in the courts is focused on substantial issues and supported by 

substantial evidence. Toward this end, we support the pilot authority to evaluate the 

effectiveness oflitigation alternatives such as arbitration. We also support focusing Endangered 
57 


29916.038

Species Act consultation requirements at the project-level rather than having to redevelop entire 

forest plans. 

Our organizations also strongly support Title II of the WMPA on Sage Grouse and Mule Deer 

Habitat Conservation and Restoration. This title will allow conservation partners to move 

quickly on landscape habitat restoration projects that are proving to have a tremendous impact 

for mule deer, sage grouse and other species dependent on sagebrush rangelands. 

We urge Congress to come together in the next weeks to adopt these sensible and well-vetted 

provisions that will enhance the health of our national forests. 

Sincerely, 

American Woodcock Society 

Archery Trade Association 

Boone and Crockett Club 

Campfire Club of America 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 

Delta Waterfowl 

Houston Safari Club 

Mule Deer Foundation 

National Shooting Sports Foundation 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

North American Grouse Partnership 

Pheasants Forever 

Quail Forever 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Whitetails Unlimited 

Witd Sheep Foundation 

Wildfire Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Wildlife Mississippi 

2 
58 


29916.039

October 24, 20 17 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & Publ.ic Works 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act (WPMA) of20 17 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am writing today on behalf of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation. Our organization represents 

hunters, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, and conservationists. We strongly support the draft 

Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act (WPMA) of201 7. 

Catastrophic wildfire is a symptom of compromised forest health and millions more acres of our 

nation's forests arc at severe risk from fires, insects and disease. Across our nation, several 

factors are driving longer, record-setting wildfire seasons, including hotter and drier conditions, 

lack of consistent active management of our national forests. Inadequate funding levels for the 

US Forest Service's forest health and restoration accounts are compounding the issue. We must 

take action to address these issues before more irreparable damage is done, and additional lives 

and property lost. 

Notably, proposals for thrther improving forest management and addressing the wildfire funding 

11-amework have failed to be enacted in Congress. The Federation believes that everything 

possible should be done to accelerate the urgent work needed to best manage forests, fire and 

wild fife in our National Forests. The fire crisis has refocused forest policy on to the restoration of 

wildlife habitat benefits and other ecological conditions, Giving federal land management 

agencies new authority to improve the efficiency ofthe environmental review process can help 

accelerate the pace of restoration projects processes. Focusing Endangered Species Act 

consultation requi!·ements at the project-level, rather than having to redevelop entire forest plans 

can also help with the timely facilitation of landscape habitat restoration pr~jects by conservation 

300 Orlando i\•····'''''' • Na&nv!lle fN 37209 • Telephone. 615·353·1133 • Fax: 615·J53-0083 • 

www.tnwf org 
59 


29916.040

partners nationwide that are proving to have a tremendous impact for a variety of wildlife 

species. 

We urge Congress to support this important legislation and help preserve, protect and enhance 

the health of our national forests for years to come. 

Mike Butler 

CEO 

Tennessee Wildlife Federation 

'100 Orl~ndo Av.;nuB • t-Jo;tJVille, TN 37209 • Telephone· 615·353-1133 • Fax. 615-353-0083 • 

www lnwforg 
60 


29916.041

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Speaker 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Brian Sandoval Steve Bullock Scott D. Pattison Governor of Nevada Governor of Montana Exe-cutive Dir-ector and CEO 

Chair Vice Chair 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

Minority Leader 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Minority Leader 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell and Minority 

Leader Schumer: 

The nation's governors continue to urge Congress to reform the federal wildfire 

suppression funding formula and provide stability for long-term planning and wildfire 

mitigation practices. The practice of using Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service 

10-year average suppression costs for budgeting continues to constrain non-suppression 

program resources and no longer provides accurate funding estimates for wildfire 

suppression activities. 

According to the Department of Agriculture, we just experienced the most expensive 

wildfire year on record with wildfire suppression costs surpassing $2.3 billion and more 

than 8.5 million acres burned. As fire suppression activities continue to rise as a 

percentage of the Forest Service's budget, resources to responsibly manage forests are 

impacted. 

Disruptions to funding undermine long-term wildfire mitigation strategies. Federal 

agencies have been forced to transfer funds from non-suppression programs to fill gaps 

in fire suppression appropriations nine times since 2002. Perhaps more significantly, the 

rising costs of the 10-year average formula are shifting approximately $100 million 

annually from non-fire accounts to meet fire needs. Programs and staffing critical to 

manage timber, mitigate fires, restore ecosystems, provide recreation, administer 

livestock grazing, and ensure other multiple uses across the landscape continue to be 

diminished. Governors believe a comprehensive fix must address both the challenges of 

the rising costs of fire suppression, and the complicating challenges of mid-season fire 

transfers. 
61 


29916.042

Governors urge Congressional action this year to enact comprehensive budgetary reform 

that addresses budget erosion and minimizes transfers. Thank you for your attention to 

this critical issue, we look forward to working together. 

Sincerely, 

Governor Brian Sandoval, Nevada 

Chair, National Governors Association 

Governor Matthew H. Mead, Wyoming 

Chair, Natural Resources Committee 

Cc: 

Governor Steve Bullock 

Vice Chair, National Governors Association 

Governor Edmund G. own Jr., California 

Vice Chair, Natural Resources Committee 

Director Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget 

Secretary Sonny Perdue, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Secretary Ryan Zinke, U.S. Department of Interior 
62 


29916.043

Collaborative Forest Restoration in Idaho 

Assessment and Recommendations 

October 14, 2017 

Idaho Forests Face Unprecedented Risks. 

Wildfire seasons are getting longer and hotter. Insects and 

disease outbreaks have affected millions of acres of 

western forests. We are experiencing more "mega-fires" -

huge conflagrations that can disrupt normal ecosystem 

processes, threaten lives and property, and degrade the 

many benefits we derive from our public forests. 

These conditions arise from a warming climate, greater 

forest tree density and build-up of hazardous fuels due to a 

century of fire suppression, past management practices, 

and more development at the wildland-urban interface. 

Ten Collaborative Groups Work to Restore the 

Resilience of Idaho National Forests. 

Locally-driven collaborative groups have formed across 

Idaho to advocate for active management to restore Idaho's 

national forests lands. These groups typically include the 

timber industry, conservation groups, local communities, 

local elected officials, and other interests. 

Despite their different viewpoints, participants are united in 

calling for action to make our forests more resilient to 

severe fire and other disturbances. They also see forest 

restoration as a tool to improve water quality, fish and 

wildlife habitat, ecosystem health, community safety, 

recreation and jobs. 

These collaborative groups play a critical role in providing 

local knowledge, helping the Forest Service balance 

competing values and supporting positive action. Despite 

occasional setbacks, they have shown remarkable staying 

power given their diverse membership. 
63 


29916.044

Idaho Collaborative Forest Restoration Groups 

Idaho Panhandle National Forest Sawtooth National Forest 

• Panhandle Forest Collaborative • Sawtooth Wildland Fire Collaborative 

• Shoshone Benewah Forest Collaborative • 5B Restoration Coalition 

• Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative 

Nez Perce-Ciearwater National Forest Salmon-Challis National Forest 

• Clearwater Basin Collaborative • Lemhi Forest Restoration Group 

PaJlette National Forest Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

• Payette Forest Coalition • Island Park Sustainable Fire Community 

Boise National Forest 

• Boise Forest Coalition 

The pace of collaborative restoration in Idaho is accelerating. Projects developed with 

collaborative support grew from 19 in 2013 to 35 in 2017. Projects with completed 

environmental reviews more than doubled over the same period- from 11 to 28. Three Idaho 

groups- the Clearwater Basin Collaborative, Payette Forest Coalition and the Kootenai Valley 

Restoration Initiative - participate in the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. 

The Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership tracks collaborative restoration projects at 

http://idahoforestpartners.org/sotf intro. html. 

The "Zone of Agreement" Allows Groups to Move Beyond the Timber Wars. 

Collaborative groups in Idaho have arrived at a "Zone of Agreement" - a set of shared principles 

that build trust and allow them to work productively together despite their members' differing 

interests. Although each group is unique, they agree on the following points. 

Conditions in Idaho's national forests have changed. Many areas are denser, more 

uniform and thus more vulnerable to altered fire patterns, insects, and disease. Groups 

agree on moving forests closer to their natural conditions to improve their resilience. 

Well-designed restoration actions improve the health of forests ecosystems, reduce fire 

risk, and sustain local economies. These actions make forests more resilient by moving 

them closer to their natural conditions. 

The timber industry is an ally in ecosystem restoration. Forest practices and mill 

infrastructure have evolved, and conservationists have more confidence that 

appropriately designed projects can avoid impairing - and can improve - the ecological 

health of certain forest types. Timber sale revenue can also help pay for restoration. 

The Idaho Roadless Rule helps focus efforts. The rule sets clear objectives that steer 

action to the roaded front country and helps groups avoid past disputes. 

Multi-faceted restoration projects enhance water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation. 

Serving a wide range of interests strengthens the zone of agreement. 

2 
64 


29916.045

National Forest Restoration Projects Developed with Collaborative Group Engagement 

Restoration Projects by Stage 

8 Complete 

0 Implementation 

e Monitoring 

e NEPA 

t\1 NFMA 

CFLRP Landscapes 

U,S, Forest Service Lands 

Twin Falls 

3 
65 


29916.046

IDAHO TRENDS: THREATS GROW AND NEW TOOLS SHOW PROMISE 

Mega-Fires and Their Costs Continue to Escalate. 

Idaho's national forests and rangelands are burning at a stunning rate. In just the last three 

years, so-called "mega-fires"- those exceeding 100,000 acres- included the Clearwater 

Complex (2015), Teepee Springs Fire (2015) and the Pioneer Fire (2016). These fires occurred 

in fire seasons that were longer and hotter than normal, and all involved severe fire behavior. 

Idaho Fire Perimeters-1984-2017 

A warming climate means that Idaho is likely entering a new era of mega-fires. Western fire 

seasons are now 60-80 days longer than historic averages. Since 1985, over half of the area 

burned in western wildfires is attributable to climate change.' 

1 Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP (2016) Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. 

Proc Nat! Acad Sci USA 113(42):11770-11775. 

4 
66 


29916.047

The ever-escalating costs of fighting these fires are eroding the Forest Service's ability to 

manage public lands2 The agency's overall non-fire staff has fallen by 39% since 1998. In 

Idaho, the full-time employees on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest declined from 375 in 

2000 to 242 in 2015. On the Nez Perce-Ciearwater National Forest staff fell from 371 to 258 

over the same period. This trend has real consequences. The agency charged with managing 

40% of Idaho is seeing its capacity to reduce hazardous fuels and conduct restoration efforts 

undercut precisely when threats to national forests are increasing. 

Science Highlights the Need for Landscape-Scale Restoration. 

Recent scholarship has focused on moving beyond restoration of individual forest stands to 

"landscape prescriptions" that seek to restore resilience across larger areas. This body of 

scientific work recognizes that the fire-adapted Inland Northwest forests were more diverse or 

"heterogeneous" than today's forests. Historically, forests were composed of an interlocking 

mosaic of different ages and types of forest stands - from open areas to low density stands to 

mature, closed-canopy forests. Fires occurred in these landscapes regularly, but were less likely 

to burn as large and hot as they do in today's denser, more uniform stands. 3 

The purpose of landscape restoration is not to halt fire or other disturbances. That would be 

both unachievable and counter-productive given the historic role of fire in Idaho forests. Fireprescribed, managed, or wild - will continue to play a key role in shaping public forests. But 

strategic restoration can protect communities and alter fire severity so forests recover faster. 

New Agency Legal Authorities Are Making a Difference on the Ground. 

The 2014 Farm Bill established two new legal authorities that are being actively implemented in 

Idaho: the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) and a categorical exclusion for restoration projects 

in areas at risk of insect and disease outbreaks. 

GNA allows the Forest Service to enter agreements with state agencies for forest, rangeland, 

and watershed restoration. The Forest Service oversees the environmental review and makes 

the decisions. The state agency helps with contracting, sale preparation, and implementation. 

The Forest Service and Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) have signed a GNA master 

agreement and are moving forward quickly to put projects on the ground. Over the next three 

years, they plan a total of ten projects on four national forests. The first projects are already 

underway. The 3-to-5-year objective is to develop a financially self-sustaining program that will 

substantially increase- and even double national forest acres treated yearly. 

The new categorical exclusion (CE) is also accelerating restoration. The CE provides a 

streamlined process for projects of up to 3,000 acres in Landscape Treatment Areas identified 

as being at risk from insect and disease- subject to specific sideboards. The Forest Service is 

working on over 45 projects in these areas; roughly two-thirds are using or may use the 

streamlined CE process. 

2 USDA Forest Service, The Rising Cost of Wildfire Operations: Effects on the Forest Service's Non-Fire Work, 

http:llwildfiretoday.com/documentsiRisinqWildfireCosts2015.pdf 

3 Hessburg P.F., Churchill D.J., Larson A.J., Haugo RD., Miller C., Spies T.A., North M.P., Povak NA, Belote R.T., 

Singleton P.H., Gaines W.L., Keane R.E., Aplet G. H., Stephens S.L., Morgan P., Bisson P.A., Rieman B.E., Salter, 

R.B., Reeves G.H. 2015. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: Seven core principles. Landscape Ecology 

30(10): 1805-1835. doi:10.10071s10980-015-0218-0. 

5 
67 


29916.048

2014 Farm Bill: Good Neighbor Authority and Landscape Treatment Area Project Locations 

With Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Boundaries and Salvage Projects 

6 
68 


29916.049

Compromised Funding Stability for Counties Undercuts Collaborative Efforts. 

Congress' failure to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRS) and appropriate county 

payments in 2017 has affected many rural counties in Idaho. Without SRS funds, county 

payments revert to the 1908 Act that allocates 25 percent of gross receipts from national forest 

revenues to the counties. The "25 percent funds" do not come close to replacing the lost SRS 

revenue; 2017 payments are 89% less than in 2016. 

Some local elected officials are now expressing reservations about use of stewardship 

contracting because stewardship projects do not directly contribute to 25% percent funds. One 

proposal would take the 25% "off the top" of stewardship projects. Either outcome would put 

collaborative groups in an awkward situation by pitting county revenue against the restoration 

that helps bind collaborative groups together, provides local jobs, and builds "social license" for 

timber harvest. 

Federal Forest Payments to Idaho Counties 

1990-2016 

{nominal dollars; Includes Titles II & 1112001-2015) 

7 

111 25% Shared R«elpts 

~!Secure RuralSdlools(SRS) 

IISRSiraq 

llSRSTAI!P 

Ill SRS Hlflllwavs 

IISRSHellum 

IIISRS MedlGIIre Oe<: Flx 
69 


29916.050

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This section draws extensively from a series of discussions with collaborative groups about the 

state of forest restoration in Idaho during the 2017 IFRP statewide conference.• Conference 

participants by and large held the view that the current pace of restoration is not fast enough to 

respond to ecological challenges, risks to communities, and local economic needs. 

The conference included break-out groups that addressed three key issues: 

• Defining restoration objectives; 

• Addressing limitations on agency capacity to conduct restoration; and 

• Reviewing the role of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Restoration Objectives Should to Be Clearly Defined in Project Decisions. 

Recent severe fire seasons have built political momentum for more active restoration treatments 

on national forests. As public support and pressure -for action builds, it becomes even more 

essential that collaborative groups state clearly what they mean by "restoration," which forest 

values are influenced by restoration actions, and how they intend to achieve desired outcomes. 

Restoring forest resilience calls for a disciplined, science-driven approach. It should focus on 

what restored sites look like after treatment -what trees are left in the forest stand and how 

restoration sites contribute to more diverse and resilient forest landscapes. This differs from 

commodity-based timber management. Not all logging is restoration, and not all restoration 

requires logging. 

That said, vegetation treatment- including both commercial logging and non-commercial 

thinning -is an important restoration tool at many sites. As explained above, Idaho's national 

forests have become denser and, as a result, fire conditions have become more extreme. 

Given these changes, it is difficult or impossible to reintroduce fire in a significant percentage of 

national forest lands because unnaturally severe fire threatens nearby development, timber 

values, and natural resources. Therefore, mechanical treatments are needed to meet 

restoration objectives or, in some instances, to reduce fuels before fire can be used as a 

management tool. 

Even where prescribed fire is employed, smoke management rules, coupled with a limited "burn 

window" when vegetation is safe to burn, often restrict the prescribed burning that can be 

accomplished. Prescribed fires and mechanical treatments in Idaho national forests average 

roughly 75,000 acres annually, far less than is needed to alter regional fire trends. Natural fires 

can contribute to resilience in backcountry settings such as roadless and wilderness areas. 

Collaborative groups and the Forest Service can play essential roles in educating the public and 

policy makers about the value of prescribed fire and, under appropriate conditions, natural fire to 

reduce the risk that a mega-fire will cause dangerous air quality conditions. They can 

underscore the trade-off of prescribed fire - a bit of smoke now in exchange for a lot less smoke 

and a healthier forest later. 

4 The agenda and presentations for the 2017 conference are available at 

http://idahoforestpartners.org/reference-library.html 

8 
70 


29916.051

Recommendations: 

1. All decisions should explicitly state the objectives of restoration projects by forest type 

and explain how the project will increase forest resilience. 

2. Restoration should evolve from treating individual stands to the development of larger 

landscape-scale prescriptions as the foundation for restoration planning. 5 

3. Collaborative groups and the Forest Service should step up public education on the role 

and consequences of fire in Idaho national forests. Projects should address the role of 

prescribed or managed fire in achieving restoration objectives. The Forest Service 

should convene air quality regulators to reduce barriers to prescribed fire while reducing 

overall health effects from smoke. 

Address the Forest Service's Limited Capacity to Implement Restoration 

IFRP conference participants have been virtually unanimous that the Forest Service needs to 

accelerate forest restoration. Though the agency is making noteworthy progress, it faces major 

obstacles that constrain its ability to act at the needed scale. 

The root causes for the Forest Service's difficulties in putting sound restoration projects on the 

ground are multiple, interwoven, and complex. The erosion of the Forest Service's non-fire staff 

is clearly a major factor. So is the agency's culture, which does not always provide clear 

incentives for the agency's local leaders to innovate, take measured risks, and scale up on-theground actions. The agency's rapid rate of turn-over in local leadership and retirement of expert 

staff make it harder to engage with collaborative groups. The time and expense of conducting 

environmental reviews adds to the problem. Litigation is a factor. Solutions to these challenges 

must increase the agency's capacity to implement projects and strengthen its ties to 

collaborative groups. 

Recommendations: 

1. Enact the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to address the erosion of the Forest Service's 

capacity to manage resources due to escalating fire suppression costs. 

2. Extend the authorization and increase funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program 

3. Support the Good Neighbor Authority to expand the Forest Service's capacity. Amend 

the Good Neighbor Authority to allow cooperative agreements to address road 

construction, repair or restoration as part of larger multi-faceted restoration projects. 

5 Hessburg P.F., Churchill D.J., larson AJ .. Haugo RD., Miller C., Spies TA, North M.P., Povak NA, Belote RT.. 

Singleton P.H., Gaines W.L, Keane RE., Aplet G.H., Stephens S.L, Morgan P., Bisson PA, Rieman BE, Salter, 

R.B., Reeves G.H. 2015. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: Seven core principles. Landscape Ecology 

30(10): 1805-1835. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0218-0. 

9 
71 


29916.052

4. Reauthorize and fund SRS or develop a new revenue source to counties with significant 

national forest lands that allows continued broad support for stewardship contracting. 

5. Launch a Forest Service-wide initiative to improve engagement with collaborative groups 

and delivery of on-the-ground projects. 

a. Develop transition strategies to manage agency personnel changes without 

losing the momentum with collaborative groups and projects. 

b. Create training courses for agency engagement with collaborative groups. 

c. Find opportunities and incentives to retain people in a location longer through a 

career ladder that does not rely on moving for advancement. 

d. Work with local communities and collaborative groups to build a local community 

support system for employees, especially in more remote locations. 

e. To improve continuity, identify long-time employees in one location as "local 

knowledge" so that new employees know where to turn for history or background 

on certain topics, past decisions. 

Increase NEPA's Efficiency without Sacrificing Its Benefits. 

Many participants in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) discussion group at the 

2017 Conference acknowledged having views akin to a love-hate relationship with a law that 

pervades the Forest Service's resources management. Despite the complexity of the issues, a 

handful of clear themes emerged from the group's conversation. 

It was immediately clear that none of the participants advocated getting rid of NEPA or sought to 

systematically circumvent its goals of thoughtful, informed, and public decisions. The public 

expects a wide range of benefits from its national forests, from wood products to clean water, 

wildlife, recreation and more. NEPA helps ensure that the agency analyzes and discloses how 

its actions balance those diverse objectives. 

That said, many participants also expressed the view that NEPA documents can become 

lengthy, overly detailed, and more focused on process than outcomes on the ground. The 

difficult issue facing the Forest Service is to distinguish between NEPA work that adds rigor and 

value to its decisions versus work that simply adds pages to the administrative record and does 

little to illuminate the choices facing the agency. 

The Idaho experience with NEPA has produced several noteworthy innovations and lessons 

that bear directly on how to improve implementation of the act. 

• The Lost Creek Boulder Creek Project on the Payette National Forest is a model for largescale restoration. An environmental impact statement (EIS) covering an 80,000-acre project 

area was completed in just 18 months. Project actions include timber harvest, prescribed 

fire, watershed restoration, and recreation improvements. Factors for success include: early 

engagement with the collaborative Payette Forest Coalition, strong forest and ranger district 

leadership, and an innovative NEPA approach that highlights the most important issues, 

10 
72 


29916.053

focused routine inventory to key action areas, and created design features to ensure 

compliance in the post-NEPA phase. 

• The Forest Service developed additional alternatives during the NEPA process for two 

vegetation treatment projects (Bottom Canyon and Upper North Fork HFRA) that addressed 

stakeholder concerns and built support for the project. These experiences illustrate 

potential problems with limiting the range of alternatives to action-no action. 

• Collaborative groups intervened in court challenges to the LCBC Project and Tower and 

Grizzly salvage and reforestation projects. The projects were upheld. The district court in 

the LCBC case cited the collaborative group's involvement as a public interest factor 

weighing against issuance of a temporary restraining order. 

Recommendations: 

1. Recognize and retain the value that NEPA provides for designing sound forest 

restoration projects and engaging the public. 

2. Use categorical exclusions (CEs) for smaller projects using well-established practices in 

places where there are no novel or complex issues. CEs have limited utility for large 

landscape-scale restoration. 

3. Develop a large landscape-scale (e.g., 100,000+ acres) approach to NEPA analysis 

using EISs to engage the public in assessing landscape restoration needs, achieve 

economies of scale, and provide for a longer-term implementation. 

4. Develop strategies and guidance at the national, regional, and forest levels to overcome 

the tendency to produce risk-averse and overly detailed documents that do not 

contribute to NEPA's goals of involving the public and fostering excellent decisions. 

CONCLUSION 

Idaho's collaborative groups have served as a proving ground for forest restoration that 

creates ecological, economic, and social benefits. As Congress and the Forest Service 

contemplate new reforms and initiatives, they should reach out to these groups and seek 

solutions that strengthen the zone of agreement among their diverse members. 

11 
73 


29916.054

Court Boice, Commissioner 

October 23, 2017 

94235 Moore Street, Ste. 122 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Ph.: (54!) 247.3229 

boicedC!)co. currv. or. us 

tvww.co.cuny_or.us 

RE: Support Letter to the Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington 

D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

My name is Court Boice, and I'm a Curry County Commissioner on the southwest Oregon 

coast. As you know, we experienced a catastrophic wildfire event this past summer called the 

'Chetco Bar Fire'. For three weeks it was the No.1 priority fire in the U.S. It started in the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness ofthe Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest from a lighting strike July 12'"· Over 

191,000 acres burned threading our coastal town of Brookings. This Fire roared out of the 

wilderness on August 18'". burning in its path homes and thousands of acres of private timber. 

For over a month, our communities were subjected to unhealthy living conditions with the air 

filled with toxic smoke. We came close to losing a community of 7,000 citizens, plus nearby 

neighborhoods. We need Congress to reform the federal forest management and wildland 

firefighting policies that are a key cause of the worsening wildfire seasons and deteriorating 

forest health. Future fire prevention is crucial for our entire country. 

We are a small County that has been dependent on shared receipts from timber harvested 

from the National Forest that covers more than half of our land base. To see this valuable 

resource burn and then learn that perhaps less than 2% will be salvaged is criminal. As a county 

we are forced to provide access and emergency services to an absent-tee landlord with little to 

nothing currently in return. Shared receipts from salvage in a timely manner, while there is still 

value in the burned timber resource can not only help offset the cost of rehabilitation but also 

provide funding for County services and education. 

Curry County commends you for taking steps towards a meaningful policy to address the 

lack of federal forest management on Public Lands demonstrated by your drafts under 

consideration at this week's hearings. We grow some of the fastest growing, highest quality 

timber anywhere. The provisions in the proposal and aggressively salvaging that resource in the 

Chetco Bare Fire will aid our economic recovery and landscape rehabilitation. Included along with 

an understanding of the impacts on counties and school revenues, it will further provide for 

endangered species protection, recover damaged watersheds - riparian areas for fish habitat, 

improved air quality as well as future recreation opportunities for our beautiful area. 

Thank you for taking this opportunity to do the right thing for the benefit of our National 

Forest and Public Lands. Wanton waste is a crime! We urge Congress to rapidly enact new 

National Forest wildfire fighting policies and funding for meaningful forest management reform 

legislation as found in this staff draft. Thank You. 

Sincerely, 
74 


29916.055

Court Boice, 

Oregon 

Commissioner, Curry County 
75 


29916.056

~LLIANCESM 

Protecting Water for Western Irrigated Agriculture 

October 23,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

P.O.Box216 

Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 

www.fumilvfarmallinace.Ot·g 

Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance), I am writing in support of the draft "Wildfire 

Prevention and Mitigation Act of 20 17" (draft bill). The draft bill is intended to discourage 

litigation against the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management relating to land 

management projects, require the Secretary of the Interior to develop a categorical exclusion under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for covered vegetative management activities 

carried out to establish or improve habitat for greater sage-grouse and mule deer, address the forest 

health crisis on National Forest System land, and expedite and prioritize forest management 

activities to achieve ecosystem restoration objectives, among other purposes. 

The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied 

industries in 16 Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the availability 

of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers. We are also 

committed to the fundamental proposition that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved 

and protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental, and national security reasonsmany of which are often overlooked in the context of other national policy decisions. 

In the world of Western water, a massive wildfire in the headwaters of a watershed can devastate 

the water supply- both quantity and quality- so important to the many beneficial uses in that river 

basin, including the irrigation of farms and ranches that produce some of our Nation's high-quality 

food and fiber. The Alliance believes that the draft bill would help actually implement some 

important forest management projects on federal lands to ward off these disastrous wildfires and 

protect some of our most vulnerable Western water supplies in the process. 
76 


29916.057

2 

The draft bill does not waive or ignore existing federal environmental laws; it would simply make 

them work better. The draft bill would streamline the application of environmental laws by 

allowing landscape-levelland management plans to guide individual actions on the ground without 

duplicative administrative process under federal environmental laws, and would direct the creation 

and use of categorical exclusions already allowed under NEPA in preventing wildfires and 

restoring forest habitat and ecosystems more effectively and on a timely basis. By eliminating 

duplicative or unnecessary processes, using streamlining tools already allowable under the law, 

and promoting actions instead of litigation, we believe these provisions could help these agencies 

use their limited resources to actually implement land management actions designed to prevent 

wildfires and improve habitat for priority, endangered and/or threatened species, instead of 

spending those resources on more bureaucratic process and litigation. 

The Family Farm Alliance believes enactment of the draft "Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation 

Act of 2017" would improve our Western landscapes, protect our valuable water supplies from the 

devastating effects of wildfires, and allow agencies to improve habitat and restore ecosystems for 

the benefit of federally important species to allow continued agricultural use of our public lands. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at dankcppcn (flocharter.nct if you have further questions. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Keppen 

Executive Director 
77 


29916.058

_K 

~~<\~1,0~J1"' 

UNLIMITED 

November 8, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chair, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Comments of Trout Unlimited to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works (EPW) Committee Hearing on S. 2068, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Committee Members: 

I offer the following comments for the Committee's October 25, 2017 hearing on the above 

referenced bill on behalf of Trout Unlimited (TU) and its 300,000 members and supporters 

nationwide. TU's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and salmon 

fisheries and the watersheds on which they depend. Much of this work occurs on federal lands 

including through a very productive partnership with the Forest Service on National Forest 

lands nationwide and with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on BLM lands in the West 

Love of our public lands is deeply rooted in millions of Americans and especially among TU 

members. Forest Service and BLM managed lands are immensely important to TU members as 

50 percent of the nation's blue-ribbon fisheries cross federal lands, and native trout, in many 

cases, find their last and best remaining habitats on these lands. 

The goals of S. 2068, and the other wildfire management bills, are to improve wildfire 

management and increase the pace of forest restoration. In pursuit of these worthy goals we 

must be equally committed to improve the many natural values of our federal lands in the 

process. The challenge as defined by Gifford Pinchot is to manage for the "greatest good for 

the greatest number for the longest time." The Organic Act of the Forest Service made water 

and watershed protection a primary objective for the Forest Service. The critical role that our 

BLM and National Forests play in the carbon cycle and moderating climate change is a more 

recent value we must take seriously. The record-setting 2017 fire season, severe drought in 

California and other parts of the West and other extreme weather patterns are reminders that 

A mission to conserve, protect, & restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. 

National Office: 1777 N Kent St.. Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209 
78 


29916.059

maintaining and protecting forests and their sound management is of the utmost importance to 

our own health and well-being. 

Our national forests and BlM lands remain a valuable source of clean water for communities 

across the country; these forests provide habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities 

for hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts and, when properly managed, a sustainable 

source of jobs and revenue for local communities. The guiding principle of the federal 

government's action regarding wildfire-and all other management activities-should be 

stewardship that ensures the long-term ecological health of the lands and waters upon which 

we all depend. Active vegetation management can play an important role in stewardship, but it 

should not be an end unto itself. 

The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act focuses on wildfire management on Forest Service 

and BlM lands. The EPW Committee, as well as the Energy and Natural Resources, Agriculture, 

and Appropriations Committees, are right to focus on these issues. Wildfires are becoming 

increasingly larger and more severe. Contributing factors include changing climate conditions -

hotter, drier summers, variations and unpredictability in precipitation, longer more severe 

droughts, increasing development in fire-prone areas, and a legacy of past timber management 

and fire suppression policies that, despite good intentions, have left some of our forested acres 

vulnerable to uncharacteristic wildfires. 

Several bills have been introduced into the Senate in recent weeks to address federal land 

wildfire management. In this letter we offer comments on key aspects of other bills in addition 

to comments on S. 2068, including S. 1991, the Wildland Fires Bill of 2017 (led by Senator 

Cantwell and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators), and the bipartisan Wildfire 

Disaster Funding Act (S. 1842), in order to provide our views on the type of well-rounded, 

comprehensive legislation needed to address the wildfire management issues that should pass 

the Senate. 

Based on experience of the past several decades, we urge the Committee to provide sufficient 

funding to allow the federal land managers to be effective. The Committee should keep the 

focus of federal land managers on doing sound collaborative stewardship; engaging 

stakeholders early in the decision-making process; enhancing local c:ollaboratives; emphasizing 

transparency; ensuring monitoring and maintenance of treatments; and keeping hazardous 

fuels treatments focused largely on wildland urban interface areas and avoiding controversial 

places such as road less areas, critical watersheds, and old growth forests. 

The Committee should ensure that federal land managers make good use of the many tools 

that they already possess, such as stewardship contracting that allow the forest to maintain the 

receipts of timber sales and to plow them into restoration work; utilizing existing tools that 

streamline NEPA; the Collaborative Forest landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) which is 

demonstrating good progress in Idaho and across the west; and using the Wyden authority to 

expand restoration onto adjacent private lands. 

Page2of7 
79 


29916.060

Again, most importantly, the purpose of all federal land forestry activities should be to maintain 

the health, diversity, and productivity of the land. Timber harvest, where suitable, should be 

viewed as an appropriate outcome of managing for healthy, diverse, and productive 

watersheds, not as specific goal or target that supersedes all others. 

Provide adequate funding to the land management agencies to support strong management 

work. 

High levels of wildfire spending, including wholesale borrowing from other National Forest and 

BlM budget items are substantially undermining the ability of the agencies to manage our 

federal forests. First and foremost, TU recommends that the Senate committees work to 

provide adequate funds to the federal land agencies and their key partners, such as the 

counties, to allow for the fundamental, science-based management for watersheds, fisheries, 

wildlife, and timber production 

Support the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA). 

S. 1842 is the right solution to solve the problem of fire borrowing. The bill has 10 bipartisan 

co-sponsors and should be a keystone element of any wildfire management legislation. 

Reauthorize and fund SRS or develop a new revenue source to counties with significant 

national forest lands that allows continued broad support for stewardship contracting. 

Congress' failure to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRS) and appropriate county 

payments in 2017 has affected many rural counties in the West. Without SRS funds, county 

payments revert to the 1908 Act that allocates 25 percent of gross receipts from national forest 

revenues to the counties; this is unacceptable. The "25 percent funds" do not come close to 

replacing the lost SRS revenue; 2017 payments are 89% less than in 2016. Some local elected 

officials are now expressing reservations about use of stewardship contracting because 

stewardship projects do not directly contribute to 25% percent funds. S. 2068's Section 313 

would take the 25% "off the top" of stewardship projects. TU opposes this section because it 

would put collaborative groups in an awkward situation by pitting county revenue against the 

watershed restoration work that helps bind collaborative groups together, provides local jobs, 

and builds "social license" for timber harvest. 

Extend the authorization and increase funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program. 

The CFLRF program is working well in Idaho and in other places throughout the West. Congress 

should enhance this tool by reauthorizing it and increasing its funding level. 

Support the Wildland Fires Bill (S. 1991}- Section 4. Additional accountability. 

Page 3 of7 
80 


29916.061

This section requires a cost review of every wildfire over 100,000 acres; e.g., reviewing the 

effectiveness of decisions and comparing cost to comparable wildfires to increase the costeffectiveness of wildfire management in the long run. This is particularly necessary in light of 

the skyrocketing cost of fighting fires that threaten the wildland urban interface and how 

hazardous fuel treatments in these areas can help to moderate these costs. 

Support the Wildland Fires Bill (S. 1991)- Section S. Incentive for cost savings. 

This section authorizes the Secretaries to re-purpose unused wildfire suppression funds to 

conduct wildfire risk reduction projects, a common sense measure to help fund worthwhile 

projects. 

Support the Wildland Fires Bill (S. 1991)- Sections 6 and 7. 

This section authorizes preparation assistance to at-risk communities by directing the Forest 

Service and the BLM to publish a list of communities that are at-risk to wildfires, update the 

national map of the wildland-urban interface, and provide funding to these communities for 

planning and preparing for wildfires. In doing so, resources will be directed where they will do 

the most good. 

Improve project development by enhancing collaborative solutions, improving federal agency 

capacity, and not undercutting NEPA. 

TU strongly believes that the durable solutions provided by stakeholders working in 

collaboration is a key element of improving forest management and increasing the pace of 

restoration on our federally-managed public lands. TU has participated in a number of 

successful collaborative efforts on our federally-managed public lands, including the 

development of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act bill for Montana National Forests, local 

project-level collaboratives, the development of the Idaho and Colorado Road less Rules, and 

the designation of insect and disease treatment areas under the 2014 Farm Bill. We are now 

working in Idaho with the Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership and in Arizona with the Four 

Forest Restoration Initiative process. 

I urge the EPW and other committees to review the Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership 

recommendations from their October 14, 2017 document (attached). This partnership is a 

model of collaboration, achieving landscape scale results in Idaho while retaining adequate 

environmental review and facilitating meaningful public involvement. 

TU is skeptical of the value of major legislative changes to NEPA, such as multiple new large 

acre, broad-scale and loosely defined categorical exclusions (CE) proposed in Title Ill of S. 2068. 

Agencies already have CEs at their disposal to implement vegetation management activities, 

including provisions under the 2014 Farm Bill and Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, and 

we question the need for the kinds of broad-scale CEs in Title Ill of S. 2068. These CEs will 

further curtail meaningful public involvement, reduce transparency, limit informed public land 

Page 4 of7 
81 


29916.062

management and may in fact undermine collaborative stewardship instead of enhancing it. The 

new Title Ill CEs included inS. 2068 will likely lead to more controversy on the ground among 

stakeholders, consuming greater amount of the agency's diminishing resources, and ultimately 

hinder the kinds collaborative projects will lead to healthier forests. 

Conversely, the CE proposed in Title II for sage grouse and mule deer habitat conservation and 

restoration is the type of focused, purpose-driven, science-based restoration CE that is an 

appropriate tool for increasing the pace and scale of restoration without undermining the 

fundamental benefits of NEPA. The mule deer and sage grouse CE also require a 20-year 

monitoring and maintenance plan, shall require an extraordinary circumstance review and the 

CE would not be available for construction of permanent roads or trails. Together, these are 

essential elements missing in the CEs being considered under Title Ill. 

TU supports the use of categorical exclusions in certain situations, but the Title Ill CEs lack 

necessary sideboards to ensure that their use will expedite restoration without leading to 

impacts that impair forest and watershed health or inhibiting public involvement. 

Additionally, Section 336, Expansion of Categorical Exclusion for Insect and Disease Infestation, 

is particularly troublesome because it would upend the 2014 Farm Bill CE by eliminating the 

requirement that projects be developed using a collaborative process. It would also expand the 

scope of the CE to include all forest condition classes and fire regimes groups (not just those 

scientifically classified as in need of restoration), while also eliminating the requirement for 

projects to be focused on the wildland urban interface. 

Congress should direct the federal land managers to launch a Forest Service and BLM-wide 

initiative to improve engagement with collaborative groups and delivery of on-the-ground 

projects. 

We find wide variability within the agencies on abilities of staff to assist effective partnerships. 

Some field and regional staff embrace the concept and conduct helpful collaborative 

stakeholder projects. Others do not. Although the trend within the agencies are positive, there 

is still a lot of room for improvement. The following are excellent suggestions from the Idaho 

Forest Restoration Partnership which, if implemented well, may do as much or more to improve 

forest restoration as any legislative provisions because of the increased agency staff capacity 

they could yield: 

a. Develop transition strategies to manage agency personnel changes without losing the 

momentum with collaborative groups and projects. 

b. Create training courses for agency engagement with collaborative groups. 

c. Find opportunities and incentives to retain people in a location longer through a career 

ladder that does not rely on moving for advancement. 

d. Work with local communities and collaborative groups to build a local community 

support system for employees, especially in more remote locations. 

Page 5 of7 
82 


29916.063

e. To improve continuity, identify long-time employees in one location as "local 

knowledge" so that new employees know where to turn for history or background on 

certain topics, past decisions. 

Maintain Protections for Inventoried Roadless Area 

While active management is an important tool for forest management, it is not a tool that is 

appropriate everywhere. Forest treatments and legislation must be consistent with the 

Road less Area Conservation Rule, as well as the Idaho and Colorado Road less Rules, to ensure 

that our backcountry road less lands remain protected and to respect the carefully crafted 

compromises that lead to the adoption of the Idaho and Colorado Road less Rules. Sections 322 

and 331 of S. 2068 should be amended to explicitly state that ecosystem restoration projects 

and forest management activities cannot be located within a national or State-specific 

inventoried road less area established by the Secretary of Agriculture through regulation. 

Support Title 1 of the S. 2068: Litigation Relief for Forest Management Projects. 

TU previously supported this same language in the bill introduced bv Senators Daines, Tester, 

Risch and Crapo regarding the federal district court "Cottonwood" decision, S. 605. TU supports 

these provisions because they reduce redundant Endangered Specie!S Act review while still 

protecting imperiled species. The section will allow several cooperatively-developed forest 

restoration projects to move forward in Montana and elsewhere. 

Conclusion 

Our national forests remain a valuable source of clean water for communities across the 

country; these forests provide habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities for 

hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts and, when properly managed, a sustainable source of 

jobs and revenue for local communities. We know that you share those values and that 

perspective. We urge you to pass holistic legislation that improves all aspects of federal land 

wildlife management, and ensures that our Federal agencies have the resources necessary to 

effectively manage our public lands. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Moyer 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

Trout Unlimited 

c. The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Page 6 of7 
83 


29916.064

The Honorable Pat Roberts 

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow 

Page 7 of7 
84 


29916.065

October 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As Congress continues to consider a response to the wildfires that defined the summer of2017 

for much of the American West, the undersigned sportsmen's conservation organizations-who 

collectively represent many American hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts-write today in 

support of the draft Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of20 17 (WPMA). 

The most recent loss of life and property in California shows that we are not talking only about 

"forest health" here but also about human lives. A confluence of factors is driving record-setting 

wildfire seasons, including hotter and drier conditions, longer duration fire seasons, lack of 

consistent active management of our national forests, litigation and inadequate funding levels for 

the US Forest Service's forest health and restoration accounts. Catastrophic wildfire is the most 

high profile symptom of the issue of forest health, but millions more acres of our nation's forests 

are at severe risk from fires, insects and disease. It would be worse to do nothing for five or ten 

years than it would be to try almost anything during the same period of time. 

Since the 2014 Farm Bill, various proposals for further improving forest management and finally 

fixing the wildfire funding framework have come up just short of enactment in Congress. We 

believe it is time to agree on as many as possible to accelerate the urgent work needed in the 

National Forests. 

Federal land management agencies need new authority to accelerate the pace of restoration 

projects by improving the efficiency of environmental review processes, such as action/no action 

alternatives for collaborative projects, a minor fix to the highly-regarded Good Neighbor 

Authority, and improvements to restoration-based categorical exclusions modeled after the 

bipartisan provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. 

The fire crisis has refocused forest policy on to the restoration of wildlife habitat benefits and 

other ecological conditions. We urge the committee to find agreement on such details as 

acreage-limits on projects (which we believe is secondary to the imperative of completing more 

restoration projects of any size). 

Additionally, our organizations support meaningful litigation reforms that ensure that the time, 

money, and effort expended in the courts is focused on substantial issues and supported by 

substantial evidence. Toward this end, we support the pilot authority to evaluate the 

effectiveness of litigation alternatives such as arbitration. We also support focusing Endangered 
85 


29916.066

Species Act consultation requirements at the project-level rather than having to redevelop entire 

forest plans. 

Our organizations also strongly support Title II of the WMPA on Sage Grouse and Mule Deer 

Habitat Conservation and Restoration. This title will allow conservation partners to move 

quickly on landscape habitat restoration projects that are proving to have a tremendous impact 

for mule deer, sage grouse and other species dependent on sagebrush rangelands. 

We urge Congress to come together in the next weeks to adopt these sensible and well-vetted 

provisions that will enhance the health of our national forests. 

Sincerely, 

American Woodcock Society 

Archery Trade Association 

Boone and Crockett Club 

Campfire Club of America 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 

Delta Waterfowl 

Houston Safari Club 

Mule Deer Foundation 

National Shooting Sports Foundation 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

North American Grouse Partnership 

Pheasants Forever 

Quail Forever 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Whitetails Unlimited 

Wild Sheep Foundation 

Wildfire Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Wildlife Mississippi 

2 
86 


29916.067

October 23, 2017 

The Honorable john Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment 

& Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & 

& Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

As you know, our nation is experiencing another catastrophic wildfire season. Over 8.8 million acres have 

already burned this year and we may break the record that was set just two years ago. Some of the worst 

devastation has occurred on overstocked, unhealthy federal forests, where wildfires have affected millions 

of Americans living in nearby communities and polluted the air with toxic smoke. We need Congress to 

reform the federal forest management policies that are a key cause of the worsening wildfire seasons and 

deteriorating forest health, as well as addressing the broken and unsustainable fire funding model. 

At a recent hearing before your Committee, you heard from a wide array of industry, conservation, and 

state government interests in support of a comprehensive approach to these significant- but solvableproblems. 

We commend you for taking some of the best ideas from the bills discussed at your September 27th hearing 

and incorporating them into the draft bill under consideration at this weeks' hearing. These provisions 

include meaningful policy and legal reforms to increase federal forest management and thinning activities. 

The legislation will prevent unnecessary litigation against needed forest management projects, expediting 

NEPA analysis while preserving public input and involvement, and provide an array of new tools to 

expedite projects designed to meet a variety of forest management objectives. Reducing fuels, particularly 

in our Western forests, and creating a variety of habitat ages and types, are critical to the long term health 

of our public forests and rangelands. 

Our organizations applaud your efforts to address both crises facing our National Forests and public lands. 

This legislation represents a significant step towards addressing the management questions. We urge you 

to rapidly conclude bipartisan negotiations so that this Congress can enact both fire funding and forest 

management reform legislation this year. 

Sincerely, 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Forest Resource Council 

American Loggers Council 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group 

Associated California Loggers 

Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho 

Associated Oregon Loggers 

Association of O&C Counties 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition 

California Forestry Association 

Colorado Timber Industry Association 

Federal Forest Resource Coalition 

Forest Resources Association 

Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association 

Hardwood Federation 

Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities 

Idaho Forest Group 

Intermountain Forest Association 

Michigan Forest Products Council 

Minnesota Forest Industries 

Minnesota Timber Producers Association 
87 


29916.068

Missouri Forest Products Association 

Montana Logging Association 

Montana Wood Products Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

New Mexico Forest Industry Association 

Pennsylvania Forest Products Association 

Professional Logging Contractors of Maine 

Public Lands Council 

Sierra Cascade Logging Conference 

Sierra Pacific Industries 

Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association 

Treated Wood Council 

Washington Forest Protection Association 

Washington Hardwoods Commission 

West Virginia Loggers Council 
88 


29916.069

WESTERN 

INTERSTATE 

REGION 

October 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

United States Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo) the only organization representing the nation's 

3,069 counties, parishes, and boroughs, I write to express support for recent draft legislation to 

discourage litigation against land management projects, to promote the active management of our 

nation's federal lands and forests, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and ensure equitable sharing 

offorest revenues with county governments. 

For the 62 percent of counties across the United States that are home to federal lands, the health of our 

national forests has a direct impact on the health and safety of county residents. Healthy forests are 

less prone to disease, insect infestation and wildfire. While the causes of catastrophic wildfire are 

complex, the status quo of inaction has exacerbated present forest conditions, which now present a 

great risk to both communities and the environment. 

Counties believe that active management of federal lands and forests must be done in a sustainable, 

collaborative manner that ensures healthy landscape for generations to come. One way to help ensure 

a balanced approach to address natural resource management challenges is to authorize limited and 

reasonable categorical exclusions for collaborative projects and active management projects that 

improve forest health, such as the treatment of insect and disease infestation, salvage operations after a 

catastrophic event and the improvement of wildlife habitat. Counties support your efforts to ensure 

reasonable management projects can move forward through streamlined regulations and less red tape. 

In addition to improving forest health and reducing wildfire risk for forest communities, increased active 

management will generate more revenue for the federal treasury and critical services provided by 

counties, and promote job creation and economic growth across the nation. The increase in stewardship 

contracting in recent years has shown that a market-driven approach to forest management projects 

can work to achieve both forest management goals and greater forest production. 

Counties support and are active partners in stewardship contracting initiatives across the United States. 

NACo supports provisions of the draft legislation that authorize the equitable sharing of stewardship 

contracting revenues with counties consistent with historic practices. Forest revenue sharing payments 

support critical county services such as transportation, infrastructure and education. America's counties 

660 NORTH CAP! r·oL. SmEET NORTHWEST SUiTE 400 

WASHINGTON. DC 20001 2U2 393 0226 FAX 202 393 2630 
89 


29916.070

look forward to working with Congress to further strengthen forest revenue sharing between counties 

and the federal government. 

NACo stands ready to work with you to promote locally supported, consensus-driven solutions to 

address forest management challenges, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and increase economic 

activity on our federal lands. We appreciate your committee's efforts in support of legislation that 

promotes healthy landscapes and protects federal lands communities. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew D. Chase 

Executive Director 

National Association of Counties 

Joel Bousman 

President 

Western Interstate Region 
90 


29916.071

October 24, 20 17 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chair 

.~·~!= 

NWTF 

Conserve. Hunt. Share. 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Senator Carper, 

I write as CEO of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) to strongly support the Discussion Draft 

of the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of20l7. Founded in 1973, the NWTF is a national, nonprofit, wildlife conservation organization that is dedicated to the conservation of the wild turkey and the 

preservation of our hunting heritage. The NWTF is 230,000 members strong and maintains local chapters 

in every state. 

The NWTF has been intimately involved in the issues of federal forest management reform and a 

legislative, permanent fix to remedy the wildfire funding problem for the last 3 Congresses. I have 

testified several times before the various committees of jurisdiction in both the House and Senate on bills, 

Discussion Drafts, and oversight hearings. We have come to the conclusion that federal forest 

management reform and a legislative wildtire funding fix must be enacted in the same bill. Wildfires, 

litigation, inadequate funding, and project delays are having significant impacts on other critical functions 

of both the US Forest Service (USPS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including delays in 

project implementation addressing fire prevention, infrastructure maintenance, wildlife conservation, 

research, and recreation. I understand that a wildfire funding fix is outside of this Committee's 

jurisdiction. However, I respectfully urge you to collaborate with the leadership of the other committees 

of jurisdiction to draft a forest management reform and wildfire funding fix bill that will garner 60 votes 

in the Senate, pass the House. and will be signed by the President, 

The Discussion Draft contains federal forest management reforms that are science-based, common sense, 

direly needed, and readily implementable without reducing or constraining the oppm1unity for public 

review. Many of these provisions have bipartisan support, and we believe that there may be an 

opportunity to negotiate and revise those that lack bipartisan support. The NWTF stands ready to assist 

the Committee in appropriately considering revisions to the Discussion Draft so that it can be reported out 

of the Committee with a strong bipartisan vote. 

The NWTF strongly supports science-based categorical exclusions (CE) to address specific forest 

management needs, such as meeting objectives for early successional forest habitat; to salvage dead (from 

fire, disease or insect damage) timber while it is still of marketable value; to control forest insect and 

disease damage; to salvage timber damaged by catastrophic natural events; to address the needs of 

specific at-risk species as sage grouse; and to allow for temporary roads to achieve these management 

objectives. It is important to affirm that CEs are not exemptions from the National Environmental 
91 


29916.072

Protection Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated comprehensive 

regulations (36 CFR 220) and guidance under which CEs should be utilized by the federal agencies within 

the statutory boundaries ofNEPA. Only those actions that have already undergone the NEPA review 

process and are routine, reoccurring activities with known minor impacts are eligible forCEs. Therefore, 

these actions should not require the typical extensive enviromnental assessment. We believe these 

categorical exclusions are necessary and will help increase the pace and scale of management and 

restoration of our nation's forests. 

The federal-state conservation plan for the sage grouse is the largest, most comprehensive habitat 

conservation plan ever implemented in the United States. Sagebrush steppe habitat supports over 350 

vertebrate species, including popular game species such as mule deer. Threats to the vitality of this habitat 

include invasive species such as cheat grass; the expansion of juniper, pinon pine, or other conifers; and 

the lack of managed fire. A CE for certain prescriptive management techniques on USFS lands such as 

manual cutting and removal of conifers, prescribed fire , and other techniques will greatly enhance and 

expand quality sagebrush steppe habitat, helping to preclude the need to list species under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) by providing the life needs and habitat requirements for these species. The NWTF 

strongly supports affirmation of this CE in statute. 

The NWTF strongly supports the CE for early successional forest habitat. Forest diversity at the 

landscape level is the key to proper management to achieve wildlife species diversity and robustness. 

Active management creates young forest habitat, which provides adequate food sources, nesting habitat, 

and shelter for forest wildlife. We are losing this diversity throughout the United States on a landscapelevel scale, in many cases because our forests have become homogenized and over-mature. The USFS has 

not been able to meet its' targets for early forest successional habitat, estimating that 65-82 million acres 

of National Forest habitat is in need of restoration. The USFS has recognized the need for young forest 

habitat and has allocated funding and guidance to provide such habitat for threatened, endangered or atrisk species such as the golden-winged warbler, gopher tortoise, red cockaded woodpecker, and New 

England cottontail. However, studies have estimated that populations of 59% of the bird species that are 

dependent on early forest successional habitat have declined over the last 2 decades. Ruffed grouse have 

been nearly extirpated from many parts of their range due to the lack of active forest management, and 

wild turkey populations have declined by about 15% in the last decade, due in part to a lack of this habitat 

type. The NWTF strongly supports affirmation of this CE in statute. 

The NWTF prefers that the application of a certain CE be tied to meeting the future desired condition of 

the habitat for wildlife, regardless of acreage. We do believe the acreage limits provide assurance that the 

actions will not be over-utilized. Additionally, it is important to understand that USFS forest 

management plans do not allow for forest management treatments to improve wildlife habitat of the size 

contemplated in some of the bill provisions. The most likely management scenario is several smaller 

blocks of timber harvest would make up an aggregate CE of accumulated acreage for this management 

protocol. While the NWTF is supportive of the proposed CE acreage caps, we believe that the acreage 

limits are secondary to providing the ability for more young forest habitat to be created in a timely 

manner and at a scale that is meaningful to the dependent wildlife species. 

Title l of the bill is a common-sense, bipartisan supported remedy to the Cottonwood decision which has 

ground timber harvest to a halt in the Upper Rocky Mountain West USFS region. Both the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration argued that if 

additional species are listed or additional acres of critical habitat are designated in an already approved 

Forest Plan (FP) or Resource Management Plan (RMP), only that newly listed species, and those new 

acres, are subject to a section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. The NWTF agrees with 

this opinion. Litigants argued, and the federal court supported, that the entire FP or RMP must be 
92 


29916.073

reviewed again under a section 7 consultation. The NWTF strongly supports Title I of the Discussion 

draft which remedies the unnecessary process required by the Cottonwood decision. 

The NWTF supports the provision of the Discussion Draft that expedites NEP A review of forest projects 

by limiting review to the action and no-action alternatives. The USFS is increasing its' use of 

collaborative-developed projects which bring together interested parties around the spectrum, from 

environmentalists to mill owners, to thoroughly deliberate and draft a science-based forest management 

project that achieves the desired wildlife conservation, forest restoration, outdoor recreation and other 

multiple-use objectives desired under the Forest Plan. The process is exhaustive in considering all 

options, often takes years to complete, and it makes sense that the NEPA review should consider only the 

option of the selected action of the proposed project compared with the consequences of taking no action. 

Requiring a NEPA review of all options alternative to the option selected inordinately delays project 

implementation, and invites litigation that compels the courts to deliberate over an option that has already 

been thoroughly considered and rejected. The NWTF strongly endorses this expedited NEPA review 

process. 

The NWTF welcomes the provision of a pilot program offering binding arbitration as an altemative to 

litigation. The loss of years of effort, and the delays in implementation of conservation actions under an 

approved forest project, from frivolous lawsuits has significantly contributed to increasing fuel loads and 

greater risks of catastrophic fire; additional species listings under the ESA, some of which may have been 

avoided by timely implementation of habitat improvements to address the life needs and habitat 

requirements of species known to be in decline; and failure to provide recreational access to our federal 

forests. As an example, in Region I of the USFS, 5.8 million board feet of timber have been withheld 

from harvest as a result of litigation just this year. This cries out for a remedy that is altemative to 

litigation so that we can manage the forests, rather than the forests managing us, as we see with the 

current wildfire situation. The NWTF strongly supports the pilot program of binding arbitration as an 

alternative to litigation while continuing to provide public challenge of decisions. This will greatly 

expedite the process so that the important management of our forests can be implemented. 

The National Wild Turkey Federation generally supports the language in section 313 to allow a 

percentage of the gross receipts in stewardship contracting projects to be paid to the counties. We 

understand the budget concerns facing counties and certainly don't have all the answers for how to 

replace lost timber revenue to counties due to lack harvest. That said, we recognize that not treating 

timber revenues generated from Integrated Resource Timber or Service Contracts the same as regular 

timber sales has led to unintended consequences on county budgets. As one of the larger users of 

Stewardship Contracting Authorities, we believe this change will remove one impediment to using 

Stewardship Contracting Authorities and help garner and/or maintain support for the Authority. 

The National Wild Turkey Federation is, however, concerned that paying a portion of the gross 

receipts to counties could negatively impact the outcomes and/or willingness of partners to enter into 

Stewardship Agreements with the USFS. Stewardship Agreements, a specific type of project 

authorized under the Stewardship Contracting Authorities, are uniquely different from Integrated 

Resource Timber or Service Contracts. Stewardship Agreements, unlike Stewardship Contracts, are 

awarded via a non-competitive process, require mutual benefit and mutual interest, and the partner is 

required to contribute a minimum of20% matching funds in order to expand the scope and scale of the 

project. Stewardship Agreements are often applied in situations with limited timber value, in places 

where there aren't viable markets, or where the U.S. Forest Service lacks capacity to administer or 

implement the project. As a result, the partner's match is required to make the project feasible and to 

enable the timber harvest and related wildlife/habitat service work to be completed. The NWTF has 

partnered with the USFS on over 100 stewardship contracts and agreements. We have seen firsthand how 

our match was used to expand the scope/scale of the project beyond what would have been possible via a 
93 


29916.074

regular timber sale or Stewardship Contract. Diverting a portion of the gross timber receipts to the 

counties, would decrease the dollars available for on-the-ground work and place a disproportionate strain 

on the partner match. For these reasons the NWTF suggests that payments to counties be incorporated 

into the Integrated Resource Timber or Service Contracts but not into Stewardship Agreements. 

Thank you very much for consideration of the NWTF perspectives on the Discussion Draft which we 

strongly support. The NWTF stands ready to work with the Committee to report out a bill with robust 

bipartisan support. 

Sincerely, 

Rebecca 

~c~ A. Humphries 

Chief Executive Officer 
94 


29916.075

October 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & 

Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & 

Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

This year in Oregon, wildfires consumed more than 600,000 acres, impacting timber 

and grazing resources, fish and wildlife habitat, a National Scenic Area, private homes 

and public health. Majority of the of these fires started on federal land, where they were 

allowed to become established and spread. Attached is an Oregon Department of 

Forestry map highlighting the fires across our state. 

Nationally, 8.5 million acres have already burned this year, and the devastating fires in 

California continue to be front page news. It is time for Congress to reform the federal 

forest management policies that allow for overstocked and unhealthy federal forests. 

We appreciate your Committee's actions to focus on Federal land management. We are 

supportive of the concepts in the staff draft under consideration this week. We see this 

concept as the first step in bipartisan negotiations for meaningful federal forest reforms. 

In the West, litigation of public land management has become a barrier in land 

management objectives. We believe the language in the draft will give projects 

increased certainty and relief from crippling litigation. The draft expedites NEPA 

analysis while preserving public input and involvement. 

The categorical exclusion for certain sage grouse and mule deer habitat vegetation 

projects is important to our membership. The State of Oregon and our ranching 

community has committed significant resources to support voluntary habitat projects on 

both public and private land. The provisions in this legislation are important to continue 

to encourage these projects. 

The projects promoted in the draft to reduce fuels are critical to the future of our public 

forests and rangelands. These lands cannot withstand the continued catastrophic fires 

that overloading and mismanagement produces. Additionally, the expanded categorical 
95 


29916.076

exclusions for insect and disease are an important element in achieving appropriate 

management objectives. 

Many of the elements of the draft are needed to improve conditions on Bureau of Land 

Management lands, which are a significant portion of Western forests. 

Our organizations appreciate the Committee's efforts to address needed changes in 

Federal forest management. The concepts in the staff draft are important elements in 

improving forest health and communities surrounding public lands. 

Sincerely, 

Katie Fast 

Oregonians for Food & Shelter 

Barry Bushue 

Oregon Farm Bureau 

Jerome Rosa 

Oregon Cattlemen's Association 
96 


29916.077
97 


29916.078

October 25, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, MD 

Chairman 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

US Senate 

410 Senate Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment & Public Works Committee 

US Senate 

456 Senate Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ( RMEF) stands in full support of the comprehensive 

legislation before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee to expedite forest 

management activities on public lands, discourage litigation that has needlessly stopped 

necessary forest management projects and improve habitat for greater sage grouse and mule deer. 

RMEF is a national sportsmen and conservation organization based in Missoula, MT with over 

222,000 members and 11,000 volunteers nationwide. Our mission is to ensure the future of elk, 

other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage. One of our core functions is to partner with 

state and federal land and wildlife management agencies to secure and improve habitat for elk 

and other wildlife. Our resources and volunteers have helped conserve more than 7.1 million 

acres for elk and other wildlife. One of our proudest accomplishments is our managed lands 

initiative, which has utilized forest thinning, prescribed burning, noxious weed control, aspen 

restoration and wildlife water source development to improve habitat across 28 states. We have 

completed more than 4,000 ofthese projects with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management and state wildlife agencies. 

Our experience with our managed lands initiative has solidified our beliefthat federal public 

lands, outside of national parks and wilderness areas, should be actively managed to benefit 

wildlife habitat, mitigate wildfire, improve forest and rangeland health, and improve the 

economies of forest and rangeland dependent communities. Unfortunately, numerous federal 

land management agency projects-including some of our partnership projects--have been 

needlessly delayed or stopped altogether by baseless litigation brought by organizations with no 

incentive to benefit public lands or wildlife, but rather only to impede the process and have their 

attorney fees be reimbursed from the U.S. Treasury. 

It's time to stop the frivolous litigation, inefficient and ineffective environmental review process 

and lack of common sense that has left our national forests with record high acreages of 
98 


29916.079

dead standing timber, record high numbers of catastrophic wildfires and acreage burned, 

degraded wildlife habitat and decimated local economies. It's well past time to pass this 

legislation to give federal land management agencies and their state, nonprofit organizations and 

industry partners a chance to implement projects to improve forest health, wildlife habitat and 

local economies while mitigating catastrophic wildfire. 

We offer the following comments about specific sections ofthis bill. 

1} Title 1. Litigation Relieffor Forest Management Projects. This Title directly 

addresses the 2015 case, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest 

Service, 789 F 3d 1 075 (9'h Cir. 20 15}, that required federal land management agencies to 

initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at the programmatic level 

when new critical habitat is designated or a new species is listed. The impact of this 

decision is significant. Nearly every agency decision or project, whether or not it 

included any ground disturbance, would require consultation and result in delays and 

increased costs. RMEF strongly supported stand-alone legislation to overturn this ruling 

and remains in support ofthis provision. 

2} Title II. Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration. The 

threats to greater sage-grouse and mule deer habitat are well-established. Among these 

are encroachment of conifers, invasive vegetation, wildfire, and soil and water 

degradation. Federal land management agencies have been prevented by litigation and 

obstructions to the environmental review process from carrying out projects to address 

these threats. This Title would establish a categorical exclusion to expedite projects to 

improve sage-grouse and mule deer habitat as well as require development of long-term 

monitoring and maintenance plans to ensure their effectiveness. Studies demonstrate over 

40 million acres support both sage grouse and elk habitat. Any on-the-ground 

improvements to benelit sage grouse and mule deer will also benefit elk. 

3} Title III. Forest Management Improvement. Lack of active forest management has 

created a situation on significant acreages throughout the National Forest System where 

once diverse ecosystems have become monocultures of diseased and dead timber, ripe for 

catastrophic wildfire. Elk and other wildlife cannot thrive in these areas. They require a 

diversity of forest stands, in terms of age, species and canopy cover. 

This Title will help federal land management agencies overcome needless delays in the 

environmental review process by creating an ''action-no action alternative" that will 

ensure a project's potential impacts on forest health, habitat diversity, wildfire, insects 

and disease, water quality and economic and social factors are thoroughly evaluated 

without delay. Another beneficial feature of this Title is coordination of Good Neighbor 

Authority between the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. This program has 
99 


29916.080

been significantly beneficial for projects involving cooperative partnerships between 

federal and state land management agencies. This Title also makes improvements to the 

Forest Service's Stewardship Contracting program by keeping a percentage of the gross 

project receipts in local communities to help retain existing wood products 

infrastructure-which is critical for accomplishing wildlife habitat projects. 

RMEF also supports this Title's establishment of a 5-year pilot arbitration program to 

provide an alternative to litigation. We believe this program will demonstrate there will 

be ample time and opportunity for all parties interested in a project to make sure their 

concerns arc addressed completely and expeditiously. 

This Title's Ecosystem Restoration section is critical to help federal land management 

agencies address the significant challenges they face in trying to restore forest health and 

make forests more resilient. These challenges cannot be met without implementation of 

timber harvesting, including thinning and creation of openings, prescribed fire, insect and 

disease treatments, hazardous fuel load reductions, timber salvage and a variety of 

vegetation manipulation tactics. This Title establishes minimum targets for restoration 

treatment on the National Forest System and categorical exclusions to get them done. 

Perhaps the most important section of this Title from RMEF' s perspective, is 

establishment of the categorical exclusion to meet forest plan goals for early sera! and 

early successional forests. These forest types are critical for elk and a wide diversity of 

other wildlife. 

We encourage the members of the Committee to approve this important legislation and thank 

you for the opportunity to submit comments. 

David Allen 

President & CEO 
100 


29916.081

Testimony of Brent A. Rudolph, Ph.D., National Director of Conservation Policy 

Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society 

To the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing ou the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of2017 

Wednesday, October 25,2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

regarding the critical need to facilitate scientific management of our nation's forests. Preventing 

and mitigating impacts on human life, property, and the health of our environment and natural 

resources all stand to benefit from common-sense steps your committee can advance. The Ruffed 

Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society (RGS/A WS) greatly appreciate your attention 

to this issue. 

The Ruffed Grouse Society was established in 1961. With the formation of our sister 

organization the American Woodcock Society in 2014, we have continued to grow the 

organization and broaden public awareness of the important conservation work in which we have 

engaged for over 50 years. We have a simple mission- commitment to sustaining healthy 

forests, abundant wildlife, and sporting traditions. We pursue this mission by working with 

private landowners and government agencies at all levels to utilize scientific management 

practices to develop critical forest habitat. 

RGS/A WS express our deepest gratitude for the women and men that put their lives on the lineparticularly to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice protecting lives and property of 

other while working to contain the conflagrations so devastating to western states in recent years. 

It is understandable that your committee would wish to focus on efforts at forest management 

reform most likely to prevent future catastrophic wildfires and their tragic consequences. At the 

same time, these efforts can address the dramatic impacts on forest habitat and wildlife that have 

accumulated across the entire National Forest system. While attention is being given to the dire 

need to revise the system for funding catastrophic wildlife response, actions are needed to 

provide practical approaches for land managers to proactively restore forest health. 

I. The Overdue Need for Action 

Scientifically sound forest management does not happen without careful planning and execution, 

and does not happen overnight. Like any natural system, forests are dynamic, and successful 

management requires both planning and adaptation. The direct impacts of wildfire have been 

most pronounced in the western U.S., but the depletion of budgets through "fire borrowing" and 

a 39% decrease in staff positions that work to manage National Forest System lands in favor of 

fire personnel have had widespread impacts.; Costly and cumbersome processes and serial 
101 


29916.082

litigation have further burdened the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and stifled responsible, scientific 

forest management across the nation. 

The inability to actively manage our National Forests has produced a loss of age diversity in 

forest regions far removed from the most dramatic and direct wildfire impacts. The National 

Forests in the Eastern and Southern Regions of the USFS have seen nearly a 50% decrease in 

young forest stands, and substantial increases in the oldest classes of greater than 80 years of age 

over approximately the past decade and a half. This aging of the forests has been counter to the 

forest plans that were developed across all eastern National Forests (USFS Regions 8 and 9) by 

resource management staff with substantial public input. Data indicate that the even age habitat 

treatments needed to regenerate these young forests have been accomplished on average over 

only 24% of the acreage needed to meet minimum goal treatment levels established in forest 

management plans.i• These impacts are felt in combination with the increased fragmentation, 

parcelization, and loss of active forest management on private lands. As a result, population 

declines since 1980 have been documented among 53% of the bird species that breed in shrubdominated or young forest habitats across in the eastern United States and Canada. ii• Over the 

same regions and time period, declines have been documented among just 34% of those bird 

species that breed in mature forests. 

In the face of the numerous interacting factors driving the increased occurrence of catastrophic 

wildfire seasons, reforms must continue to provide important environmental safeguards while 

proactively rejuvenating forest health and exerting what control we art~ able to have to curb 

future fires. Without action, this widespread decline of healthy forest habitats and associated 

wildlife species will also continue to occur. RGS/ A WS strongly support the Discussion Draft of 

the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of2017 that includes several important measures to 

address these dilemmas. 

II. Facilitating More Efficient Management Dispute Resolution 

It is critical to maintain the opportunity for citizens, communities, and organizations to hold 

USFS managers accountable to their obligation for responsibly carrying out their multiple-use 

mission on National Forest lands. For this reason, RGS/A WS support the steps the Wildfire 

Prevention and Mitigation Act would take to establish a pilot program to evaluate the 

effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In recent decades, USFS has faced an 

average of more than 56 lawsuits filed per year. IV These lawsuits delay and disrupt active 

management even though (as litigants are well aware) USFS prevailed in nearly two of every 

three (64.0%) cases decided by judges. Over 40% of USFS lawsuits are brought to halt 

vegetative management, and the even-age forest management practices that are critical to 

provide habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, golden-winged warblers, and many other 

declining game and nongame young forest species have been hardest hit. This serial litigation 

(and aversion to prompting even more) has allowed entities opposed to all forest treatments to 

effectively high jack management through legal manipulation rather than based on substantive 

resource management problems. 

2 
102 


29916.083

The arbitration process the Discussion Draft would establish eliminates the proposal included in 

a prior bill to require plaintiff:~ to post a bond. The process would also allow qualified arbitrators 

to decide in favor of a Secretary-approved restoration project, an alternative proposal submitted 

by the objector, or reject both proposals. This approach represents an important compromise to 

promote management accountability without allowing excessive litigation to continue to 

preoccupy management and the courts. 

Depleted budgets and staff are further burdened by excessive and costly analysis requirements. 

More than 40% of the time ofUSFS employees at the National Forest level is spent conducting 

planning and analysis, slowing the pace at which they can accomplish actual restoration and 

management to benefit the resources for which they are responsible.v The Wildfire Prevention 

and Mitigation Act would focus the conservation benefits of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

by ensuring consultation occurs on any listed endangered species during creation of forest 

management plans, and then allow those plans which require a considerable level of effort and 

public engagement in addition to any consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service- to 

continue to provide broad management guidance. Future consultation on any species listed or 

critical habitat designated at the time of plan completion or at any future date would still be 

required at the project level. This is appropriate, given these project decisions regarding on-theground actions are those with the potential "to jeopardize the continued existence"vi of a listed 

species, unlike the broad guidance provided by management plans that do not directly authorize 

or commit to specific management actions. The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act would 

eliminate one cause of growing frustration with the ESA and maintain ESA benefits for 

endangered species while preventing courts and litigation from forcing full plan-level ESA 

consultation that delays rather than benefits conservation. 

III. Further Consideration of Categorical Exclusions and Stewardship Contracting 

Revisions 

The creation of categorical exclusions for managing early sera! or early successional forest, 

improvement of wildlife habitat, and for insect and disease infestation represents important 

consideration of the need to restore wildlife habitat and resilience of our National Forests. 

Several recent bills have explored similar approaches to facilitate larger projects to help achieve 

landscape-level restoration, and the acreage limits the Discussion Draft proposes for categorical 

exclusions are not the largest that have been proposed. Some critics of creating additional and/or 

larger categorical exclusions argue against further expansion given the existing USFS authority 

has not been used to the extent possible. The reasons for this limited use likely vary regionally, 

including that management in general has been stifled by the funding and other bureaucratic 

problems noted herein, public opposition to large projects in some regions, and that some areas 

require restoration work on an even larger scale such that existing categorical exclusion authority 

provides insufficient benefits. However justified the facilitation of these larger-scale projects 

may be, it is more important to find agreement and bipartisan support for moving forward with 

3 
103 


29916.084

facilitation of restoration than to pursue additional and larger categorical exclusions if sufficient 

support is lacking. 

The Discussion Draft would also modifY Stewardship End Result Contracting to require 25% of 

any gross receipts from a project be disbursed to the county in which the project is located. 

Stewardship Contracting projects are currently allowed to direct all such revenue back into 

additional local project expenditures without appropriation. This change would bring the 

Stewardship Contracting program in line with the 25% allocation made to counties for other 

timber harvesting activities on federal lands. This would address what in some areas has been a 

perception that federal and other public lands do not adequately support local schools and other 

services, and address the decline in timber revenue in counties where harvest overall has been 

lagging. 

However, we caution against eroding capacity to implement Stewardship Agreements- a 

specific type of project also authorized under the Stewardship Contracting Authorities. 

Stewardship Agreements, unlike Stewardship Contracts, are awarded non-competitively, with 

partners required to contribute a minimum of20% matching funds. By finding compatible, 

willing partnerships and leveraging matching funds, Stewardship Agreements can accomplish 

habitat management through projects where timber of limited value requires harvest, where there 

are no viable markets, or where USFS staff have limited capacity to administer contracts and 

projects. RGS/ A WS have made use of Stewardship Agreements to facilitate non-commercial 

treatments to achieve land management goals for the national forests aligned with RGS/ A WS 

priorities that also meet local and rural community needs. Local communities already stand to 

benefit from employment opportunities created and outcomes produced by such agreements, and 

thus a case can be made that it would be preferable to continue to allow (though certainly not 

require) reinvestment of gross receipts into furthering the impact of projects except in cases 

where direct sharing would be critical to gain local support. 

IV. Conclusion 

With catastrophic wildfires again producing dire impacts in the west, the public will look to their 

leaders for action. Active forest management represents the best short-term proactive approach to 

address some of the factors likely to continue to drive future dramatic conflagrations. Evidence 

shows that the lack of and opportunities to proactively engage in scientific forest management. 

The resulting widespread and lasting impacts on forest health and wildlife habitat present 

entirely different but also quite crucial considerations. The actions before you represent 

important steps to ensure resource managers and partners can appropriately apply tools for both 

fire prevention and conservation. Small compromises to achieve the necessary support for 

advancing these efforts would be well worth the time invested, and have positive impacts on our 

public trust resources for generations to come. 

RGS/A WS will continue to work towards sustaining healthy forests, abundant wildlife, and 

sporting traditions, but your action can aid the efficiency and effectiveness of reaching these 

4 
104 


29916.085

goals. Thank you very much for your attention to this issue and for the opportunity to share our 

perspective. We will happily address any questions you have to aid in these important 

deliberations. 

i USDA Forest Service. 2015. The Rising Cost of Fire Operations: Effects on the Forest 

Service's Non Fire Work. 

ii Petition for Rulemaking re: Implementation of Management Measures to Maintain the Viability 

of Early Successional Forest Habitats and Associated Wildlife on National Forests in Regions 8 

and 9- filed April 30,2015, by the Ruffed Grouse Society Before the Secretary of the United 

States Department of Agriculture and the Chief of the United States Forest Service. 

in Dessecker, D. R., et al. 2007. Ruffed Grouse Conservation Plan Executive Report. 

•v Miner, A.M. A., et al. 2014. Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation. 

Journal of Forestry 112(1):32-40. 

v USDA Forest Service. 2002. The Process Predicament: How Statutory, Regulatory, and 

Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management. 

vi 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) 

*** 

Established in 1961, the Ruffed Grouse Society/American Woodcock Society is North America's 

foremost conservation organization dedicated to preserving our sporting traditions by creating 

healthy forest habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock and other wildlife. RGSIAWS works 

with landowners and government agencies to develop critical habitat utilizing scientific 

management practices. 

RGSIAWS is designated as a Charizy Navigator Four-Star charity, for recognition as a 

financially healthy, accountable, and transparent organization. Information on RGSIAWS, its 

mission, management projects and membership can be found on the web at: 

l!'l':"tllldi!!A0J:!J.l!·":S!Ji'ietv.org. 

5 
105 


29916.086

TESTIMONY 

Presented to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

by 

Ken Hamilton. E.V.P. 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

RE: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 

Distinguished members of the Committee; the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation would like to provide 

comments on the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 being considered by this Committee. 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation represents over 2.600 farmers and ranchers within the state of 

Wyoming as well as approximately 11,000 associate members who have an interest in a strong 

agricultural sector. Our agricultural members are family ranchers and farmers who utilize private and 

federal land to produce food and fiber utilized by the citizens in this nation. 

Wyoming's land ownership is a mixture of private lands and tederallands. The eastern side of our state 

is predominately (approximately 50 percent) private lands with smaller in-holdings offederally 

managed lands. On the western side the pattern reverses itself with more federal lands and the private 

lands along water sources. These water sources can be utilized to grow livestock feed during the short 

growing season which is used to support aud supplement forage consumed on federal lands through 

Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing. Generally speaking the private 

irrigated areas have greater amounts of forage per acre than the federal lands. Roughly 48 percent of 

Wyoming's surface estate is managed by the FS or BLM. Private and federal land in the western half is 

intermingled. Both livestock and wildlife utilize these lands with the private lands providing important 

forage sources during winter months. 

Wildfire prevention and mitigation are important for both private and federal lands. Wildfires have no 

respect of property lines. Efforts to mitigate fuel buildups help reduce resource damages by tires and 

benefit both private and federal lands. 

Fire can be used as a tool to reduce fuel loads in forests, but it is a dangerous tool which frequently 

grows beyond it's intended purpose. Less volatile tools are needed which are easier to control. 

Unfortunately, the use of these tools are restricted by litigation an issue this bill seeks to address. 

Both the FS and BLM are beset with "paralysis by analysis", but the FS has been particularly subject to 

this problem. Revitalizing and implementing tools which can help alleviate wildfire potential, enhance 

wildlite habitat, protect private property and reduce costs associated with wildfire control makes sense. 
106 


29916.087

The need for a federal land management agency to respond to natural disasters is paramount. Often 

times the window for measures to be taken by private industry in order to mitigate or enhance our 

landscapes after a significant event, such as a bark beetle epidemic, or high altitude tornado, is short. 

This is where the paralysis by analysis works against good management practices. In Wyoming we've 

seen hundreds of thousands of acres of trees killed by bark beetles. This has resulted in many of those 

areas becoming unusable for many previous uses such as recreation, hunting or hiking. It has increased 

the danger to livestock which can utilize the ti·inges of these areas. Many of these trees which could 

have been utilized by the private sector, if they had been harvested shortly after they were killed. 

Unfortunately, the window for this was a narrow two to three year period before the trees began to rot 

to the extent they could not be useful. Delays in implementing salvage timber sales has resulted in very 

few of these dead tree's being used. 

Once the trees begin to rot there are basically two outcomes. The first would be catastrophic fires. The 

impacts on the environment , adjacent communities and users from this outcome can be significant. 

The second outcome is trees decomposing to the extent they fall into an impenetrable mass which will 

ensure many wildlife species cannot utilize these areas as they have in the past. In arid areas like 

Wyoming it will take decades, if not centuries, for these trees to decompose enough for these areas to 

once again be utilized by wildlife. 

In the case of the first alternative, wildfire; being able to respond with effective habitat restoration 

efforts can prevent future problems. This same ability to respond in the forests is also necessary on 

range lands. After any fire on both forest and range lands, the concern of invasive species invasion is a 

manager's greatest fear. Being able to effectively, efficiently and proactively address these possible 

invasions is paramount in ensuring we have a recovered landscape that supports natural species. If not 

we risk having a landscape that is a natural species desert. 

On range lands, the prime example of this is invasion by a non-native grass we call cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum) which has taken over millions of acres in the Great Basin region of the western U.S. This 

species has created its own ecosystem, which in turn has impacted the Greater Sage-grouse and other 

native species. 

Addressing these problems- particularly after a fire, requires quick action. The cost of addressing 

these problems can be significant too. Therefore, anything which will reduce those costs can only 

result in more acres being treated in a more timely fashion. 

What are some of these actions which can help? 

Utilization of a Categorical Exclusion, or CE, on those actions would provide a faster beginning for 

mitigation measures. In areas where CEs are not appropriate, utilization of Environmental Assessments 

or EAs would be beneficial. The appeals process which has beset NEPA documentation has been a 

major contributor to the paralysis by analysis syndrome. A mechanism to allow for quicker action is 

sorely needed. Whether an arbitration process is the answer is difficult to assess, but the conditions of 

million's of acres of federal lands argue that some solution must be sought. This may be the answer, or 

it may not, but something has to be tried. 

Ability to access impacted areas. In areas where access to perform mechanical treatments is important, 

adequate roads to get access to those areas will contribute to decreased costs and greater efficiency. 

More dollars to more environmental enhancements will help mitigate the impacts. 
107 


29916.088

Because of the scale of the problem, cost effective processes need to be used. No one tool will address 

the problem. There are very few silver bullets, if any, which can be utilized in this process. Both the 

BLM and FS are limited by their ability to address problems because of budget constraints. 

Vegetative manipulation needs to be utilized, not only on areas which have had a catastrophic event, 

but more importantly, in areas which haven't had a catastrophic event. 

An Associated Press article in the Casper Star-Tribune on Sunday, October 22 talks about a process 

which has been utilized in Oregon in timbered country, where groups representing various interests 

came up with a process to thin and remove brush mechanically which saved homes from wildfires (see 

Casper Star-Tribune, October 22, 20 I 7 page C4 "Project saved homes from fires, but can it be 

duplicated?''). 

The size of these problems will only grow if actions aren't taken today to address them. Costs continue 

to escalate. leading to fewer feasable solutions to on-the-ground problems. Our members, who use 

these areas, are directly and increasingly impacted when these problems are not addressed. 

In conclusion we urge the Committee to support these efforts. Time is not our friend when it comes to 

addressing these issues, so action to seek solutions is critical. Action to address the problems is even 

more critical- one which Congress can address by this proposed legislation. 

Thank you for the consideration of our comments. 
108 


29916.089

Adam Tmpp, Chief Executive Officer 

adam@uacnet.org 

The UnifYing Voice for County Government 

Celeste Maloy, Policy Advisor on Public Lands 

and Intergovernmental Relations 

celeste@uacnet. org 

5397South Vine Street, Murray, UT84107 Phone: (801)265-!331 Fax: (801) 265-9485 

Chairman John Barrasso 

U.S, Senate Committee on Enviromnent and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Otlice Building 

Washir1gton, DC 20510-6175 

RE: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of20l7 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

October 20, 2017 

The Utah Association of Counties supports the Wildfire Prevention and Act of 

2017 because it provides flexibility and good management policy to public forest management. 

We believe that good forest management is driven by scientific data and credible economic 

study. Lawsuits have dictated too much forest mMagement policy in recent decades. Our 

counties applaud the t1exibi!ity the bill provides in managing habitat for wildlife species that are 

under the state's jurisdiction. Flexibility and science should be the backbone of management. 

Utah's counties have long been calling for forest management that will protect otu· 

communities from catastrophic wildfires. We have watched in bewilderment as trees killed by 

insects and disease were protected from logging by lawsuits. We predicted hazardous fire 

conditions dead timber wasn't removed. For decades we have clamored for better 

management that would allow the harvest of dead trees. We all knew that removing the trees 

would be beneficial to our economies as well as forest health. We all knew that if a fire ever 

caught in the dead timber, it would be difficult to controL Despite the obvious nature of the 

threat, the dead timber bas remained on our mountains. This year we have had the enormous fires 

that have long been predicted. 

The Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 would prevent the repetition of the 

mistakes that led to the tragic 2017 wild fire season. We support the bill because it will limit the 

management by lawsuit so that forests can be managed with best practices. We also support the 

bill because it allows a more efficient decision making process for proven management practices 

that urgently need to be implemented. Finally, we support the bill because it protects the 

sustainability of the wildlife and vegetation that make up our public forests. 

Sincerely, 

Public Lands Policy Advisor 
109 


29916.090

October 23, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

like many American's our thoughts are with the people and communities that have been struck by one 

of the nation's most catastrophic wildfire seasons. We appreciate Congress' interest in improving the 

health of our nation's forests and agree that addressing this issue is of critical importance. As entities 

responsible for delivering sustainable water supply and renewable hydropower for millions of citizens 

throughout the Western U.S., we are writing in support of the need to pass, this year, comprehensive 

legislation providing meaningful forest management and wildfire funding reforms. 

National Forest lands are the largest single source of water in the U.S. and in some regions of the west 

contribute nearly SO% of the overall water supply that supports our farms and cities. The current, 

unhealthy state of these forests, which contain some of the nation's most valuable watersheds, 

increases the threat of catastrophic wildfires. These high intensity wildfires jeopardize the reliability, 

volume and quality of water for tens of millions of Americans, along with the wildlife, recreational, and 

multi-purpose value of these lands. 

We support reforms that enable collaborative, active forest management, streamline the environmental 

review process, address the unsustainable practice of fire borrowing, and provide an alternative to the 

current unworkable litigation process. We believe it is critical that both forest management reforms and 

resolution of the fire borrowing issue are addressed in any legislation to ensure on-the-ground forest 

restoration activities can proceed at the pace and scale of the problem. We recognize and appreciate 

that these elements are addressed in the draft Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017. We 

support the need for the forest management and ecosystem restoration activities identified in this 

legislation and encourage the Committee to continue this laudable effort. 

We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and urge prompt passage of comprehensive 

wildfire funding and management legislation to protect our nation's vital watersheds. 

Sincerely, 

National Water Resources Association 

Agribusiness and Water Council of Arizona 

Association of California Water Agencies 
110 


29916.091

Colorado River Water Conservation District 

Placer County Water Agency 

Salt River Project 

South Tahoe Public Utility District 
111 


29916.092

conserving natural resources 

(nilr'· 

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

517 E. 19th Street- Cheyenne, WY 82001 -Phone: 307-632-5716- Fax: 307-638-4099 

www.conservewy.com 

October 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chair & The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, Ranking Member 

US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6! 75 

RE: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Committee Members, 

On behalf of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, thank you for considering legislation 

that will allow our natural resources and wildlife habitat to be managed in a responsible and responsive 

manner by reducing the continued threat of litigation. 

Wyoming's 34 local conservation districts are statutorily charged with natural resource conservation, 

including water, soil, and range and wildlife habitat. §§ ll-16-101 et. seq. Further, the conservation 

districts participate, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, as cooperating agencies and 

partners with our federal land management agencies both a Forest and Resource Management Planning 

level as well as the project level. We are the boots on the ground working with our state and federal land 

managers to ensure a healthy resilient natural resource base that provides economic opportunity and 

quality of life values that our state enjoys and relies upon. 

Specifically, the Association believes that Title I will allow our land managers, after extensive planning 

and coordination that occurs throughout the planning process, are able to move forward with on-theground resource enhancement and improvement projects. These provisions in some aspect mirror the 

agreement between the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the USDA Natural Resource Conservation 

Service in tenns of advance recognition of the benefits of land management practices to species 

conservation allowing private landowners to move forward without extensive consultation and delays. It 

is a relationship that has worked and worked well. 

The Association supports as well the intent of Section II in terms of allowing management and treatments 

of invasive and other threats to Sage Grouse and Mule Deer habitats to occur without the lengthy, often 

detrimental delays often encountered as a result of litigation. Invasive species impact's to habitat is one of 

the US Fish & Wildlife Service's identified threats to Sage Grouse habitat. Specifically, Cheat Grass 

management is paramount not only to providing healthy habitats for Sage Grouse but many other species 

as well. Successful management requires timeliness, adaptability and flexibility. Providing the ability to 

implement in this manner will allow the land management agencies to proactively manage the resource 

rather than wait until infestations have decimated habitat conditions. The Association believes further 

conversations and language to ensure that certain provisions of this section do not become abused, such as 
112 


29916.093

Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of201712 

October 24, 2017; WACO Comments 

eliminating certain land use activities such as grazing. Some additional sideboards to this section are 

recommended to guard against that potential. 

Section Ill of the draft contains measures absolutely imperative to advancing preventative treatment of 

our forest lands. to advance healthy forests. protect against catastrophic wildfires and protect those 

watersheds upon which our communities and citizens depend for their water supplies. An example of just 

how successful these types of proactive management measures are is the Northeast Wyoming Forest 

Resilience partnership in the Black Hills area of Wyoming. Work between local. state. federal and private 

industry and landowners. has resulted in positive impacts to forest health through management of Pine 

Beetle infestations. The results speak for themselves. Where there would otherwise be a red dead and 

dying forest susceptible to catastrophic wildfire and threatening habitats and watershed health. there is 

rather a reduced level of pine beetle devastation in comparison to other forests. 

The Association urges the Committee to advance the legislation and provide our federal agency partners 

with the tools necessary to manage our forest resources. wildlife habitat and enhance collaborative 

resource management opportunities. Increasing certainty will go to great lengths warding off catastrophic 

fires and helps ensure a health forest, maintain viable wildlife habitats and protect our very critical 

watersheds and water supplies. 

Sincerely. 

Bobbie K. Frank 

Executive Director 
113 


29916.094

811 N. GlENN ROAD e CASPER, WYOMING 82601 e PHONE (307) 265-5250 e FAX {307) 234-9701 

WWW.WYOWOOL.COM • wyowool@wyowool.org 

Executive Director: Amy W. Hendrickson 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

October 24, 2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of Committee: 

On behalf of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association (WWGA), we wish to lend our support for the proposed 

Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act. We appreciate this opportunity to share our views on this important 

legislation. 

Founded in 1905, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association is one of the oldest livestock producer associations in 

Wyoming. We advocate for sheep and livestock producers throughout the state and for the businesses, 

communities, and families that support the agricultural industry in Wyoming. Wildfire presents a tremendous 

threat to our members and their communities, and to the land and wildlife that surround them. Unfortunately, 

current federal land management policies often hinder, more than help, the effort to prevent, reduce and mitigate 

wildfire risk. We welcome this legislation and the Congressional recognition it represents that policy changes are 

needed to adequately address the increasing threat of wildfire in our country. 

After careful examination and study of the provisions in this proposed bill, we believe it will help our federal land 

management agencies in their efforts to prevent and mitigate wildfire on public lands. We believe the bill 

provides increased flexibility and options to federal land managers and unlocks a variety of proven wildfire 

prevention and mitigation tools and approaches, such as reducing fuel loads through livestock grazing or forest 

thinning, removing trees that are dead or dying from insect infestation and controlling rampant expansion of 

undesirable plant species. Central to this are the provisions for categorical exclusions for covered vegetative 

management activities. This policy will encourage federal agencies to utilize a variety of tools to manage lands 

with the goal of reducing wildfire risk. Further, the bill contains provisions that lessen administrative burdens on 

land management agencies, which have often been the root of litigation and a restriction on the ability of agencies 

to manage effectively, These provisions are key policy changes that we support. 

The Wyoming Wool Growers Association greatly appreciates the opportunity to weigh in on this important 

legislation. We enthusiastically support the proposed Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act and encourage 

members of the Committee to also support this bill. If additional information is needed, please don't hesitate to 

contact me. I may be reached by email at amy@wyowool.com or by phone at 307-265-5250. 

;,rel~1 d~~ 

~-Hendrickson Executive Director 

President: Vice President: 

Kay Neves Vance Broadbent 

Emblem, WY Evanston, WY 

Treasurer: AUX President: Directors: 

Usa Keeler Marcia Federer Jim Dona Mike Curuchet Makayla Mette Tommy Moore Regan Smith 

Kaycee, WY Cheyenne, WY Glenrock, WY Kaycee, WY Casper, WY Midwest, WY Powell, WY 
114 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Harris. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As has been mentioned and I think is widely known, the recent 

wildfires in my home State have been devastating to California. I 

was there last week. For hundreds of miles surrounding the wildfire devastation and disaster, you could see and smell the smoke. 

It has presented health issues to surrounding communities that 

will linger. 

When I went there, I actually flew over in a Black Hawk with 

the Governor and others to survey the scene from the air and see 

the path of the wildfire. I then walked the neighborhoods that had 

been devastated, and I will tell you seeing those neighborhoods, all 

of the houses had been destroyed. They were gone. Ash. The only 

thing standing were the chimneys. And I will tell you when I 

looked at it, what I saw, it looked like a graveyard, and the chimneys looked like tombstones. 

I met with the residents of those communities in the evacuation 

centers. They are devastated. And the impact, the trauma, the 

emotional, the physical; we lost 42 lives. I met firefighters who lost 

their own homes and were battling the fire knowing they had nothing to return to. I met one firefighter who was at one of the centers. He was wearing sweatshirt and sweatpants that someone 

loaned him because he had been fighting the fires but he had nothing to change into because his home had been destroyed. 

So the devastation is very real, and I think this Committee understands in a very bipartisan way that we need to address the 

issue, and we need to address the issue, as my colleagues have discussed. It includes understanding that, for example, in California 

we have over 245,000 acres that have been destroyed. That is about 

5 times the size of DC. Eighty-four hundred homes and buildings 

have been destroyed. So it is true devastation. 

So, Mr. Kruse, I have a question for you. After speaking with 

California Fire Chief Ken Pimlott, I have become very aware and 

it has become clear to me that Congress needs to reform our outdated budgetary practices, and in particular, those that do not 

treat wildfires like other disasters. 

Do you agree that wildfires are in fact disasters and should be 

treated as such? 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Harris, thank you for the question. Wildfires 

are certainly a natural part of the ecosystem and part of our forested landscapes, but unfortunately, because of the effects of climate change, longer, hotter, drier fire seasons, extensive fuel build 

up in 100 years of fire suppression, we are seeing increasing numbers of these wildfires becoming extreme disasters, and they should 

absolutely be categorized as such. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Currently, more than 50 percent of 

the Forest Service’s budget is dedicated to fire suppression, leaving 

little money for forest management, which has been the discussion 

here. Do you believe we have dedicated enough Federal funding to 

the Forest Service to help prevent and mitigate the likelihood of a 

wildfire before it happens? 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Harris, we certainly have not, and we have 

shovel ready projects to invest in both planning and implementation right now. We desperately need additional investment. 

115 

Senator HARRIS. My colleagues and I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill that is known as the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. This 

bill would allow for wildfires to be treated like other disasters and 

allow States to access emergency funding through FEMA. Do you 

think that this bill would help mitigate the harm and the damage 

caused by wildfires? 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Harris, absolutely. In fact, when the Wildfire 

Disaster Funding Act was introduced in the last Congress, it was 

the most bipartisan bill of the Congress. Over 150 bipartisan, bicameral cosponsors and over 200 organizations from environmental 

communities, industry, counties, and recreation and wildlife groups 

all support that legislation. It is imperative that we pass it. We 

should be able to do it immediately. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate your expertise on this panel. 

Mr. Crapser, the Forest Service estimated last year that there 

are nearly 102 million dead trees in California forests. This is especially concerning right now because it contributes, obviously, to 

wildfires. Are you familiar with tree mortality issues? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Yes. 

Senator HARRIS. And California fire officials have told me that 

our State uses its own resources to remove dead trees on Federal 

lands like national forests, which should be, I believe, an obligation 

of the United States Forest Service. Are you aware of other States 

that have had to use their own resources to remove dead trees from 

Federal land? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Senator, in Wyoming, which we are a small State, 

we have about 4.5 million acres of mountain pine beetle impacted 

areas. In the last 6 years, the legislature has actually appropriated 

probably a total of about $7 million for us to use for bark beetle 

projects on private, State, and on Federal lands. So we have used 

State money on Federal land, and I know other States have done 

the same. 

Senator HARRIS. And then my final question, I know my time has 

expired, but would you agree that Federal funds managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service should be used to remove dead trees from Federal lands? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Senator, I think Federal funds with the managed 

Forest Service should be used for managing our Federal lands. 

There are some places where dead trees are probably appropriate 

to leave. They should be used for the effective management of our 

lands. 

Senator HARRIS. And would removal of dead trees be included in 

that? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Thank you. I have nothing else. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Harris. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Let me first ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record a number of letters 

from concerned stakeholders, including Center for Justice and Democracy, Public Citizen, and the Wilderness Society. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

116 


29916.095

Alliance for Justice * American Association for Justice * 

Center for Justice & Democracy * Earthjustice * 

The Impact Fund * Public Citizen 

June 26,2017 

Chainnan Rob Bishop 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Ranking Member Raul Grijalva 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Please Defend Citizen Enforcement and the Rule of Law- Oppose H.R. 2936 -- the so-called 

"Resilient Federal Forest Act of 2017" 

Dear Chainnan Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: 

For decades, Congress has recognized the critical role the public plays in enforcing our most fundamental 

federal laws. Under many statutes-including those protecting civil rights, consumers, the environment, 

government transparency, people with disabilities, private property, public health, and workersCongress has authorized the filing of enforcement actions by Americans of all political persuasions 

seeking justice under the law. Access to justice through access to the federal courts is a fundamental 

principle in our American democracy. Unfortunately, Representative Westerman's bill, H.R. 2936. the 

poorly named "Resilient Federal Forest Act of 2017," not only fails to improve the quality of public 

forests by promoting potentially harmful and destructive logging projects, but tramples on access to 

justice principles by stifling citizens' ability to seek redress through our courts. Taken together, the 

provisions of this legislation would severely compromise the "overriding objective of the Forest Service's 

forest management program [which] is to ensure that the National Forests are managed in an ecologically 

sustainable manner."' We therefore urge you to oppose H.R. 2936. 

Specifically, Title Ill, Section 321 of the bill forces many management challenges through an internal and 

"binding" agency arbitration process that completely eliminates the possibility of judicial review in 

federal courts. The bill's language implies it creates only a "discretionary" arbitration pilot program 

limited to no "more than I 0" legal challenges a year, which is incredibly misleading. 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, and that decision would not be judicially reviewable. Moreover, the agency 

could circumvent judicial review for up to ten challenges a year in each of the nine Forest Service 

Regions and each of the fourteen state regions of the Bureau of Land Management. This broad one-sided 

discretion would imbue the agency with the power to shield itself from whichever legal challenges it finds 

most problematic. 

Private actions are essential to the laws they enforce and more generally as a "check and balance" to the 

failure of executive branch to enforce the law as Congress intended. As the Supreme Court has 

emphasized, a citizen who brings an enforcement action "does so not for himself alone but also as a 

'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority" (Newman 

v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400,402 (1968)). Shielding agency actions from review by 

1 https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/aboutus/index.shtml (web site visited June 22, 2017) 
117 


29916.096

independent federal courts, as section 321 of this bill allows, violates this access to justice principle and is 

simply undemocratic. 

Further weakening access to justice principles, Title III, Section 311 of the bill essentially eliminates the 

ability for most of the public to participate at all by eliminating the possibility of recovering legal fees 

under both the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Claims and Judgment Fund of the U.S. Treasury. It is 

often not enough to simply allow a case to be brought in federal court. In order to ensure citizens have 

the resources required to fulfill the role of vindicating an important public policy (in this case, the 

sustainable management of our public lands) Congress has long allowed those who file successful suits to 

recover their litigation costs-including "reasonable" attorneys' fees, based on prevailing market rates. 2 

The importance of these fee-recovery provisions lies beyond dispute. If a citizen "'does not have the 

resources"' to pursue an enforcement action, '"his day in court is denied him; the congressional policy 

which he seeks to assert and vindicate goes unvindicated; and the entire Nation, not just the individual 

citizen, suffers'" (City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 575 (1986)(quoting 122 Cong. Rec. 33,313 

(1976)). Section 311 of this bill only further tips the scales of justice in favor of deep-pocketed 

corporations and against the public's ability to enforce the intent of Congress and the rule of law. 

Finally, Title II, Section 203 and Title II, Section 312 of the bill hollow out the ability to win justice 

through the courts by restricting the ability of courts to enjoin agency actions that may do irreparable 

harm. Title II, Section 203 specifically eliminates any possibility of stopping certain management 

actions, including salvage operations, pending court review. This provision overrides a long-standing 

judicial rule --Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures-· and eliminates the ability of federal 

judges to apply an appropriate balancing test and independently determine if an injunction is warranted. 

In this instance, justice delayed equals justice denied since irreparable damage may be done to a forest 

ecosystem before a court can properly review the action and issue a final ruling. In addition, Section 312 

of Title Ill imposes unnecessary additional balancing tests that would interfere with a court's review 

under Rule 65 --to the extent such a review is still allowed. 

In sum, H.R. 2936 is a dangerous and reckless attack on every day citizens' ability to enforce the law. On 

behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we ask that you defend the principle of citizen 

enforcement and the rule of law by opposing H.R. 2963. 

Sincerely, 

Alliance for Justice 

American Association for Justice 

Center for Justice & Democracy 

Earthjustice 

The Impact Fund 

Public Citizen 

2 See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i) (freedom of information); 15 U.S.C. § 2060(c) (consumer-product safety); 29 

U.S.C. § 794a(b) (disability rights); 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3) (workers' rights); 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (civil rights); 42 

U.S.C. § 5207(c)(3) (gun rights); 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d) (clean air). 
118 


29916.097

October 24, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Comm. 

U.S. Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Comm. 

U.S. Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Oftlce Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act, Title III- OPPOSE 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Wilderness Society strongly opposes Title III of the "Wildfire Prevention and 

Mitigation Act." In our view, the proposed legislation poses a serious threat to 

enviromnental stewardship, public involvement, and the rule of law in the national 

forests. It would greatly increase the amount of logging on national forest lands that 

could occur with minimal environmental safeguards and opportunities for public 

participation. The legislation removes essential checks on Forest Service compliance 

with the law and significantly undermines the National Environmental Policy Act, a 

bedrock environmental law. 

We respectfully request that this letter be included in the Committee's hearing record for 

the October 25 hearing on this legislation. 

Reducing Public Involvement in National Forest Management through New and 

Expanded Categorical Exclusions 

Subtitle C of Title III would exempt several types of national forest logging projects up to 

6,000 acres (9.4 square miles) in size from the public involvement and environmental 

analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, 

the bill would create four new legislative Categorical Exclusions (CEs) from NEP A: 

• Logging to create early successional forest habitat. Section 333 would allow up 

to 6,000 acres of clearcutting to occur with no analysis of the environmental 

consequences and very limited public involvement. The size of this CE is orders 

of magnitude larger than the ecologically appropriate size of created wildlife 

habitat openings. 

• Logging to improve wildlife habitat. Section 334 is unnecessary because the 

Forest Service already has an administrative CE for wildlife habitat improvement 
119 


29916.098

projects. 1 If the legislative CE in Section 334 replaced the agency's existing CE 

in 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6), it could allow the Forest Service to spray herbicides and 

build an unlimited amount of road as part of habitat improvement projects, with 

scant public notice or environmental analysis. 

• Commercial thinning on timberland, including construction of up to one mile of 

temporary road. Current Forest Service regulations limit the size of commercial 

thinning projects that can be categorically excluded to 70 acres. 2 Section 335 

would vastly increase the size of such logging projects by 85 times. 

• Salvage logging and other "critical response" actions. Section 332 would 

require the Forest Service to establish aCE for projects that address situations that 

either Congress or the Forest Service has already addressed, such as post-fire 

salvage logging. 

Furthermore, Sections 333, 334, and 335 would exempt the Forest Service from 

analyzing the cumulative effects of logging projects that are categorically excluded from 

NEP A by those sections. This means that the agency could undertake multiple 6,000-

acre logging projects in the same vicinity without considering their combined impacts on 

the area's water quality, wildlife, and recreational resources. 

In addition, Section 336 of Title III would create a fifth CE for logging projects up to 

6,000 acres that are designed to reduce the risk of insect and disease infestations. This 

would effectively expand and replace aCE authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill for 

collaboratively developed insect and disease treatment projects up to 3,000 acres.3 

Besides increasing the maximum size of the CE by 3,000 acres ( 5 square miles), S. 1731 

would eliminate several of the 2014 Farm Bill's limitations on the use of the insect and 

disease CE. Specifically, under Section 336, projects using the insect and disease CE 

• would not have to retain old-growth and large trees that are resilient to insects and 

disease, 

• would not have to consider the best available science to maintain or restore 

ecological integrity, and 

• would not have to be developed collaboratively. 

Other NEP A Loopholes for Logging 

For Forest Service timber sales that are not categorically excluded from NEPA, Section 

311 of Title III would add several loopholes in the agency's NEPA process. Specifically, 

environmental assessments would only need to consider the proposed action and the noaction alternative, regardless of public input urging consideration of other alternatives. 

Section 311 would also limit the length of the EA to I 00 pages, would require the EA to 

be completed within 180 days, and would require no supplemental analysis. 

1 See 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6). 

2 See 36 CFR 220.6( e)( 12). 

3 See 16 USC 659lb. 

2 
120 


29916.099

Section 311 would undermine a bedrock environmental law-- the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It would eliminate NEPA's requirement to consider 

a reasonable range of alternatives and would impose arbitrary limits on the size ofNEPA 

documents and the time to complete the NEP A process. It would also eliminate 

environmental impact statements, even where required by NEP A. In combination with 

the bill's NEPA categorical exclusions in Subtitle C, these provisions would significantly 

reduce environmental safeguards and public involvement opportunities in national forest 

management. 

Compared to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of2003 (HFRA) 4, Section 311 would 

impose even more extreme limitations on the Forest Service's NEPA process. For 

projects that require an EA, HFRA requires the Forest Service to consider (1) the 

agency's proposal, (2) a no-action alternative, and (3) an additional action alternative if 

one is proposed during scoping or a collaborative process and meets the purpose and need 

of the project. HFRA also requires the Forest Service to hold a public meeting and to 

facilitate collaboration among state and local governments and tribes and participation by 

interested citizens regarding the project. In contrast, Section 311 provides no comparable 

opportunities for analysis of alternatives or public involvement. 

Eliminating Judicial Review of Forest Service Decision-making 

Section 314 requires the Forest Service to establish a binding arbitration/alternative 

dispute resolution process for forest management projects-including logging projects. 

For these projects, no judicial review would be allowed. Under the proposal, an 

arbitrator would have to select either the Forest Service's project or the objector's 

alternative proposal within 90 days. 

The proposed arbitration process is seriously flawed because it provides no means to 

ensure that the Forest Service is complying with environmental laws. This section 

undermines enforcement of existing law, reduces citizen access to courts, and limits 

public participation in public land management. 

Doubling the Cut 

Section 323 requires the Forest Service to establish a 5-ycar schedule, starting in 2018, 

that results in doubling the acreage of logging and other restoration treatments that the 

Forest Service accomplished in FY 2017. The Chief of the Forest Service would assign 

to each Forest Service region a portion of the annual acreage treatments. 

Section 323 is problematic because it would impose unrealistic management targets on 

the Forest Service that arc not based on sound science or ecologically justifiable. The 

legislation provides no additional funding for the agency to achieve the statutory mandate 

to double the acreage of restoration treatments. Consequently, the Forest Service would 

4 See 16 USC 6514. 

3 
121 


29916.100

have to divert resources away from all other multiple-use activities in order to accomplish 

the legally mandated amount of logging and other restoration treatments. 

Expanding Good Neighbor Authority to Include Environmentally Damaging Permanent 

Road Construction 

Section 312 of Title III would amend the 2014 Farm Bill to allow permanent road 

construction to be included in projects implemented by state forestry agencies on national 

forest lands through "Good Neighbor Authority." Current law limits the use of such 

authority to construction of temporary roads, which are typically Iess environmentally 

damaging than permanent roads. 5 

Re-Pumosing Stewardship Contracting Authority to Benefit Timber Companies and 

Make Money for Counties 

Section 313 of Title III would make three problematic changes to the stewardship 

contracting authority provided by the 2014 Farm Bill. First, it would allow use of 

stewardship contracts for the purpose of perpetuating existing lumber mills in addition to 

the seven environmental stewardship purposes under current law. Second, it would allow 

stewardship contracts to be awarded to the lowest bidder, rather than on a best-value 

basis. Third, it would require 25% of any timber sale receipts from stewardship projects 

to be paid to local counties, thereby reducing the receipts that can be retained by the 

Forest Service to fund additional stewardship projects. All these changes would benefit 

timber companies and county governments at the expense of environmental protection 

and restoration of the national forests. 

Thank you for considering our views on Title III of the "Wildfire Prevention and 

Mitigation Act." 

Sincerely, 

Mike Anderson 

Senior Policy Analyst 

The Wilderness Society 

5 See 16 USC 2113a(a)(3)(B). 

4 
122 


29916.101

Alaska Wilderness League * American Bird Conservancy * Bark * Center for Biological 

Diversity * Clean Water Action * Defenders of Wildlife * Earthjustice * Geos Institute * Hip 

Hop Caucus * Idaho * Conservation League * Kentucky Heartwood * KS Wild * League of 

Conservation Voters * Los Padres ForestWatch * Natural Resources Defense Council *Sierra 

Club * Southern * Environmental Law Center * The Wilderness Society * Umpqua 

Watersheds, Inc. * Western Environmental Law Center * Wilderness Workshop 

Oppose the "Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 20 17" 

An Attack on our public lands, wildlife, and our democracy 

October 25, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we write to express our strong opposition 

to the "Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of20\7" before your committee on October 25. 

While not all the organizations who have signed on to this letter work on every issue covered 

within this dangerous draft proposal, we all strongly oppose the bill due to its assault on 

America's public lands, wildlife, and the fi.mdamental principle of access to justice. We 

respectfully request that this letter be included as part of the committee record. 

This draft proposal-a sweeping combination of S. \731 ("Forest Management Improvement 

Act"), S. 879 ("National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act"). S. 605 ("Litigation Relief for 

Forest Management Projects"), and S. 1417 (''Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation 

and Restoration Act of20 17")-is another cynical example of using wildfire as an excuse not 

only to attack our bedrock environmental laws, but also to eliminate access to judicial relief that 

is a cornerstone of American democracy. Like its component parts, the "Wildfire Prevention and 

Mitigation Act of 20 17" fails to identify and address the real causes of wildfire and how to 

protect communities at risk: the lack of adequate funding, staffing, and training for land 

management agencies; significant development and continued growth in the wildlands urban 

interface; and the role of fire weather (hot dry winds, low fuel moisture) in driving wildland fire 

behavior. 

The solutions to fire and forest management lie in adequate resources and science-based forest 

restoration in appropriate forest types close to communities, creating defensible space, and sound 

land use planning- not in reckless logging miles away from communities while doing away 

with environmental safeguards. Such agenda-driven proposals fail to protect forests and 

surrounding communities, and fail to address a comprehensive fix to the Forest Service's fire 

budget crisis. They also set a dangerous precedent of sacrificing our national forests and the 

voice of the public for the sole benefit of extractive industries. The American people will not 
123 


29916.102

tolerate such an assault on the shared values of clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreational 

opportunities on their public lands. 

This legislation would: 

Undermine bedrock environmental laws by exempting massive logging projects, up to 6,000 

acres in size (or approximately 9 square miles) from normal environmental review, and allowing 

cumulative harm to endangered species to be ignored for decades by removing the obligation of 

the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to conduct plan-level consultation for any 

reason; 

Silence the public and weaken accountability by depriving the public of information about 

project impacts, limiting public engagement and review, effectively blinding agencies and 

suppressing the voice of the American people on decisions affecting their public lands; and by 

blocking access to judicial relief and instead setting up a biased arbitration process for logging 

projects that effectively gives the government the power to shield itselffrom whichever legal 

challenges it finds most problematic. 

Harm communities, drinking water, wildlife habitat and forest health by promoting reckless 

commercial logging on a massive scale without adequate consideration of community or 

ecological impacts; encouraging permanent road building; endorsing unproven or intensive 

management practices, including use of herbicides, non-native vegetation, and fencing that is 

likely to have unintended and unwelcome impacts on sage grouse and mule deer habitat; and 

failing to address the crippling impact of wildfire costs on the Forest Service's budget. 

The '"Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 20 17" is a giveaway to the timber industry to the 

detriment of science-based management, forest health and our democratic principles. We urge 

the committee to oppose this bill. 

Sincerely, 

Alaska Wilderness League 

American Bird Conservancy 

Bark 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Clean Water Action 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Earth justice 

Geos Institute 

Hip Hop Caucus 

Idaho Conservation League 

Kentucky Heartwood 

KS Wild 

League of Conservation Voters 

Los Padres Forest Watch 

Natural Resources Defense Council 
124 


29916.103

Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

The Wilderness Society 

Umpqua Watersheds, Inc. 

Western Environmental Law Center 

Wilderness Workshop 
125 


29916.104

To: Environment and Public Works Committee 

From: Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, National Parks Conservation Association, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, 

Western Environmental Law Center. 

Re: Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of2017 

Date: October 24, 2017 

On behalf of the above signed organizations, the following is a summary and analysis of Senator 

Barrasso's draft legislation, the "Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 20 17" (draft bill 

dated I 0/18/20 17). The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee plans to hold 

a hearing on the proposal on October 25. Please note that not all signed organizations work on all 

aspects of this legislation. 

Title I of the proposed legislation is excessively broad and would undermine plan level 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) across Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands; it would allow agencies to ignore for years the cumulative impacts of 

development activities on ESA-Iisted species and their habitat and consequently would risk 

jeopardizing the persistence of listed species while increasing the complexity and cost of species 

recovery and delaying the implementation of land management projects. 

Title ll would authorize expedited review for heavy handed management techniques that could 

result in unintended but substantive harm to sage grouse and mule deer habitat. 

Title !II would greatly increase logging of national forest lands, while reducing environmental 

safeguards and opportunities for public involvement in national forest management. The 

legislation limits opportunities for citizen involvement in public land management, and removes 

essential checks on Forest Service compliance with the law. 

The bill significantly undermines the National Environmental Policy Act and the ESA. two 

bedrock environmental laws. The bill poses a serious threat to environmental stewardship, 

public involvement, wildlife conservation, and the rule oflaw in the national forests. 

Specifically: 

Title I ofthe bill, entitled "Litigation Relief for Forest Management Projects," is based 

legislation of the same title (S. 605), sponsored by Senator Daines and Senator Tester. It 

undermines ESA consultation and species recovery. 

Section 101 removes the obligation of the Forest Service to reinitiate plan level consultation 

under the ESA when species are newly listed or critical habitat is newly designated. Section 102 

does the same for the BLM. 

Ignores Cumulative Impacts to ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat._These provisions 

increase risks of jeopardizing listed species and destroying critical habitat while undermining the 

effectiveness and efficiency of endangered species recovery efforts. Plan-level consultations, 

which evaluate multiple development actions over time, can identify threats to species that are 
126 


29916.105

not detectable at the project level and thus play a fundamental role in avoiding jeopardizing 

imperiled species or destroying their habitat. The excessively broad provisions within this 

legislation allow the Forest Service and BLM to ignore for years, possibly even decades, the 

cumulative impacts to ESA-listed species and their habitat from oil and gas drilling. mining, 

timber production and other harmful development projects. 

Delays Projects. In its rush to eliminate plan-level consultations for newly listed species and 

newly designated critical habitat, these provisions make project-level consultations in these 

scenarios less efficient and more burdensome. A recent peer-reviewed study of U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service consultations found that the median recorded length of formal consultations was 

62 days for projects without plan-level consultations and 24 days for projects with plan-level 

review. In other words, projects move two and a half times faster with the benefit of plan-level 

consultation, a significant efficiency that will be eliminated by this legislation. 

Title II of the bill, entitled "Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration," 

is based on S.l417, sponsored by Senator Hatch, and contains harmful provisions that invite 

significant and unwelcome impacts on sage-grouse, mule deer and other wildlife the legislation 

aims to help. Title II includes two sections. 

Sec. 102. Definitions. 

Legislative Endorsement of Unproven and Damaging Habitat Management. This section 

describes the parameters for a contemplated categorical exclusion to planning requirements 

under NEPA and endorses a number of vegetation management practices that could have 

deleterious impacts on wildlife habitat. Unproven or intensive management practices, including 

chaining, yarding, and broadcast burning ((l)(B)(ii)), late-season grazing ((l)(B)(vii), spraying 

((I )(B)(vi)) can cause irreparable damage to vegetation, soils and wate:rsheds that otherwise 

require decades to recover from disturbance. Unfortunately, Title II promotes such heavyhanded techniques in sagebrush steppe by directing the rollback of comprehensive, tiered 

management planning that considers the best available scientific information essential for 

developing preferred alternatives for managing this delicate and complex landscape. 

It is also unclear from the text whether the categorical exclusion would apply to public lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management, or whether it also apply to the National Park 

System and National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Sec. 202. Improvement of Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer. 

Congressionally Directed Categorical Exclusion. This section includes a time line, legal and 

other considerations the Secretary of the Interior must consider in devdoping a categorical 

exclusion to address the spread of native conifers and nonnative species on public lands. The 

categorical exclusion is unnecessary, as sensible, transparent, science-based planning does 

not delay timely treatment of sagebrush habitats. Moreover, the project-level environmental 

analysis this legislation would eliminate is essential for tailoring management prescriptions 

to support preferred site conditions; identifying sensitive resources (including historic, 

remnant and naturally re-colonizing pinyon-juniper stands/trees) that should be spared in 

control efforts; and illuminating not just the symptoms and prescriptions for unnatural 
127 


29916.106

conditions, but also the causes for the spread native trees and invasive species, which can 

be key to future, preventative management. 

The text also includes some confusing and problematic features for the contemplated 

categorical exclusion that could have unintended consequences beyond vegetation management. 

For example, language on disposal of vegetative material could extend the categorical exclusion 

to the provision offuel to biomass energy production, an activity that presents a number of 

challenges to environmental stewardship. 

Title III- of the draft bill. called "Forest Habitat and Ecosystem Restoration Improvement" is 

essentially a combination of two bills that were introduced earlier this year by Senator Barrasso 

(S. 879, the "National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act,"), and by Senator Thune (S. 1731, 

the "Forest Management Improvement Act). Title Ill consists of three subtitles: (A) General 

Provisions, (B) Ecosystem Restoration, and (C) Categorical Exclusions. 

Subtitle A- "General Provisions" 

NEPA Rollbacks. Section 311 requires the Forest Service to prepare an abbreviated 

environmental assessment (EA) for each "ecosystem restoration project," which the bill broadly 

defines to include timber harvesting. The EA would only need to consider the proposed action 

and the no-action alternative, including the effects of taking no action on forest health, habitat 

diversity, wildfire potential, etc. The bill would limit the length of the EA to I 00 pages, would 

require the EA to be completed within 180 days, and would require no supplemental analysis. 

This section comes from S. 879. 

Section 311 would undermine a bedrock environmental law-- the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). It would eliminate NEPA's requirement to consider a reasonable range of 

alternatives and would impose arbitrary limits on the size ofNEPA documents and the time to 

complete the NEPA process. It would also eliminate environmental impact statements, even 

where required by NEPA. In combination with the bill's NEPA categorical exclusions in 

Subtitle C, these provisions would significantly reduce environmental safeguards and public 

involvement opportunities in national forest management. 

Permanent Road Construction. Section 312 would amend the 2014 Farm Bill to allow 

permanent road construction to be included in projects implemented by state forestry agencies on 

national forest lands through "Good Neighbor Authority." Current law limits the use of such 

authority to construction of temporary roads, which are typically less environmentally damaging 

than permanent roads. Permitting permanent road construction could lead to additional 

environmental damage. This section is part of S. 1731. 

Stewardship Contracting. Section 313 would make three problematic changes to the stewardship 

contracting authority provided by the 2014 Farm Bill. First, it would allow use of stewardship 

contracts to perpetuate existing lumber mills, even where such mills are not economically 

feasible or environmentally sustainable. Second, it would allow stewardship contracts to be 

awarded to the lowest bidder rather than on a best-value basis, thereby favoring cost-savings 

over superior qualifications or other advantages. Third, it would require 25% of any timber sale 
128 


29916.107

receipts from stewardship projects to be paid to local counties, thus reducing the receipts that can 

be retained by the Forest Service to fund additional stewardship projects. All these changes 

would benefit timber companies and county governments at the expense of environmental 

protection and restoration of the national forests. This section is part of S. 1731. 

Binding Arbitration. Section 314 requires the Forest Service to establish a binding 

arbitration/alternative dispute resolution process for forest management projects-including 

logging projects. For these projects, no judicial review would be allowed. Anyone who filed an 

administrative objection to such a project could file a "demand for arbitration" within 30 days 

after the Forest Service notified the objector that the project is subject to the arbitration process. 

The demand for arbitration must include an alternative proposal for the project. The arbitrator 

would select either the Forest Service's project or the objector's alternative proposal. The entire 

arbitration process would be completed within 90 days after the filing of a demand for 

arbitration. The arbitrator's decision would not be subject to judicial review, except in instances 

of corruption, fraud, bias, or other misconduct by the arbitrator. This section comes from S. 879. 

The proposed arbitration process is seriously flawed because it provid·~s no means to ensure that 

the Forest Service is complying with environmental laws. This section undermines enforcement 

of existing law, reduces citizen access to courts, and limits public participation in public land 

management. 

Subtitle B- "Ecosystem Restoration" 

Mandatory Treatment Acreages. Section 323 requires the Forest Service to establish a 5-year 

schedule, starting in 2018, that results in doubling the acreage of restoration treatments that the 

Forest Service accomplished in FY 2017. The Chief of the Forest Service would assign to each 

Forest Service region a portion of the annual acreage treatments. This section is based on S. 879, 

which provided specific annual acreage targets for prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, 

including commercial thinning and even-aged management (i.e. clearcutting). 

Section 324 requires the Forest Service to evaluate its implementation of ecosystem restoration 

projects, based on specific performance measures, and to produce an annual report. The required 

performance measures include acreages of timber sales, stewardship contracts, and prescribed 

burns. 

Sections 323 and 324 are problematic because they would impose unrealistic management 

targets on the Forest Service that are not based on sound science or ecologically justifiable. The 

legislation provides no additional funding for the agency to achieve the statutory mandate to 

double the acreage of restoration treatments. Consequently, the Forest Service would have to 

divert resources away from all other multiple-use activities in order to accomplish the legally 

mandated amount of logging and other restoration treatments. 

Subtitle C- Categorical Exclusions 

Subtitle C would create five new types of categorical exclusions (CEs) that exempt national 

forest logging activities from complying with the requirements of the National Environmental 
129 


29916.108

Policy Act. Most of these CE provisions- Sections 333, 334, 335, and 336 --come from S. 

1731, while Section 332 comes from S. 879. 

"Critical Response" CE. Section 332 gives the Forest Service a one-year deadline to create aCE 

for forest management projects whose "primary purpose'' is to address at least two of the 

following objectives: 

• address insect and disease infestations or risks, 

• reduce hazardous fuels, 

• protect a municipal water source, 

• protect critical habitat from catastrophic disturbance, 

• increase water yield, or 

• "address salvage timber objectives.'' 

This section would require the Forest Service to create aCE for many conditions that either 

Congress or the Forest Service has already addressed. Congress has already created aCE for 

insect and disease infestation treatments up to 3,000 acres in the 2014 Farm Bill (see 16 USC 

6591b). Reduction of hazardous fuels and protection of municipal water sources were explicit 

purposes of the expedited NEPA provisions ofthe Healthy Forests Restoration Act of2004 (see 

16 USC 6512(a)). Similarly, the Forest Service already has an administrative CE for salvage 

logging up to 250 acres (see 36 CFR 220.6)(e)(l3)). Categorical exclusions undermine the 

National Environmental Policy Act and should be developed by the Forest Service in accordance 

with agency policy, not mandated by Congress. 

Early Successional Forests CE. Section 333 provides CE authority for logging projects up to 

6,000 acres (9 square miles) in size whose primary purpose is to create early successional forests. 

Projects must be carried out "in accordance with the applicable forest plan." Creation of early 

successional forests is commonly accomplished by clearcutting. The breadth of this language 

suggests that CEs for up to 6,000-acre clearcutting projects would be permissible. Current Forest 

Service NEPA policy does not allow the use ofCEs for clearcutting, regardless of purpose. 

Unless specifically disallowed by the local forest plan, this CE could authorize nine square miles 

of clearcutting with no consideration of environmental impacts on scenery, water quality, 

recreational activities including hunting and fishing, or adjacent landowners. 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement. Section 334 creates a statutory CE for logging projects up to 

6,000 acres in size whose purpose is to improve wildlife habitat. This provision is unnecessary 

because the Forest Service already has an administrative CE for wildlife habitat improvement 

projects (see 36 CFR 220.6(e)(6)). Unlike the current administrative CE, the legislative CE in 

Section 334 could allow the Forest Service to spray herbicides and build an unlimited amount of 

road as part of habitat improvement projects, with scant public notice or environmental analysis. 

Commercial Thinning. Section 335 creates a statutory CE for commercial thinning projects up 

to 6,000 acres, along with construction of up to one mile of temporary road. Current Forest 

Service regulations limit the size of commercial thinning projects that can be categorically 

excluded to 70 acres (see 36 CFR 220.6(e)(l2)). Section 334 would vastly increase the size of 

such logging projects by 85 times! 
130 


29916.109

No Consideration of Cumulative Effects. For each of the three CEs created by Sections 333, 

334, and 335, the legislation would exempt the Forest Service from analyzing the cumulative 

effects oflogging projects that are categorically excluded from NEPA. This means that the 

agency could undertake multiple 6,000-acre logging projects in the same vicinity without 

considering their combined impacts on the area's water quality, wildlife, and recreational 

resources. 

Insect and Disease Infestation. Section 336 would create a fifth CE for logging projects up to 

6,000 acres that are designed to reduce the risk of insect and disease infestations. This would 

effectively replace aCE authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill for collaboratively developed insect 

and disease treatment projects up to 3,000 acres. Besides increasing the maximum size of the CE 

by 3,000 acres (5 square miles), Section 336 would eliminate several of the 2014 Farm Bill's 

limitations on the use of the insect and disease CE. Specifically, under Section 336, projects 

using the insect and disease CE-

• would not have to retain old-growth and large trees that are resilient to insects and 

disease, 

• would not have to consider the best available science to maintain or restore ecological 

integrity, and 

• would not have to be developed collaboratively. 

Conclusion 

Senator Barrasso's draft forest management bill would undermine endangered species recovery 

and make it more expensive by allowing agencies to ignore cumulativ,e impacts from 

development for years, if not decades and would contribute to delays in project-level approvals 

by reducing efficiencies gained from plan-level consultations in Title .!; In Title II, the bill would 

lead to unintended and unwelcome impacts to the very habitat it is trying to improve by 

endorsing a categorical exclusion for unproven or intensive management practices in sagegrouse and mule deer habitat. Title III of the bill would greatly increase logging of national 

forest lands, while reducing environmental safeguards and opportunities for public involvement 

in national forest management. Annual acreage mandates would pressure the Forest Service to 

prioritize logging over all other uses and resources. Large expanses of forest up to 6,000 acres (9 

square miles) in size could be logged with no consideration of the direct or cumulative impacts to 

water quality, wildlife habitat, or recreational opportunities. The legality of Forest Service 

management activities would be essentially unchallengeable in court, removing an essential 

check on federal agency compliance with the law. A bedrock environmental law the National 

Environmental Policy Act- would be seriously undermined. In sum, the bill poses a serious 

threat to environmental stewardship, public involvement, wildlife conservation, and the rule of 

law in the national forests. 
131 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Gentlemen, what is the connection between carbon emissions, climate change, and the wildfire season? 

Mr. KRUSE. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For the record, two Republican witnesses 

gestured to the Democratic witness to have him answer the question. 

Mr. KRUSE. Happy to inherit the question, Senator Whitehouse. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are not going to get off that easy; I 

will turn to you guys in a minute. And I know what the Boone and 

Crockett Club has said about this, too, Mr. Moretti. 

Mr. KRUSE. There is clear and overwhelming consensus from 

both objective scientists inside and outside of the agency that climate change is absolutely having an effect on our forested landscapes. The wildfire season is 2 months longer than it used to be. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One month earlier and 1 month later, 

right? 

Mr. KRUSE. Correct. We are fighting fire from April to October 

right now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. When had that happened before? 

Mr. KRUSE. It has not; it has only been in the last 10 to 15 years 

that we have seen this. This is a recent phenomenon. And as a result of that fuel build up, it is hotter, it is drier, and it is continuing to dry out and build up year after year after year. And as 

the temperature has continued to rise, when we do have those fire 

conflagration events, they are extreme. So there is a clear connection between carbon emissions, climate change, and what we are 

now experiencing with wildfire in our forests. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Factor bugs into that equation, like the 

bark beetle. Does that have any effect on the susceptibility of forests to wildfire, and is that connected to climate change and carbon 

pollution? 

Mr. KRUSE. Senator Whitehouse, bark beetles, again, are a natural part of forest ecosystems; however, as we do see the habitat 

changing for bark beetle, and extending the season by which they 

can migrate and mate, we are seeing increased infestations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Meaning they can survive in northern latitudes and northern altitudes they couldn’t get to before because 

winters were killing them off, but milder winters because of climate change are allowing them to move in those directions? 

Mr. KRUSE. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. And then how does that roll into 

wildfires? 

Mr. KRUSE. As we continue to see increased die off of those forests, they are less resilient. When wildfires move through, we do 

have additional build up of fuels. And when fires do occur, they are 

burning more of that fuel and they are more extreme. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. A dead tree burns faster than a living one, 

ordinarily, correct? 

Mr. KRUSE. It certainly can in this case. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Moretti, agree or disagree? 

132 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, I believe that whether it is climate change 

or whether it is a lack of management, our forests are in need of— 

they are in bad shape. They are in bad health. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That wasn’t the question that you were 

asked, though. 

Mr. MORETTI. But the question I am saying is is whether it is 

climate change or whether it is lack of management—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that is the question. What do you 

have to say about whether it is or isn’t climate change? Does climate change have any role in this? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, we believe that we have gone through a 

much drier cycle in a lot of areas in the West. In this last winter, 

in western Wyoming, we had one of the hardest winters we ever 

had on record, so we believe that these forests are under a huge 

amount of stress, again, whether it is through climate change, lack 

of management, or whatever. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you have another explanation for why 

the forest fire season or the wildfire season would have expanded 

a month out in either direction? Could that in any rational way be 

ascribed to management issues? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, I think it can be. I think that when we go 

through these periods of dry conditions and we have these forest 

fuels build up and these dead trees that we haven’t been able to 

get out and harvest, that anything from manmade to natural cause 

can start a forest fire; and once it starts, you see how they are allconsuming. And as we have heard, there have been millions of 

acres consumed this year. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it sounds like what you are saying is 

that the expansion of the wildfire season could be helped by management practices that could reduce some of the fuel load and so 

forth. 

Mr. MORETTI. We could reduce the fuel load. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But it is not management practices that 

are actually expanding the wildfire season, is it? 

Mr. MORETTI. Well, it all depends. It depends on what is causing 

those fires. If it is a manmade fire—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now we get back to my original question. 

Mr. MORETTI. I know. But if it is a manmade fire, it is the—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let me start by this. Do you agree 

that the wildfire season has expanded by 2 months, as Mr. Kruse 

has said? 

Mr. MORETTI. I will agree to that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. And do you have an explanation as to 

why that is happening on a consistent basis? It is not just a oneoff, that it happened in 1 year. 

Mr. MORETTI. No. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is persistent, and it is at trend now, is 

it not? 

Mr. MORETTI. That is not my area of expertise. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

Mr. Crapser, anything to add? You only have about a second. 

Mr. CRAPSER. Mr. Chairman and Senator, I think if we look at 

the wildfire season over the last 50 years, we have seen an increase 

133 

in the fire season. If we look historically, in the early 1900s, we 

had a period of years with very long fire reasons. 

I am not an expert in carbon; I am not an expert in climate 

change. I do know that investing in forest management means 

healthier forests, less fires, less carbon emissions. I do know that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

For Mr. Crapser or Mr. Moretti, there was a question earlier 

about funding, if we had enough funding. Is funding alone enough, 

or do we need some regulatory changes as well? 

Mr. CRAPSER. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is hand in hand. Funding is a huge issue on the fire funding, I believe on overall support 

of our Federal lands, Federal land management. But I also think 

tools that can help industry, can help maybe alleviate some of the 

funding issues are also important, as the CE for salvage and fire, 

both insect disease and fire salvage would be. 

Senator BARRASSO. It is interesting, this discussion of climate. I 

am just going to point out to my colleague that there was an article 

in The Economist this past weekend that just came out on Friday 

called ‘‘Paleoclimatology: A Stormy Past.’’ It has to do with hurricanes, and the subheadline is ‘‘Geological Traces of Ancient Hurricanes Show How Hard Climate Science Is.’’ This is The Economist 

that is currently on the market. You can pick it up on a newsstand. 

And they talked about what is happening in Florida, and it says, 

‘‘Geological survey suggests that the hurricanes which struck Florida during a cool period 12,000 years ago were more powerful than 

those during a subsequent time of war.’’ Just the difficulty of trying 

to get all the information together from a scientific standpoint. 

Well, I appreciate each of you being here today to testify. I thank 

you very much for your comments. There are other members of the 

Committee who may have written questions. I would ask that you 

respond promptly to those. The hearing record will be open for the 

next 2 weeks. Thank you again for being here and sharing your 

knowledge and your insight. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[The text of S.l, the Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Act of 

2017, follows:] 

134 


29916.110

lVlAZ17120 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

S.L.C. 

s. 

To discourage litigation against the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management relating to land management projects, to require the Secretary of the Interior to develop a categorical exclusion for covered 

vegetative management activities carried out to establish or improve 

habitat for greater sage-grouse and mule deer, to address the forest 

health crisis on Natioual Forest System land, to expedite and prioritize 

forest management activities to achieve ecosystem restoration objectives, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE O:B~ 'l'HE UNITED STATES 

Mr. BARRASSO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on ~~~~~~-· 

A BILL 

To discourage litigation against the Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land JVIanagement relating to land management projects, to require the Secretary of the Interior 

to develop a categorical exclusion for covered vegetative 

management activities carried out to establish or improve 

habitat for greater sage-grouse and mule deer, to address 

the forest health crisis on National l~~orest System land, 

to expedite and prioritize forest management activities 

to achieve ecosystem restoration objectives, and for other 

purposes. 
135 


29916.111

1VIAZ17120 S.L.C. 

2 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 t·ives of the Un·ited States of AmeTica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "Wildfire Prevention and :Mitigation Act of 20 17". 

6 (b) 'l'ABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents for 

7 this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

See. 2. Definition of Secretary. 

Tl'nE I-LITIGNl'lON RELlEr' FOR FOREST MANAGEMEN1' 

PROJECTS 

Sec. 101. Porest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. 

Sec. 102. Federal !Janel Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

TITLE II-SAGE-GROUSE AND MULE DEER HABITAT 

CONSERVATION AND RESTOHATION 

Sec. 201. Definitions. 

Sec. 202. Improvement of habitat fot· gTeal.cr sage-grouse and mule deer. 

TITI"E III-r"ORES'r HABITAT A.c'JD ECOSYSTEM IMPROVEMENT 

Sec. :301. Definitions. 

Subtitle A-General Provisions 

Sec. :311. Environmental assessments. 

Sec. 312. Good neighbor nuthority. 

See. 313. Stewanlship end r"sult contracting projeets. 

Sec. :114. Pilot alternative dispute process. 

Subtitle B-Ecosystcm Restoration 

Sec. 321. Definitions. 

Sec. 322. Ecosystem restoration projects. 

Sec. 323. National restorntion treatn1ent acreage. 

Sec. 324. Performance measures; annual reports. 

Sec. 331. 

Sec. 332. 

Sec. 333. 

Sec. 3~14. 

Sec. as5. 

Sec. 330. 

Subtitle G---Categorical Exclusions 

Definitions. 

Categorical exclusion to e>.l)edite ecrtain criticalresponse actions. 

Categorical exclusion to meet forest plan goals for early sera! aud 

early snccessionnl forests. 

Categorical exclusion to improve wildlife habitats. 

Categorical exclusion to thin forests. 

EA11ansion of c::Jtcgorical exclnsion for insect and di;:;ease infestation. 
136 


29916.112

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

3 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 

2 In this Act, the term "Secretary" means the Sec3 retary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the For4 est Service. 

s TITLE I-LITIGATION RELIEF 

6 FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT 

7 PROJECTS 

8 SEC. 101. FOREST AND RANGELAND RENEWABLE RE9 SOURCES PLANNING ACT OF 1974. 

10 (a) CONSUTifATION REGARDING LAND }\llA.!'JAGEMENT 

11 Pr"ANS.-Section G(d) of the Forest and Rangeland Re12 newable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 

13 1G04(d)) is amended14 (1) by striking "(d) The Secretary" and insertIS ing the follo,ving·: 

16 "(d) PUBLIC PARTICIPA'l'ION A.l'JD CONSULTATION.-

17 "(1) IN GENBRAL.-'l'he Secretary"; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the follo-wing: 

19 "(2) No ADDITIONAL CONSUI/fATION RE20 QUIRED AFTER APPROVAl" OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

21 PLA..'t\JS.-

22 "(A) IN GENERiiL-Notwi.thstanding any 

23 other provision of law, the Secretary shall not 

24 be required to eng-age in consultation under this 

25 subsection or any other provision of law (includ26 ing section 7 of Public Law 93-205 (16 U.S.C. 
137 


29916.113

iVfAZ17120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

4 

1536) and section 402.16 of title 50, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)) 

with respect to-

"(i) the listing of a species as threatened or endang·ered, or a designation of 

critical habitat pursuant to Public Law 

93-205 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), if a land 

management plan has been adopted by the 

Secretary as of the date of listing or designation; or 

"(ii) any provision of a land management plan adopted as described in clause 

(i). 

"(B) EFFECT OF' P.A&\GRAPH.-Nothing 

in this paragraph affects any applicable requirement of the Secretary to consult '"~th the head 

of any other Federal department or agency-

"(i) regarding any project to implement a land management plan, including a 

project carried out, or proposed to be carried out, in an area designated as critical 

habitat pursuant to Public Law 93-205 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

"(ii) with respect to the development 

of a modification to a land management 
138 


29916.114

lvL'\217120 S.L.C. 

5 

1 plan that would result in a significant 

2 chang·e (within the meaning of subsection 

3 (f)( 4)) in the land management plan.". 

4 (b) DEFINITION OF SECRETARY; CONFORMING 

5 AlVIENDl\1ENTS.-

6 (1) DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.-Section 3(a) 

7 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

8 Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1601(a)) is 

9 amended, in the first sentence of the matter pre10 ceding paragraph (1), by inserting "(referred to in 

11 this Act as the 'Secretary')" after "Secretary of Ag12 riculture". 

13 (2) CONFORMING ihVIENDMEN'rS.-The Forest 

14 and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

15 of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) is amended, in sec16 tions 4 through 9, 12, 13, and 15, by striking· "Sec17 retary of Agriculture" each place it appears and in18 serting "Secretary". 

19 SEC. 102. FEDERAL LAND POLICY Al\'D MANAGEMENT ACT 

20 OF 1976. 

21 Section 202(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Man22 agement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712(f)) is amended23 (1) by striking "(f) The Secretary" and insert24 ing the foll01ving: 

25 "(f) PUBLIC lNVOLVEMEN'l'.-
139 


29916.115

MAZ17120 

6 

"(1) IN GENERAIL-'rhe Secretary"; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

S.L.C. 

1 

2 

3 "(2) NO ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION RE4 QUIRED AFTER APPROVAI1 OF LAc.'\fD USE PIAI\IS.-

5 "(A) IN GENERAL.-Notvvithstanding any 

6 other provision of law, the Secretary shall not 

7 be required to engag·e in consultation under this 

8 subsection or any other provision of law (includ9 ing section 7 of Public Law 93-205 (16 U.S.C. 

10 1536) and section 402.16 of title 50, Code of 

11 "F'ederal Regulations (or a successor regula12 tion)), ·with respect to13 "(i) the listing of a species as threat14 ened or endangered, or a designation of 

15 critical habitat, pursuant to Public Law 

16 93-205 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), if a land 

17 use plan has been adopted by the Sec18 retary as of the date of listing or desig·na19 tion; or 

20 "(ii) any pro-vision of a land use plan 

21 adopted as described in clause (i). 

22 "(B) EFFECT OF PARAGRAPH.-

23 "(i) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICA.l\TT 

24 CHANGE.-In this subparagraph, the term 

25 'significant change' means a significant 
140 


29916.116

MAZ17120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

7 

change ·within the meaning of section 

219.13(b)(3) of title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this subparagraph), except 

that-

"(I) any reference contained in 

that section to a land management 

plan shall be deemed to be a reference 

to a land use plan; 

"(II) any reference contained in 

that section to the Forest Service 

shall be deemed to be a reference to 

the Bureau of Land Management; and 

"(III) any reference contained in 

that section to the National Forest 

Management Act of 197 6 (Public IJaW 

94-588; 90 Stat. 2949) shall be 

deemed to be a reference to this Act. 

"(ii) EFFECT.-Nothing in this paragraph affects any applicable requirement of 

the Secretary to consult with the head of 

any other Federal department or agency-

" (I) regarding a project carried 

out, or proposed to be carried out, 

with respect to a species listed as 
141 


29916.117

MAZ17120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 TITLE 

S.L.C. 

8 

threatened or endangered, or in an 

area designated as critical habitat, 

pursuant to Public Law 93-205 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

''(II) vvith respect to the development of a new land use plan or the revision of or other significant change to 

an existing land use plan.''. 

10 MULE 

II-SAGE-GROUSE AND 

DEER HABITAT CON11 SERVATION AND RESTORA12 TION 

13 SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS. 

14 In this title: 

15 (1) COVERED VEGETATION Jl1At~AGEJlfENT AC16 TIVITY.-

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(A) IN GENERAL.-The term "covered 

vegetation management activity" means any activity described in subparagraph (B) that-

(i) meets the objectives of the order of 

the Secretary numbered 3336 and dated 

January 5, 2015; 

(ii) conforms to an applicable land use 

plan; 
142 


29916.118

JIIIAZ17120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C 

9 

(iii) protects, restores, or irnproves 

greater sage-grouse or mule deer habitat; 

(iv) will not permanently impair-

(I) the natural state of the treated area; 

(II) outstanding opportunities for 

solitude; 

(III) outstanding opportunities 

for primitive, unconfined recreation; 

or 

(IV) the identified values of a 

unit of the National I1andscape Con-

::;ervation System; and 

(v) (I) restores native vegetation following a natural disturbance; 

(II) prevents the expansion into greater sage-grouse or mule deer habitat of-

(aa) juniper, pinon pine, or any 

other conifer; or 

(bb) nonnative or invasive vegetation; 

(III) reduces tbe risk of loss of greater sage-grouse or mule deer habitat from 

wildfire or any other natural disturbance; 

or 
143 


29916.119

:ti'IAZ17120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.hC. 

10 

(IV) provides emergency stabilization 

of soil resources after a natural disturbance. 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF AC'riVITIES.-An activity referred to in subparagraph (A) is-

(i) manual cutting and removal of juniper trees, pinon pine trees, other conifers, or other nonnative or invasive vegetation; 

(ii) mechanical mastication, cutting, 

or mowing, mechanical piling and burning, 

chaining, broadcast burning, or yarding; 

(iii) removal of cheat grass, medusa 

head rye, other nonnative vegetation, or an 

invasive species; 

(iv) collection and seeding or planting 

of native vegetation using a manual, mechanical, or aerial method; 

(v) seeding of nonnative vegetation 

only for the purpose of emergency stabilization; 

(vi) use of an herbicide, pesticide, or 

biological control agent, subject to the condition that the use shall be in accordance 
144 


29916.120

IVL"-Z17120 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

11 

vvith applicable legal requirements, F'ederal 

agency procedures, and land use plans; 

(vii) targeted or late-season livestock 

grazing to mitigate hazardous fuels and 

control noxious and invasive weeds; 

(viii) temporary removal of wild 

horses or burros in the area in which the 

activity is being carried out to ensure 

treatment objectives are met; 

(ix) temporary suspension of permitted grazing use until restoration treatment objectives are met; 

(x) installation of new, or modification 

of existing, fencing or water sources intended to control use or improve 1vildlife 

habitat; or 

(xi) construction of temporary roads. 

(C) EXCLUSIONS.-The term "covered 

vegetation management activity" does not include-

(i) any activity conducted in a wilderness area or \vilderness study area; or 

(ii) any activity for the construction of 

a permanent road or permanent trail. 
145 


29916.121

M.A.Z17120 S.L.C. 

12 

1 (2) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (3) 'fEMPORARY ROAD.-The term "temporary 

4 road" means a road that is5 (A) authorized6 (i) by a contract, permit, lease, other 

7 1vritten authorization; or 

8 (ii) pursuant to an ernergency oper9 ation; 

10 (B) not intended to be part of the perma11 nent transportation system of a Federal depart12 mentor agency; 

13 (C) not necessary for long-term resource 

14 management; and 

15 (D) designed in accordance ·with standards 

16 appropriate for the intended use of the road, 

17 taking into considerationIS (i) safety; 

19 (ii) the cost of transportation; and 

20 (iii) impacts to land and resources. 

21 SEC. 202. IMPROVEMENT OF HABITAT FOR GREATER SAGE22 GROUSE AND MULE DEER. 

23 (a) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.-

24 (1) IN GENE&'\L.-Not later than 1 year after 

25 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
146 


29916.122

MAZ17120 S.hC. 

13 

1 shall develop 1 or more categorical exclusions (as de2 fined in section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal 

3 Regulations (or a successor regulation)) for covered 

4 vegetative management activities carried out to es5 tablish or improve habitat for greater sage-grouse 

6 and mule deer. 

7 (2) ADMINISTRATION.-:-In developing and ad8 ministering a categorical exclusion under paragraph 

9 ( 1), the Secretary shall10 (A) be consistent vvith the National Envi11 ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 

12 et seq.); 

13 (B) apply the e:A"traordinary circumstances 

14 procedures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code 

15 of Federal Itegulations (or a successor regula16 tion), in determining whether to use the cat17 egorical exclusion; and 

18 (C) consicler19 (i) the relative efficacy of lanclscape20 scale habitat projects; 

21 (ii) the likelihood of continued de22 clines in the populations of greater sage23 grouse and mule deer in the absence of 

24 

25 

landscape-scale vegetation management; 

and 
147 


29916.123

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

14 

1 (iii) the need for habitat restoration 

2 activities after wildfire or other natural 

3 disturbances. 

4 (b) LONG-TERM MONITORING AND JYI.AJ.NTEN.Ao.'\fCE.-

5 Before commencing any covered vegetative management 

6 activity that is covered by a categorical exclusion under 

7 subsection (a), the Secretary shall develop a long-term 

8 monitoring and maintenance plan, covering at least the 

9 20 year-period beginning on the date of commencement, 

10 to ensure that management of the treated area does not 

11 degrade the habitat gains secured by the covered vegeta12 tive management activity. 

13 (c) DISPOSAij OF VEGETATIVE 1\!IATERI.Alj.-Subject 

14 to applicable local restrictions, any vegetative material re15 sulting from a covered vegetation management activity 

16 that is covered by a categorical exclusion under subsection 

17 (a) may be18 (1) used for19 (A) fuel wood; or 

20 (B) other products; or 

21 (2) piled or burned, or both. 

22 (d) 'rREATlVIENT FOR TEMPORARY ROADS.-

23 (1) IN GENERAL.-A temporary road con24 structed in connection with a covered vegetation 

25 manag·ement activity that is a categ·orical exclusion 
148 


29916.124

M£\Z17120 S.L.C. 

15 

1 under subsection (a) shall be treated to ensure the 

2 reestablishment of native vegetative cover by artifi3 cial or natural means, as necessary to minimize ero4 sion from any area distnrbed by the construction or 

5 use of the temporary road. 

6 (2) REQUIREMENT.-A treatment under para7 graph (1) shall be designed to reestablish vegetative 

8 cover9 (A) as soon as practicable; but 

10 (B) not later than 10 years after the date 

11 of completion of the applicable covered vegeta12 tion management activity. 

13 TITLE III-FOREST HABITAT 

14 AND ECOSYSTEM IMPROVEMENT 

15 SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS. 

16 In this title: 

17 (1) :B'OREST PLAN.-The term "forest plan" 

18 means a land and resource management plan pre19 pared by the Forest. Service in accordance with sec20 tion 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Re21 sources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604). 

22 (2) NATIONAL FOREST SYSTE.M:.-

23 (A) IN GENERAL.-The term "National 

24 Forest System" has the meaning given the term 

25 in section ll(a) of the Forest and Rangeland 
149 


29916.125

M:.AZ17120 S.L.C. 

16 

1 Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 

2 U.S.C. 1609(a)). 

3 (B) EXCLUSION.-The term "National 

4 Forest System" does not includeS (i) any forest reserve not created from 

6 the public domain; or 

7 (ii) any national grassland or land uti8 lization project administered under title III 

9 of the Bankhead-,Tones Farm Tenant Act 

10 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.). 

11 Subtitle A-General Provisions 

12 SEC. 311. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS. 

13 (a) APPLICABILITY OF NATIONAL El\'V1RONMENTAL 

14 POLICY ACT OF 1969.-The Secretary shall prepare an 

15 environmental assessment in accordance with the National 

16 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

17 seq.) for each project under this title. 

18 (b) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.-In preparing 

19 an environmental assessment for a project under sub20 section (a), the Secretary shall provide public notice of, 

21 and an opportunity to comment regarding, the applicable 

22 project. 

23 (c) CONSIDERATION OF AWERNNrTVES.-The Sec24 retary shall study, develop, and describe in each environ25 mental assessment under subsection (a)-
150 


29916.126

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

17 

1 (1) the project as the proposed action; and 

2 (2) a no-action alternative, the analysis of 

3 which shall include a description of the resulting en4 vironmental effects of taking no action on5 (A) forest health; 

6 (B) habitat diversity; 

7 (C) wildfire potential; 

8 (D) insect and disease potential; 

9 (E) municipal \Vater supplies; and 

10 ern other economic and social factors. 

11 (d) IJIMI'rA'l'IONS.-The Secretary shall limit each en12 vironmental assessment under this section to a length of 

13 not more than 100 pages. 

14 (e) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION.-

15 (1) IN GENERL\L.-Not later than 180 days 

16 after the date on which the Secretary publishes a no17 tice regarding an ecosystem restoration project in 

18 accordance with subsection (b), the Secretary shall 

19 complete the environmental assessment for the 

20 project. 

21 (2) No SUPPijElVIENTAL .Al'JALYSIS REQUIRED.-

22 No supplemental analysis of an ecosystem restora23 tion project that is the subject of an environmental 

24 assessment under paragraph (1) shall be required 
151 


29916.127

M.AZ17120 S.L.C. 

18 

1 after the date on which that environmental assess2 ment is complete. 

3 SEC. 312. GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY. 

4 (a) IN GENERr'l_L.-Section 8206 of the Agricultural 

5 Act of 2014 (16 U.S.O. 2113a) is amended6 (1) in subsection (a)(3)-

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 

subparagraph (0); 

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) 

the following: 

"(B) INCLUSION.-The term 'forest, 

rangeland, and watershed restoration services' 

includes construction, reconstruction, repair, or 

restoration of permanent roads."; and 

(0) in subparagraph (O)(i) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)), by striking "or 

permanent"; and 

(2) in subsection (b)-

(A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

paragraph ( 4); and 

(B) by inserting after paragTaph (2) the 

follo-vving: 

"(3) PERlVli\J'JENT ROAD CLOSURE.-

"(A) IN GENERAh-The Secretary may 

close a permanent road under a good neighbor 
152 


29916.128

l\IAZ17120 S.L.C. 

19 

1 agreement without carrying out with respect to 

2 the permanent road authorized restoration serv3 ices if the permanent road would allow future 

4 access for firefighting or other appropriate 

5 agency use, as determined by the applicable for6 est supervisor. 

7 "(B) INTACTNESS.-!£ a permanent road 

8 IS closed under subparagraph (A), the perma9 nent road shall be closed to the public according 

10 to the applicable forest plan, but shall remain 

11 in tact.". 

12 (b) REPEAL.-Section ~131 of the Department of the 

13 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 

14 (16 TJ.S.C. 1011 note) is repealed. 

15 SEC. 313. STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING 

16 PROJECTS. 

17 (a) HEAI,TIIY F10RESTS I{ES'l'ORATION.-Section 604 

18 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 

19 U.S.C. 6591c) is amended20 (1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

21 following: 

22 "(8) I-tetention of existing wood products infra23 structure."; 

24 (2) in subsection (d)-
153 


29916.129

l\ILAZ17120 S.L.C. 

20 

1 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserth1g ", or 

2 lowest-cost-technically-acceptable," after "best3 value"; and 

4 (B) by adding at the end the follm'ling: 

5 "(8) PERJVIA1~ENT ROAD CLOSURE.-

6 "(A) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Ag7 riculture may dose a permanent road under a 

8 contract entered into under this section without 

9 achieving vvith respect to the permanent road 

10 the restoration activities included in the land 

11 management goals described in subsection (c) if 

12 the permanent road would allow future access 

13 for firefighting or other appropriate agency use, 

14 as determined by the applicable forest superIS V1SOr. 

16 "(B) INTACTNESS.-If a permanent road 

17 1s closed under subparagraph (A), the perma18 nent road shall be closed to the public according 

19 to the applicable forest plan, but shall remain 

20 intact.''; and 

21 (3) in subsection (e)(2)(A), by inserting ", sub22 ject to the condition that 25 percent of the gross re23 ceipts shall be disbursed to the county in which the 

24 project site is located" before "; and". 
154 


29916.130

l\1AZ17120 S.L.C. 

21 

1 SEC. 314. PILOT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE PROCESS. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

(a) ARBITRATION.-

(1) IN GENEHAh-The Secretary shall establish 

within the Forest Service a 5-year arbitration pilot 

program as an alternative dispute resolution process 

in lieu of judicial revie·w for the projects described 

in subsection (b). 

(2) NO'l'IFICATION 'l'O OBJECTORS.-On 

issuance of an appeal response to an objection filed 

vvith respect to a project subject to an objection at 

the project level under part 218 of title 36, Code of 

Federal I{eg1.1lations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), the Secretary shall notify each 

applicable individual or entity that submitted the objection (referred to in this section as the "objector") 

that any further appeal may be subject to arbitration in accordance ·with this section. 

(b) DESCRIP'riON OF PROJECTS.-The Secretary, in 

19 coordination 1vi.th the head of the applicable Region of the 

20 Forest Service, may designate any t:nJe of project under 

21 this title for arbitration under this section. 

22 (c) ARBITiw\'rORS.-

23 (1) APPOINTMENT.-The Secretary shall de24 velop and publish a list of not fewer than 20 individ25 uals eligible to serve as arbitrators for the pilot pro26 gTam under this section. 
155 


29916.131

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

22 

1 (2) QU.A.LIB'ICNriONS.-In order to be eligible to 

2 serve as an arbitrator under this subsection, an indi3 vidual shall be currently certified by the American 

4 Arbitration Association. 

5 (d) INITir'\.TION OF ARBITBATION.-

6 (1) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 7 days after 

7 the date of receipt of a notice of intent to file suit 

8 challenging a project, the Secretary shall notify each 

9 applicable objector and the court of jurisdiction that 

10 the project has been designated for arbitration in ac11 cordance ·with this section. 

12 (2) DEl\ii\1'\TD FOR A.RBITRATION.-

13 (A) IN GENERll.L.-An objector that sought 

14 judicial review of a project that has been des15 ignated by the Secretary for arbitration under 

16 this section may file a demand for arbitration 

17 in accordance 'With18 (i) sections 571 through 584 of title 

19 5, United States Code; and 

20 (ii) this paragraph. 

21 (B) REQUIREl\1ENTS.-A demand for arbi22 tration under subparagraph (A) shall23 (i) be filed not later than the date 

24 that is 30 days after the date of the notifi-
156 


29916.132

l\IIAZ17120 S.L.C. 

23 

1 cation by the Secretary under paragraph 

2 (1); and 

3 (ii) include an alternative proposal to 

4 the applicable project that describes each 

5 modification sought by the objector 1vi.th 

6 respect to the project. 

7 (e) SELECTION OF ARBITRA.TOR.-For each arbitra8 tion commenced under this section, the Secretary and each 

9 applicable objector shall agree on a mutually acceptable 

10 arbitrator from the list published under subsection (c)(l). 

11 (f) RESPONSIBILITIES OF ARBITRATOR.-

12 (1) IN GENERAL.-An arbitrator selected under 

13 subsection (e)-

14 (A) shall address each demand filed for ar15 bitration with respect to a project under this 

16 section; but 

17 (B) may consolidate into a single arbitra18 tion all demands for arbitration by all objectors 

19 ·with respect to a project. 

20 (2) SELECTION OF PROPOSALS.-An arbitrator 

21 shall make a decision regarding each applicable de22 mand for arbitration under this section by select23 mg24 (A) the project, as approved by the Sec25 retary; 
157 


29916.133

lVL'\Zl7120 S.L.C. 

24 

1 (B) an alternative proposal submitted by 

2 the applicable objector; or 

3 (C) neither proposal. 

4 (3) LIMITATIONS.-

5 (A) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.-A decision 

6 of an arbitrator under this subsection shall be 

7 based solely on the administrative record for 

8 the project. 

9 (B) N 0 MODIF'ICATIONS TO PROPOSALS.-

10 An arbitrator may not modify any proposal con11 tained in a demand for arbitration of an objec12 tor under this section. 

13 (g) DEADIJINE FOR COMPLETION OF ARBITRA14 TION.-Not later than 90 days after the date on which 

15 a demand for arbitration is filed under subsection (d)(2), 

16 the arbitration process shall be completed. 

17 (h) EFFECT OF .ARBITRATION DECISION.-A decision 

18 of an arbitrator under this section--

19 (1) shall not be considered to be a major Fed20 eral action; 

21 (2) shall be binding; and 

22 (:3) shall not be subject to judicial review, ex23 cept as provided in section 10(a) of title 9, United 

24 States Code. 
158 


29916.134

l'vlAZJ7120 S.L.C. 

25 

1 (i) TERMINATION OI<' EFFECTI\TENESS.-The author2 ity pruvided by this section terminates effective January 

3 1, 2023. 

4 Subtitle B-Ecosystem Restoration 

5 SEC. 321. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this subtitle: 

7 (1) COMMUNITY \\TILDFIRE PROTECTION 

8 PLAN.-The term "community Virildfire protection 

9 plan" has the meaning given the term in section 101 

10 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 

11 U.S.C. 6511). 

12 (2) RESTORATION.-

13 (A) IN GENERAL.-The term "restora14 tion", with respect to an ecosystem, means to 

15 carry out any activity that helps to recover, es16 tablish, or maintain the resilience or adaptive 

17 capacity of an ecosystem. 

18 (B) INCLUSIONS.-The term "restoration" 

19 includes any activity described in subsection (a) 

20 relating to21 (i) timber harvesting; 

22 (ii) thim1ing; 

23 (iii) prescribed fire; or 

24 (iv) other vegetation manipulation m 

25 the National I''orest System. 
159 


29916.135

lVLAZ17120 S.L.C. 

26 

1 SEC. 322. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to subsection (b), the Sec3 retary shall identify, prioritize, and carry out ecosystem 

4 restoration projects on National Forest System land in ac5 cm·dance ·with applicable land and resource management 

6 plans prepared by the Secretary for units of the National 

7 Forest System under section 6 of the Forest and RangeS land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 19 7 4 ( 16 

9 U.S.C. 1604), if any, to accomplish 1 or more of the folIO lovving objectives: 

11 ( 1) To restore terrestrial habitat. 

12 (2) To sustain water quality, water flows, or 

13 watershed health and function. 

14 (3) To create, improve, or increase early seral 

15 habitat. 

16 ( 4) To carry out a needed timber stand Im17 provement. 

18 (5) To reduce the risk or extent of insect or dis19 ease infestation. 

20 ( 6) To reduce wildland fire severity potential. 

21 (7) To implement a community wildfire protec22 tion plan. 

23 (8) To establish, recover, or maintain ecosystem 

24 resiliency. 
160 


29916.136

lVIAZl7120 S.L.C. 

27 

1 (b) ExcrJUSIONS.-The Secretary may not carry out 

2 an ecosystem restoration project under this section on any 

3 area of National Porest System land4 (1) that is a component of the National Wilder5 ness Preservation System; or 

6 (2) on which removal of vegetation is prohibited 

7 by law. 

8 SEC. 323. NATIONAL RESTORATION TREATMENT ACREAGE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.-F'or fiscal year 2018 and each fis10 cal year thereafter, the Secretary shall establish a 5-year 

11 schedule to achieve the ecosystem restoration objectives 

12 described in section 322(a). 

13 (b) ScHEDULE GOALS.-The schedule established 

14 under subsection (a) shall15 (1) by the end of the first 5-year period, result 

16 in at least a doubling of the acres subject to an eco17 system restoration project under this subtitle, as 

18 compared to the number of acres subject to an eco19 system restoration project in fiscal year 2017; and 

20 (2) be consistent vvith any applicable forest 

21 plan. 

22 (c) ASSIGNMENT.-Not later than 90 days after the 

23 date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 

24 the Secretary shall assign the annual acreage for restora-
161 


29916.137

iVIAZ17120 S.L.C. 

28 

1 tion treatments, by National F'orest System region, de2 scribed in subsection (a). 

3 (d) PUBLICATION.-As soon as practicable after the 

4 date of each assignment of acreage for restoration treatS ments under subsection (c), the Secreta1-y shall publish the 

6 acreage that will apply, by National Porest System region, 

7 on the Internet website of the Forest Service. 

8 SEC. 324. PERFORMANCE MEASURES; ANNUAL REPORTS. 

9 (a) PERFORi'viANCE MEASURES.-The Secretary shall 

10 annually evaluate the degree to which the Secretary is 

11 achieving12 (1) the purposes of this subtitle, including13 (A) the number of acres covered by eco14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

system restoration projects; 

(B) the number of acres treated by mechanical methods under ecosystem restoration 

projects; 

(C) the munber of acres treated using 

stewardship contracts and stewardship agreements under ecosystem restoration projects; 

(D) the number of acres treated using timber sales under ecosystem restoration projects; 

(E) the number of acres treated by prescribed fire, mowing, and other noncommercial 
162 


29916.138

l\1.AZ17120 S.L.C. 

29 

1 product producing activities under ecosystem 

2 restoration projects; and 

3 (F) to the extent practicable, a summary 

4 of acres receivmg more than 1 type of treatS ment; and 

6 (2) the acreage requirements established under 

7 section 323(b)(1). 

8 (b) Al\fNUAL ltEPORTS.-Not later than 1 year after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 

10 the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy 

11 and Natural Resources and the Committee on Environ12 ment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 

13 on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives14 (1) a report that describes, with respect to the 

15 preceding year, the results of evaluations using the 

16 perfonnance measures described in subsection (a); 

17 and 

18 (2) a report that describes, with respect to the 

19 preceding year20 (A) the number and substance of projects 

21 that are subject to arbitration under section 

22 314; and 

23 (B) the outcomes of the arbitrations under 

24 that section. 
163 


29916.139

l\1AZ17120 S.L.C. 

30 

Subtitle C-Categorical Exclusions 

2 SEC. 331. DEFINITIONS. 

3 In this subtitle: 

4 (1) CATASTROPHIC EVENT.-The term "cata5 strophic event" means any natural disaster (such as 

6 hurricane, tornado, windstorm, snow or ice storm, 

7 rain storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal 

8 wave, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, 

9 mudslide, drought, or insect or disease outbreak), or 

10 any fire, flood, or explosion, regardless of cause. 

11 (2) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.-The term "cat12 egorical exclusion" means an exclusion from the re13 quirement to prepare an environmental assessment 

14 or an environmental impact statement under section 

15 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

16 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) for a category of forest man17 agement activities. 

18 (3) COLLABORATIVE PROCESS.-rrhe term "col19 laborative process'' means a process relating to the 

20 management of National B'orest System land by 

21 which a project or activity is developed and imple22 rnented by the Secretary through collaboration with 

23 interested persons, as described m section 

24 603(b)(1)(C) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

25 of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591b(b)(1)(C)). 
164 


29916.140

MAZl7120 S.L.C. 

31 

1 ( 4) FOREST MAl~AGElVIENT ACTIVITY.-The 

2 term "forest management activity" means a project 

3 or activity carried out by the Secretary on National 

4 Forest System land, consistent with the forest plan 

5 covering that land. 

6 (5) SALVAGE OPERATION.-rrhe term "salvage 

7 operation" means a forest management activity car8 ried out in response to a catastrophic event, the pri9 mary purpose of which is10 (A) to prevent wildfire as a result of the 

11 catastrophic event, or, if the catastrophic event 

12 'Was wildfire, to prevent a reburn of the fire-im13 pacted area; 

14 (B) to provide an opportunity for use of 

15 forest materials damaged as a result of the cat16 astrophic event; or 

17 (C) to provide a funding source for refor18 estation and other restoration activities for the 

19 National Forest System land impacted by the 

20 catastrophic event. 

21 SEC. 332. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO EXPEDITE CER22 TAIN CRITICAL RESPONSE ACTIONS. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.-Not later than 1 year after the 

24 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop 

25 a categorical exclusion (as defined in section 1508.4 of 
165 


29916.141

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

32 

1 title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regu2 lation)) to carry out a forest management activity on N a3 tional Forest System land in any case in which at least 

4 2 of the primary purposes of the forest management activ5 ity are6 ( 1) to address an. insect or disease infestation; 

7 (2) to treat land at risk of insect or disease in8 festation; 

9 (3) to reduce hazardous fuel loads; 

10 ( 4) to protect a municipal water source; 

11 ( 5) to maintain, enhance, or modify critical 

12 habitat to protect the habitat from catastrophic dis13 turhances; 

14 ( 6) to increase water yield; 

15 (7) to address salvage timber objectives; or 

16 ( 8) any combination of the purposes specified in 

17 paragraphs (1) through (7). 

18 (b) ADMINISTRATION.~-ln developing and admin19 istering a categorical exclusion under subsection (a), the 

20 Secretary shall21 (1) be consistent with the National Environ22 mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); 

23 and 

24 (2) apply the extraordinary circumstances pro25 cedures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Fed-
166 


29916.142

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

33 

1 eral Regulations (or a successor regulation), in de2 termining whether to use the categorical exclusion. 

3 SEC. 333. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO MEET FOREST 

4 PLAN GOALS FOR EARLY SERAL AND EARLY 

5 SUCCESSIONAL FORESTS. 

6 (a) AVAILABILITY OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.-A 

7 categorical exclusion is available to the Secretary to de8 velop and carry out a forest management activity on Na9 tional Forest System land in any case in which the pri10 mary purpose of the forest management activity is modi11 fying, improving, enhancing, or creating an early seral or 

12 early successional forest, in accordance with the applicable 

13 forest plan. 

14 (b) ACREAGE LIMITATIONS.-A forest management 

15 activity covered by the categorical exclusion granted by 

16 subsection (a) may not contain harvest units exceeding a 

17 total of 6,000 acres. 

18 (c) EXTRAORDINARY CmcUMSTAJ\lCES.-The Sec19 retary may apply the extraordinary circumstances proce20 dures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of :B~ederal 

21 Regulations (or a successor regulation), in determining 

22 whether to use a categorical exclusion under subsection 

23 (a). 

24 (d) CONSISTENCY.-In carrying out forest manage25 ment activities using the categorical exclusions under sub-
167 


29916.143

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

34: 

1 section (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the forest man2 agement activities are consistent ·with the applicable forest 

3 plans. 

4 (e) CUMULATIVE LVIPACTS.-The Secretary shall not 

5 be required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis in an 

6 environmental document prepared under the National En7 vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

8 for a forest management activity carried out using a cat9 egorical exclusion made available to the Secretary under 

10 subsection (a) or any other provision of law (including reg11 ulations). 

12 SEC. 334. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO IMPROVE WILD· 

13 LIFE HABITATS. 

14 (a) AVAILAlHIXl'Y OF CATEGORICAl~ EXCI.JUSION.-A 

15 categorical exclusion is available to the Secretary to con16 d1ict a forest management activity the purpose of which 

17 is the improvement of ·wildlife habitat. 

18 (b) ACREAGE LIMITATIONS.-A forest management 

19 activity covered by the categorical exclusion granted by 

20 subsection (a) may not contain harvest units exceeding a 

21 total of 6,000 acres. 

22 (c) EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTAt~CES.-The Sec23 retary may apply the extraordinary circumstances proce24 dures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal 

25 Regulations (or a successor regulation), in determining 
168 


29916.144

l\'1AZ17120 S.L.C. 

35 

1 whether to use a categorical exclusion under subsection 

2 (a). 

3 (d) CONSISTENCY.-In carrying out forest manage4 ment activities using the categorical exclusions under sub5 section (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the forest man6 agement activities are consistent vvith the applicable forest 

7 plans. 

8 (e) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.-The Secretary shall not 

9 be required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis in an 

10 environmental document prepared under the N ationa.l En11 vironmental Policy Act of 1969 ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

12 for a forest management activity carried out using a cat13 egorical exclusion made available to the Secretary under 

14 subsection (a.) or any other provision of law (including reg15 ulations). 

16 SEC. 335. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TO THIN FORESTS. 

17 (a) AVAILABILITY OF CATEGORIC.t\Ij 1-DXCLUSION.-A 

18 categorical exclusion is available to the Secretary to con19 duct a forest management activity the purpose of which 

20 is commercial thinning of forest stands on suited 

21 timberland, including22 ( 1) the incidental removal of trees for landings, 

23 skid trails, and road clearing; and 
169 


29916.145

MAZ17120 S.L.C. 

36 

1 (2) the construction of a temporary road that 

2 is not longer than 1 mile to carry out that commer3 cial thinning. 

4 (b) ACREAGE Lii'viiTATIONS.-A forest management 

5 activity covered by the categorical exclusion granted by 

6 subsection (a) may not contain harvest units exceeding a 

7 total of 6,000 acres. 

8 (c) EX'l'RAORDINARY CIRCUMST.ANCES.-The Sec9 retary may apply the extraordinary circumstances proce10 dures under section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal 

11 Regulations (or a successor reg11lation), in determining 

12 whether to use a categorical exclusion under subsection 

13 (a). 

14 (d) CoNSISTENCY.-In carrying out forest manage15 ment activities using the categorical exclusions under sub16 section (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the forest man17 agement activities are consistent with the applicable forest 

18 plans. 

19 (e) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.-The Secretary shall not 

20 be required to conduct a cumulative impact analysis in an 

21 environmental document prepared under the National En22 vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

23 for a forest management activity carried out using a cat24 egorical exclusion made available to the Secretary under 
170 


29916.146

lVIAZ17120 S.L.C. 

37 

1 subsection (a) or any other provision of law (including reg2 ulations). 

3 SEC. 336. EXPANSION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR 

4 INSECT AND DISEASE INFESTATION. 

5 (a) PERl\1.AJ'JENT AUTHORITY.-Section 602(£) of the 

6 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

7 6 5 91 a( f)) is amended by striking "each of fiscal years 

8 2014 through 2024." and inserting "each fiscal year.". 

9 (b) ADMINISTRA.TIVE REVIEW.-Section 603 of the 

10 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

11 6591b) is amended12 (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding 

13 paragTaph (1), by striking "described in subsection 

14 (b)"; 

15 (2) by striking subsection (b); 

16 (3) by redesig11ating subsections (c) through (g) 

17 as subsections (b) through (f), respectively; and 

18 (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)-

19 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking "3000" 

20 and inserting "6,000"; and 

21 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking "shall 

22 be" in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) 

23 and all that follows through the period at the 

24 end of subparagTaph (B) and inserting "may be 

25 carried out in any area desig11ated under sec-
171 

Æ 


29916.147

MAZ17l20 

1 

2 

S.hC. 

:38 

tion 602(b), including areas in l~'ire Regime 

Groups IV and V. ".