U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–906 2017

S HRG 114–400 

PENDING PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, 

FORESTS AND MINING 

of the 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

S. 132 

S. 326 

S. 1691 

JULY 16, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsysgov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

STEVE DAINES 

BILL CASSIDY 

CORY GARDNER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

JEFF FLAKE 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

RON WYDEN 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

ELIZABETH WARREN 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

BRYAN PETIT, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 

Oregon ................................................................................................................... 5 

WITNESS 

Tidwell, Chief Thomas, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ... 8 

Ellis, Steven, Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 24 

Matz, Mike, Director, U.S. Public Lands, The Pew Charitable Trusts ............... 37 

Neiman, Jim, Vice President and CEO, Neiman Enterprises, Inc. ..................... 45 

Swanson, Steve, President & CEO, Swanson Group, Inc. ................................... 54 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Association of O & C Counties: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 283 

Barrasso, Hon. John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Bear, Dinah: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 287 

Board of Commissioners for Tillamook County, Oregon: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 285 

Ellis, Steven: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 24 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 26 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 271 

Flake, Hon. Jeff: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 4 

Matz, Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 37 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 39 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 276 

Mealey, Stephen: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 293 

National Association of State Foresters: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 297 

(The) National Wild Turkey Federation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 299 

Neiman, Jim: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 45 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 47 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 278 

(The) Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 307 

S. 132, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2015 ................................. 73 

S. 326, the Stewardship End Result Contracting Improvement Act ................... 230 

S. 1691, the National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015 .................... 235 

Swanson, Steve: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 54 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 56 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 280 

Page

IV 

Tidwell, Chief Thomas: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 8 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 10 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 259 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 308 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 309 

(The) Wilderness Society: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 310 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 

committee’s website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=B054D01C-6EDB-4662-B224-808F4F932A66 

(1) 

PENDING PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND 

MINING LEGISLATION 

Thursday, July 16, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS AND MINING, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 pm in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on three 

bills all on the important topic of forest management. 

For decades our national forests and our rural and forested communities had a mutually beneficial relationship, largely focused on 

timber production. It created good paying jobs to support families. 

It reduced wildfire fuel loads and created wildlife habitat. It generated income that could be shared with communities to provide 

such essential services as roads, schools and law enforcement. 

This all began to change in the late 1980s and 1990s. Across the 

United States timber harvests from Federal forested lands fell by 

more than eight billion board feet, a decline of more than 80 percent. This abrupt drop in production levels was the result of numerous constraints on harvesting timber, including timber sales 

litigation and the listing of threatened and endangered species. 

Mills shuttered their operations and timber processing capacity 

in Wyoming and in other Western states was lost. Our once vibrant 

rural and forested communities were no more. Populations declined, schools closed and double digit unemployment became the 

new normal. The few mills that were able to survive continue to 

struggle to keep going given the uncertainty of supply. 

I would like to welcome Jim Neiman, one of these mill owners, 

headquartered in Hulett, Wyoming, to the Committee. 

We now have rural and forested communities across the West dependent upon Federal subsidies like Secure Rural Schools to provide basic services. Secure Rural Schools subsidies are not sustainable nor are they the long-term solution that rural counties need. 

Reducing timber production also negatively impacted the health 

of our forests. The lack of active forest management coupled with 

a policy of fire exclusion created the perfect storm for catastrophic, 

unnatural wildfire. According to the Forest Service between 62 and 

2 

82 million acres are in need of treatment and at risk of catastrophic wildfire. That is over 40 percent of the entire national forest system and the number is growing. 

I am not suggesting we turn back the clock to the so-called timber heydays. That is not realistic, but we cannot allow the status 

quo to continue. Congress must act for the health of our forests and 

for the survival of our communities. A number of actions are necessary. 

We hear most often about the escalating costs of wildfire suppression and how year after year the agencies are forced to tap existing non-fire accounts. Congress must end the practice of fire borrowing. We cannot continue borrowing money to fight fires from 

the very accounts that help reduce the risk and the cost of wildfire. 

Instead, Congress must responsibly budget for wildfire management without resorting to budget gimmicks. The Senate Interior 

Appropriations bill provides a fiscally responsible approach that 

ends fire borrowing. I commend Senator Murkowski for advancing 

a reasonable solution on this difficult issue. 

To be clear, our forest management problem is not simply a fire 

budgeting or money problem. It is a prioritization problem. Right 

now I see no higher priority for the Forest Service than treating 

our forests to make them healthy again. Treating our forests is the 

best medicine we have to reduce fire risk, to bring down the cost 

of fighting fire over time and to continue to provide recreation, 

clean water and quality habitat for wildlife. It is the only sustainable way to provide the jobs and economic activity our rural and 

forested communities desperately need. 

My bill, S. 1691, makes treating our forests the priority it needs 

to be. Congress must help the Forest Service get treatments implemented at the same pace and scale fire and other disturbances are 

occurring. 

A 2007 Forest Service NEPA Feasibility Analysis determined 

that the best estimated average for environmental review cost was 

$365 million a year. In addition to the excess costs, these environmental reviews take far too long to complete, if they are completed 

at all. The Forest Service estimates that, on average, it takes over 

three years to prepare an environmental impact statement and 

nearly two years to prepare an environmental assessment. 

Given the crisis situation in our forests this is wasted time, wasted taxpayer money and wasted staff hours that we cannot afford 

to spare. Excessive environmental analyses are only a lightning 

strike away from hurting, not helping, our national forests. 

My bill would restore rationality to the NEPA process without 

eliminating environmental reviews or public involvement. It also 

provides categorical exclusions for certain types of needed forest 

projects to get them implemented more quickly. 

To further address the ever present threat of litigation, the bill 

offers arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution tool. The use 

of arbitration by the Secretary would be totally discretionary and 

limited in scope. 

S. 1691 would also deter extraneous lawsuits by requiring a bond 

to be posted covering the cost of the Forest Service to defend the 

lawsuit. This may seem harsh to some, but it has existed on tribal 

lands without incident. 

3 

I am hopeful we can work together, this Committee and this Administration, to enhance the legislation and end the status quo. 

The very health of our forests, our watersheds, our wildlife and our 

communities depend on it. 

I also want to briefly touch on the other bills we have on the 

agenda. 

S. 132 is Senator Wyden’s Oregon and California Lands bill. I 

know that resolving the challenges associated with the management of the O and C lands is something that Senator Wyden is 

very committed to. 

I do have some concerns with the bill as drafted. My concern is 

that it locks up nearly a million acres in various land conservation 

designations including wilderness, and I also understand it lacks 

the support from the local communities. I do want to work with 

Senator Wyden on O and C, and I am hopeful we can get there. 

We also have S. 326, Senator Flake’s Stewardship End Result 

Contracting Act. This Committee, in the 113th Congress, reported 

out S. 1300 which reauthorized and made improvements to the 

Stewardship Contracting Authority. The 2014 Farm bill included 

many of the provisions of S. 1300 but did not incorporate the cancellation ceiling modifications. Senator Flake’s bill would address 

that issue. It is a bipartisan bill, and I am glad that we could include it in the hearing today. Senator Flake is chairing a hearing 

in the Foreign Relations Committee at this time and is unable to 

attend the hearing, so I ask unanimous consent that his statement 

be entered into the record. 

With no objection, it is so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

4 


Insert offset folio 1 here 98906.001
5 

Senator BARRASSO. With that, I want to thank our witnesses for 

being here, and turn to Senator Wyden for his opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

OREGON 

Senator WYDEN Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very 

much appreciate your holding the hearing, your typical courtesy 

with respect to Oregonians. 

We have two witnesses here. I guess they are the Steves, Steve 

Ellis and Steve Swanson. Mr. Swanson, his mill burned down. He 

is rebuilding. It seems to me it is almost a microcosm of the challenge: rebuilding a mill, providing good paying jobs in rural areas 

in a tough, global economy. So we are really glad to have both the 

Steves. Steve Swanson, I think, personifies part of the picture that 

we are going to hear more about in the days ahead about how 

tough it is to compete in this tough, global economy. 

Two quick comments with respect to issues that Chairman Barrasso touched on. 

First, we authored the Safety Net Program in this room. This 

room saw that enacted in 2000. My own view is, and we have 

asked in the past for agencies to give us numbers to this effect, 

that the challenge in the days ahead is going to require both of 

these programs. There is no conceivable strategy and the Chief is 

here and he is nodding. Let the record show that the Chief started 

to nod. [Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN.There is no conceivable strategy where you get 

the harvest up so high that there is no need for a safety net, so 

my hope is that we can increase the harvest in a sustainable manner and also continue a program that began in this room in a bipartisan way. That is the Safety Net program. I just look at the 

numbers, and I do not see how we are going to be able to meet the 

needs of rural communities without both. That is point number 

one. 

Point number two, picking up on something you and I have 

talked about, Mr. Chairman, increasing the harvest in a sustainable way is a hugely important forest health issue. Gosh do we 

need this right now, because we are looking at the prospect all over 

this country of a devastating fire season. It is incredibly dry. It gets 

hot. You have a lightning strike in our part of the world, and all 

of a sudden you have an inferno on your hands. It has produced 

a lot of other things like fire borrowing which Senator Crapo and 

I with 250 organizations are trying to stop. I am very much looking 

forward to this kind of discussion both as it relates to increasing 

harvest while we also have the safety net and the forest health 

issue. 

A few comments with respect to the O and C land which, of 

course, is overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. 

My constituents want a balanced solution, and they think it is 

urgent. As of today there is only one bill out there, one bill, on this 

subject, and that is the bill that we are going to be discussing 

today. 

The bill applies updated forest management practices to about 

2.8 million acres of truly unique O and C lands in my state. They 

have a story rich in history going back to the turn of the last cenVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:47 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 098906 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98906\F98906.TXT F98906
6 

tury with a highlight being the 1937 O and C Act which puts together, what we consider to be, sort of, a checkerboard of public 

lands mixed in with private lands across 18 Oregon counties. The 

lands are now managed under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. 

Obviously the landscape has changed plenty in the last 20 years, 

but over the last 20 years we still have some of the same concerns. 

We are still concerned about the harvest; we are still concerned 

about watershed health, wildlife habitat, wildfire prevention; and, 

our mills and the counties that host O and C lands are waiting for 

Federal, land-based logs and the revenue they generate. 

This legislation we are going to discuss today, in my view, is 

going to jump start local economies, create certainty for mill owners in rural communities and lock in protections for some of Oregon’s most treasured protections that almost every resident I see 

would like to protect. The legislation was originally introduced in 

2013 after working with people from the timber industry, environmental leaders, scientists, and others. So it is, at least in my view, 

a place to begin to try to find common ground, identify the problems and find balanced solutions. 

The bill protects 1.6 million acres as conservation emphasis areas 

as well as safeguards old growth trees and riparian protections. At 

the same time it designates about 1.2 million acres as forestry emphasis areas which will lead to a sustainable harvest of approximately 400 million board feet of timber a year for 50 years. We 

have worked with the Forest Service and the BLM on it, so we 

would like them to testify on that point today. 

Over the past two years we have gotten a lot of feedback dealing 

with an issue like this. There are folks on the environmental side 

who say it cuts too much, and the people in the logging industry 

who say it doesn’t cut enough. 

My own view of tough natural resources issues, and the Chairman knows we’ve dealt with a lot of them in this room, is that in 

a tough contentious debate about natural resources nobody gets 

what they want. Nobody gets what they believe they ought to have. 

The question is can they get enough to essentially meet their 

needs? That is what we have sought to do in this legislation that 

we are considering today. 

Unlike other forestry proposals, my approach would not only double the harvest compared to the average harvest over the last decade: it protects lands for conservation and bedrock environmental 

laws such as the Endangered Species Act. The best forestry scientists in the Northwest, Jerry Franklin and Norman Johnson, 

who know the woods about as well as anybody on the planet, have 

given us invaluable counsel on it. 

We understand that it is not going to be unanimous when you 

take a vote on something like this, so we are continuing to have 

discussions with all concerned: forest products officials, conservation groups, local governmental leaders and recreational interests. 

Ideological extremes are not going to get the rural West and rural 

Oregon to a solution. 

Without compromise our forests are going to continue to remain 

locked up due to lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit. Management 

will be stalled, and the health of forests will continue to diminish. 

So my take on the bill we are going to discuss today is that it is 

7 

a true compromise. A compromise that can save jobs and create 

more. A compromise that gets you a reliable harvest. A compromise 

that gets you 87,000 acres of wilderness and provides the first ever 

legislative protections for old growth, O and C old growth, and O 

and C streams. 

It also provides an opportunity to manage the forests sustainably 

and responsibly so we can enjoy them for generations. As the 

Chairman correctly said, my state and the rural West is not going 

to go back to the days of billion board foot clear cuts. The country 

does not want that. Rural communities do not want it. 

It is time to take the management of forests out of the courtroom 

and put it back into the hands of forestry and conservation professionals. We are going to rely on the best available science. We want 

a bipartisan approach. We want a collaborative approach. The legislation we will discuss today starts us down the path. 

Mr. Chairman, if I can just begin the apology-arama, the key 

plane to get to Oregon where I have to be in the rural part of the 

state to discuss what we are going to do about fire borrowing and 

the issues we are going to be talking about today leaves not too 

long from the time our friends have finished testifying, so I want 

to apologize in advance about the bad manners. 

Westerners always know more about plane schedules. I am looking at Senator Heinrich and my colleague from Montana, why we 

know more about plane schedules than anybody around is simply 

because of the challenge of getting home, for example, at rural 

town meetings in Lake View and places like that, Steve. So I want 

to apologize to our guests for bad manners. 

We are going to work very closely with you. The Chairman wants 

to work on this issue intensively, and I think that is very constructive. I look forward to doing it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you. 

Just following up on your comments, Senator Wyden, and those 

of us from the West try to get home just about every weekend and 

I know we are going to try to do it again this weekend. It is close. 

It is Frontier Days in Cheyenne, so I am looking forward to the 

Daddy of them all. 

With that we have people here to testify, witnesses. Mr. Thomas 

Tidwell, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; Mr. Steve Ellis, Deputy 

Director of Operations for the Bureau of Land Management; Mr. 

Mike Matz, the Director of Public Lands for the Pew Charitable 

Trust; Mr. Jim Neiman, Vice President and CEO of Neiman Enterprises; and Mr. Steve Swanson, President and CEO for the Swanson Group. 

At the end of the witness testimony we will begin questions. 

Your full written testimony will be made part of the official record, 

so please try to keep your statements to five minutes so that we 

may have time for questions. 

We look forward to hearing your testimony beginning with Chief 

Tidwell. 

8 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS TIDWELL, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. TIDWELL. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden, 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on these three bills today. 

I’ll start with Senate bill 1691. We welcome legislation that provides incentives for collaboration and expands our tool set to be 

able to restore and maintain ecological resiliency of our fires, but 

without eroding the public trust that we have been able to build 

over the years, those along with the assurance that’s provided by 

environmental laws. 

With this legislation as written, we oppose this bill primarily because of concerns with the bonding requirement, the mandated 

acreage targets and the design and scale of the categorical exclusions. 

The bonding requirement is problematic, you know, and I’m not 

sure that it will actually meet your objectives. However, giving the 

Secretary the discretion to be able to use arbitration is something 

that we would like to work with you on to be able to use that, and 

I believe that that may have the opportunity to be able to address 

some of the concerns that drives this need for the bonding requirement. 

There’s no question we need to do more work. We’re on record. 

You quote our numbers about the work that needs to be done to 

be able to restore our forests, but the last thing we need to do is 

create more controversy. 

We have a great track record going. Year after year we continue 

to treat more acres, produce more outputs, and I want us to be able 

to build on that track record. 

With mandating acres, and I definitely can understand the interest and the need for doing that, but just a mandate that doesn’t 

necessarily mean we’re going to get more work. And I’m worried 

that it will create more controversy and opposition with those that 

believe that we’re doing it just because we’re directed through legislation verses being able to do it because it’s what the land needs. 

With your CE categories, we use a lot of CEs. In fact, the majority of our work now is done through categorical exclusions (CE). 

And if we have the right scale with the right level of assurances 

around CEs similar to what you did with the Farm bill, the CE in 

the Farm bill, then we have a good track record of being able to 

work with our collaboratives to be able to get work done through 

those CEs. But it’s absolutely essential that we find a way to be 

able to maintain the public trust otherwise what I’m concerned 

about is that we will just create more opposition, more conflict and 

that the use of CEs will either slow down the work or we will not 

be able to implement those projects. 

I appreciate the interest here to be able to expand our tool set. 

I think there’s some opportunities here where we can accomplish 

that, and we look forward to working with you to be able to address our concerns. 

With Senate bill 132, Senator Wyden, the Department supports 

the bill’s proposals for the wilderness designation and wild and scenic river designations with a few technical changes that we propose 

in our legislation. But I do have concerns about the conveyance of 

9 

the 308,000 acres of land. I understand the purpose for that, but 

I’m concerned that by—as I understand the criteria, the lands that 

would need to be identified could be spread all over multiple forests 

and actually create more of this checkerboard situation that we 

have. The other concern that I have is that we made the commitment with our communities to manage these lands and their multiple use through following through our forest plans, and this 

would shift that. And it’s a concern that I have. 

You know that we want to do more work. We want to be able 

to restore this. We want to be able to increase the acres treated. 

We want to be able to increase the amount of timber that’s being 

produced to support jobs in these communities, so we want to work 

with you on how to be able to do that in a way that also addresses 

our concerns about this conveyance. 

And then last on Senator Flake’s bill on S. 326, we appreciate 

the efforts to be able to give us more flexibility with our end result 

stewardship contracting process. Where we—our current requirement around cancellation ceilings definitely is, it’s creating a reluctance in our work force to be able to use this because the amount 

of money that has to be set aside for these type of projects. And 

I really appreciate the work around this; however, there are concerns with the impacts it would have on some key budget laws, the 

budgeting processes. So I would ask, if it’s possible, if we could get 

our budget experts from the Administration to be able to sit down 

with the staff to be able to find a way to be able to address those 

concerns so that we can move forward and have the additional 

flexibility but at the same time, you know, honor the concerns they 

have with our budget processes. 

In closing, just quickly, once again I appreciate the efforts here. 

But I have to stress the largest impediment that we have right now 

from being able to get more work done is around the cost of wild 

land fire suppression. I appreciate the support to stop the borrowing, the transfer of funds, but I also need to ask you to address 

the ten-year average situation. Senators Wyden and Crapo’s bill 

does that. It slows down the growth of the ten-year average. It also 

provides a significant amount of free board in our budget constraint to allow us to be more proactive to this. 

But I just need to share with you, just between FY’15 and FY’16 

our ten-year average has gone up $115 million. Over the next few 

years we have two more low years in that ten-year averages that 

are going to come off. And so over the next few years we’re going 

to have to be looking for another couple $100 million to come out 

of the rest of our budget. So thank you for taking this issue on. 

That is going to remain our number one priority is to be able to 

address both the ten-year average and borrowing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98906.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98906.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98906.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98906.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98906.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98906.007
16 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98906.008
17 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98906.009
18 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98906.010
19 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98906.011
20 


Insert offset folio 12 here 98906.012
21 


Insert offset folio 13 here 98906.013
22 


Insert offset folio 14 here 98906.014
23 


Insert offset folio 15 here 98906.015
24 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Chief Tidwell. 

Mr. Ellis? 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

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

Wyden and members of the Subcommittee. 

I’m here to present the Interior Department’s testimony on Senate bill 132, the Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2015, 

and Senate, S. 326, the Stewardship End Result Contracting Improvement Act. And my oral statements here will briefly summarize written testimony. 

Senate 132 is a complex bill. It concerns BLM lands in Western 

Oregon, known as the O and C lands. It would establish new designations and principles for managing these O and C lands. 

The transfer of lands into trust status for the benefit to tribes 

is another part of the legislation, amend the Coquille Restoration 

Act and establish new conservation designations in Western Oregon. 

The Department of Interior appreciates the Ranking Member’s 

work in developing this legislation. We support many goals of the 

bill, support Title III and would like to work with the sponsor and 

the Committee on some amendments to Title I and II. 

We do have some concerns with the bill as it’s currently drafted. 

We are committed to continuing to work with you, the sponsors, to 

address them as we further develop this proposal. 

The 1937 O and C Act that placed 2.2 million checkerboard acres 

of Oregon/California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grants 

lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior. In addition to the O and C lands the BLM manages over 200,000 acres 

of public domain forest. We call them our PD lands in Western Oregon. 

The BLM’s management involves complex and legislative frameworks and resource management goals including predictable and 

sustainable yield of timber, endangered species habitat, clean 

water and providing recreational opportunities. 

We are currently revising the 1995 Resource Management Plans 

that govern management of the O and C lands. We have actively 

sought the engagement of stakeholders and the public, and we’re 

going to continue to strive for a cooperative approach to the complex issues in managing these O and C lands. 

Title I of Senate 132 provides guidance for managing forestry 

and conservation emphasis areas. We do share the goals of providing the sustained yield of timber while protecting older complex 

forests in support of conservation for threatened and endangered 

species. 

While we support the many goals in Title I, we have concerns 

with the language and would like to work with you to address 

these. 

Title I also provides for numerous conservation designations including the expansion of the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, 

several wild and scenic rivers and a number of new designations. 

25 

We would like to work with you to clarify the management goals 

and the boundaries of these areas. 

Title II would provide roughly 32,000 acres of BLM-managed 

lands to be held in trust for the benefit of two tribes. The BLM welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress on the transfer of 

lands into trust status and supports the goal of this Title. We 

would like to work with you to address these various issues including access rights and timber harvest. This Title would also amend 

the Coquille Restoration Act to provide for changes in management 

for the Coquille Forest, and we support this modification. 

Title III would establish new wilderness and wild and scenic 

river designations in Oregon. The bill would enlarge the Wild 

Rogue Wilderness and extend the wild and scenic river, the Rogue 

Wild and Scenic River. It would establish the Devil’s Staircase wilderness, and it would designate the Molalla River and Table Rock 

Fork as part of the wild and scenic river system. The Department 

supports this Title which would conserve and protect these special 

areas. 

S. 326 amends the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 to establish cancellation ceilings to limit up front government obligations for stewardship contracting priorities. The Department values 

the flexibility provided by the Stewardship Contracting Authority 

and appreciates Congress’ support in permanently reauthorizing it; 

however, we have concerns about certain provisions in this bill and 

would like to work with the sponsor and Committee to resolve 

them while adhering to core budget and acquisition principles. 

And thank you. Happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 16 here 98906.016
27 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98906.017
28 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98906.018
29 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98906.019
30 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98906.020
31 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98906.021
32 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98906.022
33 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98906.023
34 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98906.024
35 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98906.025
36 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98906.026
37 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis. 

Mr. Matz? 

STATEMENT OF MIKE MATZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. PUBLIC LANDS, 

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS 

Mr. MATZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it’s a 

real privilege to come before you today and offer our perspective on 

two pieces of legislation, S. 132 and S. 1961. 

My name is Mike Matz, and I am Director of U.S. Public Lands 

at the Pew Charitable Trust. For many years now we have participated in various roundtable discussions with a variety of stakeholders to seek solutions to nettlesome land management issues on 

our national forests. Reaching agreement has proved challenging, 

yet in some cases achievable. Pragmatic solutions can be found 

when people understand they won’t get everything they would like, 

but are able to get some of what’s important to them, as you mentioned, Senator Wyden. 

The path that has culminated in the introduction of S. 132 has 

taken a bit of time, almost three years now. We truly believe this 

is a step in the right direction. It protects lands and rivers while 

more than doubling current timber production according to some 

academic experts, and that benefits local economies directly by increasing the revenue stream to funding strapped counties and indirectly through job creation and amenities. The proposal is based on 

sound science thanks to your consultation with Dr. Norm Johnson 

and Dr. Jerry Franklin. 

We greatly appreciate the inclusion of two wild places, Wild 

Rogue and Devil’s Staircase which would be designated as part of 

the National Wilderness Preservation system and the establishment of four special management units to safeguard water resources is likewise vital since watersheds in these O and C lands 

supply drinking water to 1.8 million residents in that corner of Oregon. Wild and scenic river designations for 252 miles of waterways, safeguard clean water also and help protect and restore wild 

salmon habitat. Also worth highlighting here is the welcome protection of the ancient forests defined as stands with average age 

trees of at least 90 years, an increasingly rare forest type. 

I need to mention some of the places not included in S. 132 

which we hope to see added at some point in the process. Mt. Hebo, 

the headwaters of the McKenzie River, the Kalmiopsis and North 

Umpqua River all richly deserve wilderness protection. 

Finally, we should note that we feel we’ve gone as far as we can 

go on the logging side of the equation to go beyond a doubling of 

timber harvest gets into unchartered science and will conceivably 

damage the health of these natural systems and cause harm to 

sensitive wildlife and plant species. We believe logging levels set 

forth in S. 132 will provide a steady and sustainable source of revenue to assist counties struggling to provide basic services and will 

create resource extraction jobs. Creating economic opportunities 

and improving the quality of life are important to us just as protecting water quality and conserving forests are. 

We’ve also been asked to provide our perspective on S. 1691, Mr. 

Chairman, and it’s a real honor to be able to talk about your legislation, the National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act of 2015. 

38 

Changes have been made to S. 1691 from the previous version, 

and we would like to express our appreciation to you and your staff 

for listening to some of the concerns enumerated by us and others 

in the conservation community. Gone are the forest management 

emphasis areas, replaced by national restoration treatment acreage, for instance, but proscribed logging targets are higher and 

bedrock environmental laws are undermined. We oppose S. 1691, 

and in our written testimony we delve into greater detail on the 

specific provisions which we see as problematic still in this version 

of the legislation. 

Let me take a little time to lay out some of the overarching 

issues with forest management and put forward ideas that we have 

to address them. 

The major one is budgetary. A lack of funding has hamstrung the 

agency, curbed staffing levels and hindered its ability to design and 

implement appropriate timber sales. The Forest Service hasn’t the 

funding even to implement more recent legal changes such as those 

in last year’s Farm bill. 

Compounding the matter is the fact that the U.S. Forest Service 

in any given Fiscal Year has to divert substantial percentages of 

its budget to the steep costs associated with fighting fires which climatic conditions seemingly have exacerbated in recent years. Increasing the level of appropriations for the agency with transparency and reporting while taking the firefighting costs off budget 

and covering those disasters as we do floods or hurricanes, with 

emergency supplemental funding would go a long way toward ameliorating current difficulties with forest management. 

The former ideas and simply throwing money at the problem because the limitations on the agency are real and being felt and the 

latter is essentially handling catastrophic fires like other natural 

disasters in this country. As a matter of America stepping up to assist those fellow citizens among us who need help, in this case, to 

protect lives and property in the wild land urban interface. 

I’d like to make two more quick points. The first is that we believe in the efficacy and potential of collaboratives where there is 

no preordained outcome, where there exists incentives for people 

from all sides to sit at the table and discuss creative solutions to 

managing and protecting forests. And the second is that we do not 

think that opportunities for public participation and recourse 

should be unduly circumvented or short circuited. People can find 

common ground. And the logger in Darrington, Washington should 

have as much say as a conservationist in Boise, Idaho when it 

comes to decisions affecting our public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matz follows:] 

39 


Insert offset folio 27 here 98906.027
40 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98906.028
41 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98906.029
42 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98906.030
43 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98906.031
44 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98906.032
45 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Matz. 

Mr. Neiman? 

STATEMENT OF JIM NEIMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NEIMAN ENTERPRISES, INC 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Wyden, also recognize Senator Gardner which I have a mill out 

in Colorado. 

Senator, I am Vice President and CEO of Neiman Enterprise. We 

own four sawmills, two in South Dakota, one in Colorado and our 

home state, our home office in Hulett, Wyoming. These mills create 

475 direct jobs and support another 275 independent contract jobs. 

I’m here today on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, representing purchasers of forest service timber from 32 

states. I’m here to thank you, Senator Barrasso, for introducing 

Senate bill 1691, the National Forest Ecosystem Improvement Act. 

S. 1691 builds on recent congressional actions. These include the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act, repeal of the Peel’s Reform Act and 

the 2014 Farm bill. I hope the Senate will move quickly so Federal 

forestry reform legislation can be enacted this year. 

In the intermountain west Forest Service is the primary forest 

land owner and principle supplier of timber. While our company 

purchases most of our timber sales from the Black Hills National 

Forest, we also purchase timber from the seven other national forests. Since the late 1990s we’ve seen catastrophic forest fires and 

insect epidemics devastate the national forest where we work and 

live. A solid body of science, scientific research, demonstrates that 

proactive forest management can have a significant influence on 

fire behavior, the detrimental effects of wildfire and bark beetle 

epidemics. 

The underlying concept is simple, overstocked forests with little 

structural diversity are highly susceptible to fire and bugs. Reducing stock in and managing for diversity will reduce susceptibility. 

The Forest Service’s 2012 restoration strategy acknowledges the 

need to increase the pace and scale for forest restoration, reduce 

hazards and increase resiliency of the national forest. While there 

has been progress, it has been agonizingly slow. 

Unfortunately the Forest Service’s environmental analysis and 

decisionmaking process is a procedural maze, made worse because 

of the activist litigation. In 2014 the GAO found that the Forest 

Service prepares more environmental impact statements than any 

other Federal agency and takes longer and spends more money in 

doing so. Once these NEPA documents are complete, litigation frequently follows. In the interim the beetles continue to spread and 

wildfires don’t wait for environmental reviews. Frequently even 

when the Forest Service ultimately prevails the needed management project is rendered mute, the watershed is damaged and the 

opportunity for economic use of the timber land is lost. 

S. 1691 addresses many of these issues by providing new authorities to complete NEPA and ESA consultation quickly, discouraging dilatory litigation and providing new categorical exclusions to 

shorten the planning horizon for needed management. We’re particularly pleased with the bill, that the bill provides for arbitration 

option to the Chief as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. 

46 

S. 1691 preserves opportunities for public involvement and requires documentation of the need for management objectives and 

the proposed categorical exclusions must comply with forest plan 

direction. The Obama Administration and the Forest Service, with 

the Chief to clear down to the crews on the ground, deserve praise 

for their efforts to expand management on our national forest. 

They have worked hard to move needed projects forward, but the 

current processes are an impediment to increasing the pace and 

scale. 

The Federal Government must embrace a vision of efficient, 

proactive management and healthy forests and commit to the resources needed to implement the aggressive strategy on the 

ground. By providing new tools and addressing bottlenecks, S. 1691 

sets the ground work for such a strategy. 

Again, I am honored to testify today and look forward to working 

with you to move forestry reform legislation to the President’s 

desk. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman follows:] 

47 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98906.033
48 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98906.034
49 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98906.035
50 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98906.036
51 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98906.037
52 


Insert offset folio 38 here 98906.038
53 


Insert offset folio 39 here 98906.039
54 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks so much, Mr. Neiman. 

Mr. Swanson. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE SWANSON, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

SWANSON GROUP, INC. 

Mr. SWANSON. Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Wyden and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Steve Swanson, 

President and CEO of Swanson Group, a family-owned, forest products company in existence since 1951. 

My testimony is primarily focused on the need and our continued 

support for a balanced, effective solution to break the paralysis surrounding the management of the statutorily unique BLM O and C 

lands. I know Senator Wyden has dedicated significant effort to 

finding that needed solution. 

I’d also like to underscore the importance of adopting legislation 

to improve the health of our national forests and thank Senator 

Barrasso for his leadership in this effort. 

The Swanson Group currently operates two sawmills, one plywood mill and we’re rebuilding another plywood mill in the Eugene 

area that was completely lost to fire last summer, actually one year 

ago tomorrow. Our company currently employs 600 people in some 

of the economically distressed communities in rural Oregon, and 

with the rebuilt plant we’ll increase that number to 850. 

My testimony today will focus on the building blocks necessary 

to create an O and C solution that is supportable. The items I will 

focus on include certainty, creating a large enough, geographically 

distributed land base that the agreed upon volumes and timber 

revenues can be produced and protecting private lands which today 

are our industry’s sole source of dependable wood fiber. 

The cornerstone of any O and C solution is the level of certainty 

provided to meeting the timber harvest, conservation, county revenue and other management objectives. Put plainly, if a major part 

of the statutorily unique O and C lands are going to be preserved 

forever by an act of Congress, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask 

that some of the lands be designated and unencumbered for the 

purpose of responsible management to create jobs, revenues for 

rural counties and healthy, diverse forest types. 

Current harvest levels are inadequate to meet the timber volume 

needs of the remaining industry infrastructure or forest health. 

The situation is particularly challenging in the drier forests of 

Southwest Oregon where the forests are at higher risk to catastrophic wildfires. 

Senator Wyden, as you know from your recent trip to the seven 

wonders of Oregon, Oregon is a large state. Increased harvest levels in Salem and Eugene do nothing for the mills in Roseburg, 

Glendale and Medford. An effective O and C solution must produce 

sustainable timber harvest at levels that support local infrastructure and forest health up and down the I–5. 

The size of the manageable land base is critical to achieving forest health goals and timber outputs. S. 132 designates only 31 percent of the BLM lands for timber output goals and 69 percent to 

permanent conservation allocations. Within the 31 percent dedicated to timber harvest there are extensive silvicultural prescripVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:47 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 098906 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98906\F98906.TXT F98906
55 

tions and individual tree and stand prohibitions that restrict harvest. It is possible to take a lighter touch approach to managing 

but the available land base would need to be enlarged. 

Conversely, we can manage a smaller portion of the O and C 

lands more intensively. It is not possible to increase harvest levels 

if we shrink the management land base and mandate lighter touch 

treatments. 

Finally, in our state which is dominated by Federal land, well 

managed private forests are the thread that our mills have hung 

on. I appreciate your efforts to protect private land access but there 

also must be more done on the BLM lands to address the risk insects, disease and catastrophic wildfire pose to private land. Unfortunately these risks don’t respect property lines or ownerships. 

Our industry has come to the table and will continue to come to 

the table to find a durable, workable compromise for the O and C 

lands. In fact, the timber industry supported the House O and C 

proposal which dedicated more than half of the O and C lands to 

conservation purposes while dedicating less than half to sustained 

yield timber production with sufficient legal certainty. 

Senator Wyden, despite our position on your bill I want to assure 

you that our industry remains totally and completely committed to 

working with you and the rest of the Oregon delegation to find an 

effective compromise O and C solution before we see further economic declines in our rural communities. 

With regard to S. 1691, this legislation includes important provisions to address the primary factors limiting the management of 

our national forests today, namely the litigation and cost in time 

required for the Forest Service to satisfy the analysis paralysis that 

constrains forest managed projects. It sets reasonable goals for annual mechanical treatment levels and builds upon many existing 

authorities to streamline project planning and implementation for 

a limited subset of forestry projects including those developed by 

collaboratives. It also seeks to rein in the serial litigation that is 

holding back forest restoration efforts. 

I hope this Congress can reach consensus on a reasonable package of national forestry forums to restore the health of forests and 

communities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swanson follows:] 

56 


Insert offset folio 40 here 98906.040
57 


Insert offset folio 41 here 98906.041
58 


Insert offset folio 42 here 98906.042
59 


Insert offset folio 43 here 98906.043
60 


Insert offset folio 44 here 98906.044
61 


Insert offset folio 45 here 98906.045
62 

Senator WYDEN.Mr. Chairman? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN.Thank you very much. Again with apologies to 

our guests because after this quick comment I am going to make 

the sprint to the plane. 

Mr. Swanson, I very much appreciate the kind of constructive 

tone that you have offered today in your desire to get a compromise. Part of the approach on the harvest I want to make clear 

because, as you know, there have been strong differences of opinion 

with respect to the industry and the environmental community 

with respect to how much was devoted to harvest, how much was 

devoted for environmental protection and these kinds of issues. 

That is why the number I have used is the number that was furnished by the government agencies, the people that we pay to give 

us an objective calculation. What the agencies said is that this 

would double the harvest on a sustainable basis on average for the 

next 50 years. Now I know there continues to be disagreement on 

that between industry people and environmental people and the 

like, so I want the record to show that I understand that difference 

of opinion. I am very anxious to continue to work with industry 

people and environmental people. 

The reason I look to the agencies is I thought at least that was 

a starting off point because those are people that we pay, the people in this room and taxpayers all across the country, to give us 

an objective analysis. So a big thanks. 

As you can tell I have enormous admiration for the fact that 

after a fire you said, ‘‘I’m still going to be part of rural Oregon. I’m 

going to come right back and build a larger mill.’’ We want to see 

that prosper, and we want to see those communities prospering. 

That is where I am off to, to be in Lakeview in not too long now. 

I look forward to working with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your letting me do this. 

I know you have a tight schedule as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and thank you 

for your continued leadership in offering a forum designed to improve the management of our national forests. 

Chief Tidwell, I want to start by highlighting some recent visits 

to Montana National Forest that I have made in the last couple 

weeks with the local Forest Service as well as county leaders. I received a firsthand perspective of how responsible harvesting can be 

used to be a vital tool to improve our watersheds. We looked up 

there at the Chessman Reservoir there behind Helena, Montana to 

reduce the risk of wildfire and to respond to beetle kill. 

I want to publicly thank and give thanks to Lolo and Helena, 

Lewis and Clark Forest Supervisors, Tim Garcia and Bill Avey. 

They are doing a wonderful job back in Montana. Their staffs, they 

spent time leading us and in viewing these most important 

projects. Thank you. 

These site visits, I will tell you that it is something that reinforced for me that restoring the health of forests through active 

management is absolutely vital to conserving our forests and their 

many benefits for future generations. 

63 

As we all know the situation right now out West is dire. We have 

got a potentially devastating wildfire season on our hands at the 

moment. It is already underway. Millions of acres of Montana’s national forests are in an unacceptably dangerous condition. For 

these reasons I am determined. I am very motivated to pass legislation that gives your agency additional tools and authorities to 

compete and complete more forest health restoration projects and 

do them faster. 

I have a few questions I would like to go through. First of all, 

regarding categorical exclusions which you talked about in your 

testimony, particularly for collaborative developed projects and I 

am one who believes in and stands behind these collaborative efforts back in the West and particularly in Montana. I know from 

your testimony that there are considerations that should be discussed regarding size and scope of CEs. You made that clear. But 

broadly speaking when the Forest Service uses categorical exclusions, including that 3,000 acre CE that is provided for in the 2014 

Farm bill, could you describe how your agency takes into account 

both public input and analyzes environmental impacts to ensure 

that CEs are used to enhance rather than hurt the environment? 

Mr. TIDWELL. When we have the opportunity to use that, a CE, 

when we have those categories we start by working with our local 

collaboratives. So that there’s a sense of what needs to be done. 

There’s support for that and we move forward. And a CE does not 

eliminate our requirements to be able to analyze the project and 

to ensure that we’re not having unnecessary impact. It does reduce 

the amount of documentation, of written documentation. But because CEs are at a scale that’s much smaller than what we usually 

do in EA or an EIS so that it does take less time to be able to do 

it. 

But the key, the key part of it, is to have that public support so 

that you can go ahead and use this process where we still have 

public comment. We still address all the environmental concerns, 

but there’s less documentation. 

So if it’s the right scale and it has the assurances that some of 

the public needs, similar to what we did with the Farm bill about 

roads, etcetera, it’s been a very useful tool. 

Senator DAINES. I think just to clarify for everybody here around 

CEs, make sure I have this straight, so I am just going to go 

through three quick points to make sure I am doing this correctly 

and you can answer. 

A categorical exclusion cannot be used if there is a potential adverse impact on an endangered species or watershed. Is that correct? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That’s correct with our regulations. 

Senator DAINES. Right. Likewise a categorical exclusion must be 

consistent with the local forest plan, correct? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Correct. 

Senator DAINES. And mass clear cuts would not be allowed under 

CEs, correct? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Correct. The size of clear cuts regeneration harvest, it’s governed by the National Forest Management Act that 

limits it to 40 acres in most of the country. And we have a few situVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:47 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 098906 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98906\F98906.TXT F98906
64 

ations on the West Coast where we can use up to an 80 acre clear 

cut. 

Senator DAINES. Lastly, as I am running out of time, Chief Tidwell. If Congress did three things, if they expanded the responsible 

use of categorical exclusions; if they ended fire borrowing; and if it 

reduced the effectiveness of obstructionist’s litigation which the 

House has done with their recently passed legislation and we are 

working to do the same thing here in the Senate, could you describe how these reforms would help increase the pace and the 

scale of the Forest Service projects that improve the health of the 

forests? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I would have to go a little bit further to see a 

change in the amount of work we could get accomplished. 

If by adding additional CEs that maintain the public trust that 

we can continue to be able to use that to get more work done. If 

we eliminate fire borrowing and at the same time address the tenyear average situation to provide a consistent full level of funds for 

the agency and if we can find a way to address the concerns that 

drive litigation, we can be able to increase the pace and scale of 

the work that needs to be done. We have that track record. We’ve 

been doing it, and it’s driven by the collaborative efforts that you’ve 

commented on. 

Senator DAINES. Alright, thank you, Chief Tidwell, I appreciate 

it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to say how much I respect and appreciate the effort that 

you have made to improve this bill from the previous Congress’ 

version. I appreciate that watershed health and wildlife are now 

part of the purposes of your legislation, but the fact remains that 

quadrupling commercial timber projects on national forests would 

take resources. It would take money. It takes staff. It would take 

time. As it stands now, the Forest Service is short on all three. 

We all have things that we would like to see the Forest Service 

do better, do faster, do more of. In fact Senator Flake and I introduced a bill just yesterday to improve watershed restoration 

projects on our national forests. We should hold all our public 

lands’ agencies accountable when they do not fulfill their missions. 

But the fact is that fire suppression has grown from 16 percent 

of the Forest Service budget in 1995 to over 40 percent in 2014. We 

have all heard the testimony of Chief Tidwell on what the ten-year 

rolling averages impacts are going to be in the next couple of years. 

That’s simply not sustainable. 

So I’m glad we’re having this conversation about forest policy, 

and I absolutely look forward to working with all of you as we look 

for ways to improve the health and the resiliency of these Western 

forests, in particular. But I think any solution is going to have to 

include fixing the fire budget so that forest staff can spend time 

and resources making our forests healthier and more accessible to 

the public instead of racing from one catastrophic wildfire to the 

next. 

I point out, Mr. Chairman, that several of our members and witnesses have paraphrased the Mick Jagger principle today. As you 

know that is a very long-recognized public land management prinVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:47 Apr 07, 2017 Jkt 098906 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\98906\F98906.TXT F98906
65 

ciple that, accurately articulated, says, ‘‘you can’t always get what 

you want, but if you try sometimes, you can get what you need.’’ 

I think that is the needle we have to thread here in front of us over 

the rest of this Congress. 

Senator BARRASSO. As opposed to, ‘‘I can’t get no satisfaction?’’ 

Senator HEINRICH. Exactly. Yes. [Laughter.] 

So yes, you just threw my logic out the window there. [Laughter.] 

Mick Jagger was all over the place on public land management 

it turns out. [Laughter.] 

That said, Chief Tidwell, S. 1691. As you know it mandates substantially higher levels of timber production than we see today, 

about 460,000 acres per year compared to the 100,000 acres we saw 

last year. I don’t disagree with the goal of reasonable timber sale 

increases, but I want to ask you under the current budget pressures, does the service have the human and financial resources to 

process permits for that level of production? If you did, what would 

the impact be on the Forest Service’s other missions, particularly 

hazardous fuel reduction and wildfire suppression? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We currently do not have that level of capacity in 

the agency to do the work. And once again, what we accomplish 

each year is driven by the appropriations that we receive each year 

for the variety of budget line items for them. We follow the direction of Congress to do that. 

There’s no question we need to continue to increase our pace and 

scale. The tools we have with the Farm bill, the work we’re doing 

now to get additional capacity from the states to be able to use the 

Good Neighbor Authority. These are things that will continue to be 

able to build with that. We have a lot of places where NEPA is no 

longer a barrier. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We have places where we have a lot of NEPAready projects but we lack the personnel to be able to move forward 

getting more projects implemented, be able to set those up. We’re 

looking at all of our processes to be able to eliminate some of the 

time consuming work around timber marking and using some innovative processes to be able to do that, to be able to continue. 

But just the consequence of the fire suppression, the cost of wildfire suppression, you know, I too, have lived through this, as it’s 

just gradually increased year after year. And to the point today 

when we look at 39 percent fewer employees that work in our national forest system, only 49 percent of the foresters that we had 

about 12 years ago. We just lack that capacity. 

So it’s going to take a combination of new tools, being able to implement the new authorities we have. But we need to address, you 

know, the cost of wildfire suppression and do it in a way so that 

we have a consistent level of resources that we can be able to rely 

on. And I worry about where the rest of the ten-year average, as 

it keeps increasing year after year, where is that funding going to 

come from? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Heinrich. 

Chief Tidwell, you have been before this Committee on numerous 

occasions to discuss critical issues facing our forests and talk about 

66 

the great need to get more work done in a timely manner, the road 

blocks to making our forests healthy. In response to previous questions you and the agency have confirmed several things. 

One, you’ve confirmed the Forest Service is spending northward of $350 million a year on NEPA and other regulatory compliance. 

In 2014 the average environmental impact statement took about 37 

months, over three years, to complete and the average environmental assessment, 19 months. After nearly six years of agency efforts to find time and cost savings in NEPA it really appears the 

agency continues to struggle under the heavy burden. In a previous 

hearing you expressed an interest in seeing Congress find some solutions to help try to ease that burden. I assume that is still your 

position? 

I am going to ask you about litigation. You have lamented in the 

past that lawsuits that threaten needed forest restoration work, 

particularly those efforts developed by the collaboratives. I think at 

our hearing to examine the Forest Service Fiscal 2016 budget you 

said the litigation definitely does impact. You said it is not just the 

litigation when we get a Temporary Restraining Order where we 

have to stop and wait, but every time we get a lawsuit that same 

staff that would be preparing for the next project they have, then 

they have to prepare to go to court. We win a majority of the cases 

that go to court, you said, but even when we win it still has the 

impact because it slows down the development of the next project. 

You also highlighted a collaboratively-developed project in Cold 

Summit that was sued and the ensuing delays. I think you said we 

went through the process, yes, and we finally implemented the 

project, but it took another year or so to get it done. 

If we continue to see these rogue activist groups block these consensus projects, do you believe that collaboratives will begin to just 

fall apart as people become discouraged or we lose the last mills 

in some key areas of the country? I mean, it is a concern. 

Mr. TIDWELL. From what I’m seeing from our collaboratives is 

that there’s a desire to actually do more of it. 

There’s no question that there’s that level of frustration after 

they’ve done the heavy work. They’ve all come together on agreement, the agency moves forward, does the adequate analysis, 

makes a decision and then we’re sued. It’s very, it’s frustrating at 

best. 

So we want to continue to work on what is those issues that 

drive the litigation, and your idea of giving the Secretary the discretion for arbitration is something we’d like to give that a try. 

I’ve testified before. I have some questions about how it would 

work and would it actually provide better decisions, but I think it 

gives us something to build, to move forward with that and try it 

on a system at the Secretary’s discretion that I do think that it 

may get at the issue. 

The concern, with the bonding requirement, I’m not sure that 

that will—it won’t stop the litigation. Definitely those that have the 

financial means will be able to do it, and I’m concerned that it may 

actually create more. 

I don’t have any data to support this, but it’s just—it’ll—I’m worried that it will create more controversy and more opposition. 

Those folks that think we’re out there to not care for the land and 

67 

not be able to follow the collaborative projects. I’m just worried 

that they will be able to use it as a way to generate more litigation 

that will be even more difficult for us to deal with. 

I’m also concerned that it does cut out the person that doesn’t 

have those financial capabilities. Litigation is part of our system in 

this country. I’m as frustrated as anybody when we’ve done the 

work, we’ve done the job, we get litigated a year later and the 

judge says, ‘‘Yes, you’re okay, go ahead.’’ 

But I do think we need to find a way to work through this. I do 

think your arbitration proposal, and I really appreciate the changes 

you made with the bill this year versus last year, but I think that 

has, you know, some merit that we’d like to move forward and 

work with you to give that a try. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. Neiman, in previous hearings before the Committee Chief 

Tidwell has recognized the forest products industry is an essential 

partner in restoring the health of our nation’s forests. I know you 

see your business in that very light. 

How can the Forest Service incentivize and encourage investments in mills and can you share with the Committee the scope of 

some of those investments? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

You speak to essential partnerships. I had a chance a few years 

ago to set down in Colorado at a conference with Chief Tidwell and 

a number of other Forest Service and industry. When you really 

focus on partnerships instead of this buy/sell relationships and you 

focus on forest health and how do you get an efficient, viable forest, 

we’re on the same page. So there’s a real tone of working on the 

partnership. 

In answer to your question, industry needs an adequate, consistent and predictable supply. Our industry is faced with huge investments now. It takes millions and millions of dollars of investments. It’s sometimes $20, $30, $40, $50 million. In the case of a 

plywood plant you might be $100 million plus. It’s very expensive. 

Our company last year, just in trying to stay up with times and 

upgrade the Colorado mill, invested $15 million; $3 million for an 

auto grater and $6 million to put in new equipment trying to get 

efficient and eliminate with the bug, with fire suppression issues. 

So there’s a big burden. It’s very capital intensive, but it all comes 

back. We can do that. It all comes back to an adequate supply, and 

we need a resilient forest. 

If it’s dead you’re not going to get people to invest. You need a 

resilient forest and you have to have a constant supply, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. So an adequate, consistent and predictable 

supply? Are those the three criteria? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

I have additional questions. Senator Heinrich would like a second round, so we can go with you now and then I will follow up 

some more. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to take just a moment and mention Senator Flake’s bill 

that is on today’s agenda as well. I think it is probably a good indication that we have not really heard any testimony against it. 

68 

The Stewardship End Result Contracting Improvement Act is 

something I am an original co-sponsor on. I think it is an important reform. It makes a number of important changes to the stewardship contracting process which has been incredibly important in 

New Mexico’s forests over the last decade. 

Mr. Neiman, I wanted to ask whether or not you use stewardship 

contracts in your work on national forests? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Yes, we do. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. Could you talk a little bit about why 

they are an important tool, slightly different, obviously, than traditional timber sales, but an important tool in the tool box and why 

we need to make them as easy to administer as we can? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Well, historically and we still do support traditional 

timber sales. I think they’re more efficient for industry. They’re 

more efficient for the Forest Service. There are circumstances 

where stewardship is important, and we support that. But when 

you get down into the different types of stewardship we’ve seen 

some that are just a drain on the budget for the Forest Service. So 

it can be inefficient process of treating acres, but they both have 

their place, Senator. 

Senator HEINRICH. Well I am going to have to, we may have to, 

agree to disagree on a couple things simply because, at least in my 

home state, we have seen very small, effective utilization of commercial timber sales. Part of that is because we just do not have 

a large DBH, straight up and down trees anymore, but we have 

seen really quite effective utilization of stewardship contracts. 

I would point to places like the Zuni Mountains where we have 

seen not only the contractors be able to get in and do a really incredible job, but it also brought a number of other actors to the 

table who are willing to have some skin in the game from the single species advocacy groups like whether it’s Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation or the Wild Turkey Foundation or others who really 

have seen both the benefits to habitat as well. It has made it easier 

to work through those processes which, as we all know, can be 

challenging. 

Mr. Max or Mr. Matz, I want to switch to you real quick because 

one of my concerns moving back to S. 1691 is the provisions that 

eliminate public notice and participation in some of the Forest 

Service decision-making processes. 

If there is one thing that is a certainty in New Mexico it is that 

my local forest communities want to play a very active role in the 

management of their local national forest. They attend meetings. 

They submit comments. They actually provide an enormous 

amount of critical, local expertise to inform an agency in their decisions. 

The CE provisions in this bill are a lot larger than what we have 

seen in terms of their trip wires than current law or in the Farm 

bill, and one of the things I am hearing is that there is a concern 

over the public being able to participate in those decisions. Most of 

our national forest projects right now are well under the acreage 

caps in those CEs. You work with a lot of forest communities 

around the country. What kind of reaction do you expect to this effort that would at least move some of those decisions behind closed 

doors? 

69 

Mr. MATZ. First, thank you for the question, Senator. 

I think that there would be considerable concern. I think that decisions that are made here affecting public lands benefit from community involvement, from guidance of decision-makers and the expertise of scientists. To exclude that kind of input in this decisionmaking process not only doesn’t get buy in for the decisions, but 

creates some of the problems that, I think, the Chief mentioned 

too. 

But it tends to limit people’s ability and then their support for 

these decisions. So it’s problematic to expand it. I think that there 

are particular instances, limited instances, where they can be utilized effectively. 

Senator HEINRICH. Well I do think that buy in is probably the 

single biggest hedge we have against litigation. There are obviously 

process things we can take on, but when you have people who have 

bought into the outcome it makes it much harder to do an end run 

at the end of the game. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Mr. Neiman, follow up. Would you summarize the benefits of S. 

1691 for the forest where you operate? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you, Senator, Chairman, I appreciate it. 

From my end, I’ve had a number of opportunities to meet with 

my staff and different forest supervisors in the Black Hills in South 

Dakota and Colorado. One of the main common threads is that 

each one, our team and the Forest Service, wants to figure out how 

to treat more acres, particularly those acres that are dense stands 

recognize they’re subject to bugs and/or fire. I constantly hear 

there’s lack of adequate funding and/or personnel to solve those 

problems or they would be in trying to treat more of those acres. 

I want to step to the big picture for a second, if I could. The National Forest System is growing 22 billion board feet a year, and 

we’re cutting, we’re just sneaking back up to three. I give the Forest Service credit. They’ve been growing that volume, but we’re 

back to three out of 22. 

We’re continuing to add volume to our forest every year. We’re 

overstocking our forest. It’s getting denser each and every year, 

and 1691 helps give some remedies so we can increase that volume 

and help solve that problem, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. You talk about the importance of more rapid 

implementation of needed management projects and how litigation 

is one of the ‘‘choke points.’’ I think your phrase was choke points 

to timely forest management. Can you talk about how litigation 

has prevented needed projects from going forward in your experience? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Well, if I could, if I could talk about one particular 

example. The cement project near Sundance, Wyoming, while the 

Forest Service was doing further review and there was serial litigants that stopped the process and delayed it and the timber sale 

was burned and we lost it. 

The opportunity was there to treat that and we lost it due to the 

fire, and those were centered around wildlife objectives for mule 

deer habitat. They went backward and lost and did not accomplish 

the original goals. 

70 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. Would arbitration be useful to get 

these projects implemented in a more timely fashion? Do you think 

it would have made a difference in this specific case related to 

Sundance? 

Mr. NEIMAN. If I—I have some concerns about arbitration. I’m 

clearly willing to try it. Clearly it has to be better than litigation. 

Litigation stopped that fire. I can give you other examples in Montana where timber was lost to fires due to litigation. 

There’s two or three examples in the Custer National Forest and 

in Wyoming where, hopefully, arbitration would have sat us all 

down and where sensible people could sit around the table and find 

solutions quicker than litigation that drags out after NEPA took 

three years and then the three years of litigation would not help 

us. 

Senator BARRASSO. Just one final question for you. You know 

Wyoming has been hard hit by the Mountain Pine Beetle and continues to have to deal with the problem. In your experience what 

was the primary factor leading up to the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak and what were the challenges associated with the Forest 

Service’s response to that outbreak? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Senator, from my end, and I have a lot of experience, and the Black Hills is a real good example. Overstocking is 

the issue. 

If people would look back, the Black Hills National Forest in 

1899 had 1.5 billion board feet of timber; in 1999, a hundred years 

later, 6.2 billion board feet. Now we’ve lost a few hundred thousand. We’re back down to 5.5, but that forest, the reason the beetles have been on a rampage. 

If you look up the history, the first Roosevelt brought in an entomologist. They identified the bug in the Black Hills, so the pine 

beetle is called the Black Hills Pine Beetle before it was called the 

Mountain Pine Beetle. You’ve got 110 years of history and science. 

Let’s use that to help us out, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Neiman. 

Mr. Ellis, there seems to be a significant debate over the level 

of timber harvest likely under S. 132. The staff from your Oregon 

State office with the assistance of Norm Johnson, a university professor, provided one estimate late last year. Meanwhile a 31-year 

veteran, retired analyst from your agency doing work for the affected counties authored another analysis finding those estimates 

were unrealistic and predicting volumes less than half of those that 

were provided for by your Oregon office. So there are some discrepancies there. What is your view of the likely harvest volumes under 

S. 132, and how confident are you that they can be achieved under 

the legislation? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the retiree, I understand the retiree did come up with some different numbers, but I don’t know 

what calculations he used—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. 

Mr. ELLIS. There’s various numbers around. 

If you look at our staff in Oregon, they worked with some of the 

staff in trying to come up with some numbers on the earlier bill, 

and those numbers ranged from 310 to 320 million board feet. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

71 

Mr. Swanson, I wanted to ask you about these estimates for the 

likely harvest under S. 132. What is your view of the likely harvest 

under the bill and do you have any recommendations for how we 

could get greater clarity because it’s a pretty important issue here? 

Mr. SWANSON. Well the BLM lands grow about 1.2 billion feet a 

year. The legislation would reduce the number of acres by 71 percent. I’m not a forester, but the math is pretty simple. If you reduce the acreage that much and still apply restrictive harvest policies, it just doesn’t add up and certainly can’t be sustained. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Swanson. 

Well, I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and your 

testimony. Some of the members were here and had to leave before 

they were able to ask questions. They may want to submit written 

questions. They are going to have time to do that so we will keep 

the hearing record open for two weeks. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today to participate. 

Mr. Neiman? 

Mr. NEIMAN. Can I add one comment? 

Senator BARRASSO. Sure. 

Mr. NEIMAN. I’d like to clarify or add to your question about the 

overstocked, my answer on the overstocked. 

Part of the public perceives that part of our bug issue is tied to 

climate change. I don’t want to debate that issue, I just want to 

accept and get people to think in terms of if we do have climate 

change we could have a lower—a longer growing season. We could 

then have more growth. If you have longer growing season and 

have more drought you should have less carrying capacity. 

So my concern is when you combine overstocked forests with and 

overlay that with climate change which is a secondary factor to it, 

we have to really focus on what is the carrying capacity of these 

forests and look at the bigger picture instead of microcosm or one 

animal or one species and look at the big picture. 

I would encourage people to look out 75, 100 years and not just 

for our self interest now. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well thank you. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(72) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

73 


Insert offset folio 46 here 98906.046
74 


Insert offset folio 47 here 98906.047
75 


Insert offset folio 48 here 98906.048
76 


Insert offset folio 49 here 98906.049
77 


Insert offset folio 50 here 98906.050
78 


Insert offset folio 51 here 98906.051
79 


Insert offset folio 52 here 98906.052
80 


Insert offset folio 53 here 98906.053
81 


Insert offset folio 54 here 98906.054
82 


Insert offset folio 55 here 98906.055
83 


Insert offset folio 56 here 98906.056
84 


Insert offset folio 57 here 98906.057
85 


Insert offset folio 58 here 98906.058
86 


Insert offset folio 59 here 98906.059
87 


Insert offset folio 60 here 98906.060
88 


Insert offset folio 61 here 98906.061
89 


Insert offset folio 62 here 98906.062
90 


Insert offset folio 63 here 98906.063
91 


Insert offset folio 64 here 98906.064
92 


Insert offset folio 65 here 98906.065
93 


Insert offset folio 66 here 98906.066
94 


Insert offset folio 67 here 98906.067
95 


Insert offset folio 68 here 98906.068
96 


Insert offset folio 69 here 98906.069
97 


Insert offset folio 70 here 98906.070
98 


Insert offset folio 71 here 98906.071
99 


Insert offset folio 72 here 98906.072
100 


Insert offset folio 73 here 98906.073
101 


Insert offset folio 74 here 98906.074
102 


Insert offset folio 75 here 98906.075
103 


Insert offset folio 76 here 98906.076
104 


Insert offset folio 77 here 98906.077
105 


Insert offset folio 78 here 98906.078
106 


Insert offset folio 79 here 98906.079
107 


Insert offset folio 80 here 98906.080
108 


Insert offset folio 81 here 98906.081
109 


Insert offset folio 82 here 98906.082
110 


Insert offset folio 83 here 98906.083
111 


Insert offset folio 84 here 98906.084
112 


Insert offset folio 85 here 98906.085
113 


Insert offset folio 86 here 98906.086
114 


Insert offset folio 87 here 98906.087
115 


Insert offset folio 88 here 98906.088
116 


Insert offset folio 89 here 98906.089
117 


Insert offset folio 90 here 98906.090
118 


Insert offset folio 91 here 98906.091
119 


Insert offset folio 92 here 98906.092
120 


Insert offset folio 93 here 98906.093
121 


Insert offset folio 94 here 98906.094
122 


Insert offset folio 95 here 98906.095
123 


Insert offset folio 96 here 98906.096
124 


Insert offset folio 97 here 98906.097
125 


Insert offset folio 98 here 98906.098
126 


Insert offset folio 99 here 98906.099
127 


Insert offset folio 100 here 98906.100
128 


Insert offset folio 101 here 98906.101
129 


Insert offset folio 102 here 98906.102
130 


Insert offset folio 103 here 98906.103
131 


Insert offset folio 104 here 98906.104
132 


Insert offset folio 105 here 98906.105
133 


Insert offset folio 106 here 98906.106
134 


Insert offset folio 107 here 98906.107
135 


Insert offset folio 108 here 98906.108
136 


Insert offset folio 109 here 98906.109
137 


Insert offset folio 110 here 98906.110
138 


Insert offset folio 111 here 98906.111
139 


Insert offset folio 112 here 98906.112
140 


Insert offset folio 113 here 98906.113
141 


Insert offset folio 114 here 98906.114
142 


Insert offset folio 115 here 98906.115
143 


Insert offset folio 116 here 98906.116
144 


Insert offset folio 117 here 98906.117
145 


Insert offset folio 118 here 98906.118
146 


Insert offset folio 119 here 98906.119
147 


Insert offset folio 120 here 98906.120
148 


Insert offset folio 121 here 98906.121
149 


Insert offset folio 122 here 98906.122
150 


Insert offset folio 123 here 98906.123
151 


Insert offset folio 124 here 98906.124
152 


Insert offset folio 125 here 98906.125
153 


Insert offset folio 126 here 98906.126
154 


Insert offset folio 127 here 98906.127
155 


Insert offset folio 128 here 98906.128
156 


Insert offset folio 129 here 98906.129
157 


Insert offset folio 130 here 98906.130
158 


Insert offset folio 131 here 98906.131
159 


Insert offset folio 132 here 98906.132
160 


Insert offset folio 133 here 98906.133
161 


Insert offset folio 134 here 98906.134
162 


Insert offset folio 135 here 98906.135
163 


Insert offset folio 136 here 98906.136
164 


Insert offset folio 137 here 98906.137
165 


Insert offset folio 138 here 98906.138
166 


Insert offset folio 139 here 98906.139
167 


Insert offset folio 140 here 98906.140
168 


Insert offset folio 141 here 98906.141
169 


Insert offset folio 142 here 98906.142
170 


Insert offset folio 143 here 98906.143
171 


Insert offset folio 144 here 98906.144
172 


Insert offset folio 145 here 98906.145
173 


Insert offset folio 146 here 98906.146
174 


Insert offset folio 147 here 98906.147
175 


Insert offset folio 148 here 98906.148
176 


Insert offset folio 149 here 98906.149
177 


Insert offset folio 150 here 98906.150
178 


Insert offset folio 151 here 98906.151
179 


Insert offset folio 152 here 98906.152
180 


Insert offset folio 153 here 98906.153
181 


Insert offset folio 154 here 98906.154
182 


Insert offset folio 155 here 98906.155
183 


Insert offset folio 156 here 98906.156
184 


Insert offset folio 157 here 98906.157
185 


Insert offset folio 158 here 98906.158
186 


Insert offset folio 159 here 98906.159
187 


Insert offset folio 160 here 98906.160
188 


Insert offset folio 161 here 98906.161
189 


Insert offset folio 162 here 98906.162
190 


Insert offset folio 163 here 98906.163
191 


Insert offset folio 164 here 98906.164
192 


Insert offset folio 165 here 98906.165
193 


Insert offset folio 166 here 98906.166
194 


Insert offset folio 167 here 98906.167
195 


Insert offset folio 168 here 98906.168
196 


Insert offset folio 169 here 98906.169
197 


Insert offset folio 170 here 98906.170
198 


Insert offset folio 171 here 98906.171
199 


Insert offset folio 172 here 98906.172
200 


Insert offset folio 173 here 98906.173
201 


Insert offset folio 174 here 98906.174
202 


Insert offset folio 175 here 98906.175
203 


Insert offset folio 176 here 98906.176
204 


Insert offset folio 177 here 98906.177
205 


Insert offset folio 178 here 98906.178
206 


Insert offset folio 179 here 98906.179
207 


Insert offset folio 180 here 98906.180
208 


Insert offset folio 181 here 98906.181
209 


Insert offset folio 182 here 98906.182
210 


Insert offset folio 183 here 98906.183
211 


Insert offset folio 184 here 98906.184
212 


Insert offset folio 185 here 98906.185
213 


Insert offset folio 186 here 98906.186
214 


Insert offset folio 187 here 98906.187
215 


Insert offset folio 188 here 98906.188
216 


Insert offset folio 189 here 98906.189
217 


Insert offset folio 190 here 98906.190
218 


Insert offset folio 191 here 98906.191
219 


Insert offset folio 192 here 98906.192
220 


Insert offset folio 193 here 98906.193
221 


Insert offset folio 194 here 98906.194
222 


Insert offset folio 195 here 98906.195
223 


Insert offset folio 196 here 98906.196
224 


Insert offset folio 197 here 98906.197
225 


Insert offset folio 198 here 98906.198
226 


Insert offset folio 199 here 98906.199
227 


Insert offset folio 200 here 98906.200
228 


Insert offset folio 201 here 98906.201
229 


Insert offset folio 202 here 98906.202
230 


Insert offset folio 203 here 98906.203
231 


Insert offset folio 204 here 98906.204
232 


Insert offset folio 205 here 98906.205
233 


Insert offset folio 206 here 98906.206
234 


Insert offset folio 207 here 98906.207
235 


Insert offset folio 208 here 98906.208
236 


Insert offset folio 209 here 98906.209
237 


Insert offset folio 210 here 98906.210
238 


Insert offset folio 211 here 98906.211
239 


Insert offset folio 212 here 98906.212
240 


Insert offset folio 213 here 98906.213
241 


Insert offset folio 214 here 98906.214
242 


Insert offset folio 215 here 98906.215
243 


Insert offset folio 216 here 98906.216
244 


Insert offset folio 217 here 98906.217
245 


Insert offset folio 218 here 98906.218
246 


Insert offset folio 219 here 98906.219
247 


Insert offset folio 220 here 98906.220
248 


Insert offset folio 221 here 98906.221
249 


Insert offset folio 222 here 98906.222
250 


Insert offset folio 223 here 98906.223
251 


Insert offset folio 224 here 98906.224
252 


Insert offset folio 225 here 98906.225
253 


Insert offset folio 226 here 98906.226
254 


Insert offset folio 227 here 98906.227
255 


Insert offset folio 228 here 98906.228
256 


Insert offset folio 229 here 98906.229
257 


Insert offset folio 230 here 98906.230
258 


Insert offset folio 231 here 98906.231
259 


Insert offset folio 232 here 98906.232
260 


Insert offset folio 233 here 98906.233
261 


Insert offset folio 234 here 98906.234
262 


Insert offset folio 235 here 98906.235
263 


Insert offset folio 236 here 98906.236
264 


Insert offset folio 237 here 98906.237
265 


Insert offset folio 238 here 98906.238
266 


Insert offset folio 239 here 98906.239
267 


Insert offset folio 240 here 98906.240
268 


Insert offset folio 241 here 98906.241
269 


Insert offset folio 242 here 98906.242
270 


Insert offset folio 243 here 98906.243
271 


Insert offset folio 244 here 98906.244
272 


Insert offset folio 245 here 98906.245
273 


Insert offset folio 246 here 98906.246
274 


Insert offset folio 247 here 98906.247
275 


Insert offset folio 248 here 98906.248
276 


Insert offset folio 249 here 98906.249
277 


Insert offset folio 250 here 98906.250
278 


Insert offset folio 251 here 98906.251
279 


Insert offset folio 252 here 98906.252
280 


Insert offset folio 253 here 98906.253
281 


Insert offset folio 254 here 98906.254
282 


Insert offset folio 255 here 98906.255
283 


Insert offset folio 256 here 98906.256
284 


Insert offset folio 257 here 98906.257
285 


Insert offset folio 279 here 98906.279
286 


Insert offset folio 280 here 98906.280
287 


Insert offset folio 258 here 98906.258
288 


Insert offset folio 259 here 98906.259
289 


Insert offset folio 260 here 98906.260
290 


Insert offset folio 261 here 98906.261
291 


Insert offset folio 262 here 98906.262
292 


Insert offset folio 263 here 98906.263
293 


Insert offset folio 264 here 98906.264
294 


Insert offset folio 265 here 98906.265
295 


Insert offset folio 266 here 98906.266
296 


Insert offset folio 267 here 98906.267
297 


Insert offset folio 268 here 98906.268
298 


Insert offset folio 269 here 98906.269
299 


Insert offset folio 270 here 98906.270
300 


Insert offset folio 271 here 98906.271
301 


Insert offset folio 272 here 98906.272
302 


Insert offset folio 273 here 98906.273
303 


Insert offset folio 274 here 98906.274
304 


Insert offset folio 275 here 98906.275
305 


Insert offset folio 276 here 98906.276
306 


Insert offset folio 277 here 98906.277
307 


Insert offset folio 278 here 98906.278
308 


Insert offset folio 281 here 98906.281
309 


Insert offset folio 282 here 98906.282
310 


Insert offset folio 283 here 98906.283
311 


Insert offset folio 284 here 98906.284
312 


Insert offset folio 285 here 98906.285
313 


Insert offset folio 286 here 98906.286
314 


Insert offset folio 287 here 98906.287
315 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 288 here 98906.288