U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–568 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–250 

SHORTCHANGING OUR FORESTS: 

HOW TIGHT BUDGETS AND MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF WILDFIRE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, FORESTRY AND 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, FORESTRY AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN J. CORDONE, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS ALLEN HAWKS, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Shortchanging Our Forests: How Tight Budgets and Management Decisions 

can Increase the Risk of Wildfire ........................................................................ 1 

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Bennet, Hon. Michael, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado ......................... 1 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 3 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 5 

Panel I 

Hubbard, Jim , Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC ................. 6 

Panel II 

Pitcher, Davey, President and CEO, Wolf Creek Ski Area, Pagosa Springs, 

CO .......................................................................................................................... 15

Topik, Chris, Director, Restoring America’s Forests Program, The Nature 

Conservancy, Washington, DC ............................................................................ 16 

Troxel, Tom, Executive Director, Intermountain Forest Association, Rapid 

City, SD ................................................................................................................. 18 

Clark, Sallie, Second Vice President, National Association of Counties and 

Commissioner, El Paso County, CO ................................................................... 20 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Clark, Sallie ...................................................................................................... 34 

Hubbard, Jim .................................................................................................... 37 

Pitcher, Davey ................................................................................................... 48 

Topik, Chris ...................................................................................................... 54 

Troxel, Tom ....................................................................................................... 67 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad: 

Written questions to Jim Hubbard ................................................................. 82 

Hubbard, Jim: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Thad Cochran .............................. 83 

(1) 

SHORTCHANGING OUR FORESTS: 

HOW TIGHT BUDGETS AND MANAGEMENT 

DECISIONS CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF 

WILDFIRE 

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, FORESTRY

AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Michael F. Bennet presiding. 

Present: Senators Bennet, Klobuchar, Boozman and Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator BENNET. Well, good afternoon and thank you all for 

being here today. 

Thank you, Senator Boozman, for being here today. 

The Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources will come to order. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses on both panels for being 

here. In particular, I want to acknowledge our witness from South 

Dakota and two witnesses from my home State of Colorado who 

traveled thousands of miles to testify on this really important matter. 

Wildfires are a growing crisis across the United States. A century 

of fire suppression—putting all forest fires out instead of letting 

some of them run their course—has drastically increased fuel loads 

on the forest floor. That fuel, combined with persistent droughts 

and a warming climate, has increased the frequency and severity 

of wildfires in recent years, and that is putting it mildly. 

Since 1980, wildfires have caused over $28 billion in economic 

losses. The 6 most destructive fire seasons in the past 50 years— 

all 6—have occurred since the year 2000. 

This trend has been particularly difficult for people in Colorado. 

This year’s Black Forest fire and last year’s Waldo Canyon and 

Hyde Park blazes were, respectively, the first, second and third 

most destructive fires ever in Colorado history. 

The picture to my right is a photo showing that fire up close— 

the Black Forest fire. It is a neighborhood just outside of Colorado 

Springs, which was partly destroyed in the summer of 2012. 

2 

Last year, Colorado reported over 4,000 wildfires that destroyed 

648 structures, burned more than 384,000 acres and, tragically, 

killed 6 people. Nationwide, over 51,000 fires torched over 9 million 

acres. Unfortunately, the official figures often understate the damage. The Waldo Canyon and Hyde Park fires, for instance, left gaping burn scars that caused serious soil erosion and damage to 

major water infrastructure. Worse, these burn scars have led to a 

number of dangerous mudslides and flash floods, in some cases 

over a year after the fires were extinguished. 

Over a dozen Colorado counties are continuing to rebuild following the massive floods that hit our State in September. 

Wildfires were not the main cause of that destruction, but in some 

areas the burn scars made an already bad situation even worse. 

It is hard to believe that while damages have soared we are also 

spending more money than ever to fight fires. Our fire suppression 

costs have quadrupled over the past 25 years. And, because we are 

likely to be operating with fewer overall discretionary dollars for 

agencies in the future, this hearing is particularly important. 

These escalating costs have caused the Forest Service to routinely 

borrow money from other programs, like trail maintenance and 

timber contracting, so they can continue to fight fires. 

In a highly publicized letter from earlier this summer, Chief Tidwell informed Forest Service employees that so-called fire borrowing would occur again this year. This marks the seventh time 

that has happened in the last twelve years. 

There has got to be a better way, which is the reason we are all 

here today. 

In this case, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that an ounce 

of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Targeted investments in 

hazardous fuel reduction and common-sense forest health projects 

can save us from far costlier suppression and recovery spending 

down the road. One Congressional Budget Office study found that 

for every dollar the Federal Government invests in fire mitigation 

and prevention we save over five dollars by avoiding future costs 

associated with catastrophic wildfires. 

Unfortunately, Washington budget politics, coupled with realtime necessities on the ground, has resulted in exactly the opposite 

approach. As suppression costs have spiked, the Forest Service has 

been forced to instead redirect long-term mitigation dollars so they 

can focus on fighting fires that are immediate threats to lives and 

property. 

It is a textbook example of penny-wise and pound-foolish, and it 

has to change. 

This year the Administration requested less money, not more, for 

hazardous fuels reduction. This is the opposite of what Colorado 

and the West need. 

We, instead, need a sustained, robust commitment to hazardous 

fuel reduction that is protected in the Forest Service budget. We 

need more mitigation dollars that are targeted towards specific 

wildfire prevention. We need to cut red tape and provide greater 

flexibility to officials on the ground. And we need those resources 

focused on treating areas in the wild-land-urban interface. 

These are some of the reasons I worked with people in Colorado 

to craft the PREPARE Act, a bipartisan bill we introduced with 

3 

Senator Crapo from Idaho. The bill creates a new FEMA pilot program for fire mitigation projects. That is why this Committee 

worked to reauthorize stewardship contracting and update the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act as part of the Farm Bill, and that 

is why we are working to reauthorize Good Neighbor Authority to 

allow state foresters to do work on Federal lands. 

We should look for additional solutions to make it easier, not 

harder, for all levels of government to work together and get treatments carried out in the woods. 

We need to budget for the Forest Service’s long-term personnel 

and equipment needs, including a long-term and efficient strategy 

to modernize and support a fleet of air tankers to fight fires. 

Getting ourselves out of this vicious cycle will be no easy task, 

but catastrophic wildfire is literally an issue of life or death for 

many of the people I represent in Colorado. We are doing them and 

the country a great disservice by not tackling this problem, and it 

is my hope that today’s hearing will help us consider innovative 

ideas to put us back on sure footing. 

We need to take a saner approach in which we put in the work 

on the front end before the fires do their damage. Those investments will be good for the health of our forests, to support our 

rural forest products industries and to save taxpayers money, and 

most important, they will protect our citizens from this growing 

threat. 

With that, I would like to turn it over to the Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee, Senator Boozman, for his comments. 

If Senator Klobuchar, who has joined us, from Minnesota, has 

any opening comments, we will take those too. 

Then we will start with Mr. Hubbard. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, thank you, Chairman Bennet, again for 

holding this very important hearing today. 

The threat to our forests and rural communities is not one that 

is isolated to any particular state. From Florida to Idaho, Colorado 

and Arkansas, the Forest Service budgets, challenges and management shortcomings interfere with our ability to maintain healthy 

forests. This is bad for our entire country, and it especially harms 

rural communities. 

One reason that this challenge has proven so difficult is that 

Congress is failing to reevaluate spending priorities on an annual 

basis. We have failed to pass standalone appropriations for most 

departments for nearly a decade, and recent events on Capitol Hill 

make it hard to see any change on the horizon. The era of perpetual continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills make it 

difficult to evaluate programs and direct funds to the areas where 

they are most needed. 

Also, budget uncertainty hinders the ability of agencies tasked 

with healthy forest management to plan long-term strategies for 

long-term problems. 

To compound this issue, the Administration and Congress have 

failed to take advantage of low fire years to address the management backlog. When a difficult fire season comes along, Federal 

4 

agencies are forced to borrow from forest management programs to 

meet the needs of fire suppression. 

One major step that Congress can take is to obey regular order 

through the passage of standalone appropriations bills with appropriate funding for critical programs. This would enable Congress to 

debate priorities, take tough votes, solve problems and lead. It 

would restore certainty to policy planners seeking to address the 

many challenges facing our Nation’s forests. 

While funding uncertainty and lack of resources make planning 

and implementation of critical programs harder, only fixing our 

budget woes will not provide a silver bullet for our forest management problems. In difficult budgetary times, we must measure the 

effectiveness of Federal programs by good policy and outcomes 

rather than numbers in a budget baseline. 

When it comes to healthy forest policy, we are not doing ourselves any favors with the current failure to capitalize on the benefits of public-private partnerships and throwing out bureaucratic 

red tape. Litigation and what Mr. Troxel refers to as analysis paralysis have led to missed opportunities to better manage public 

lands and fuel the engine of economic opportunity in our forest 

communities. 

While a tight budget environment is making forest management 

more difficult, we need to look at all the tools in our box to promote 

healthy forests. An important part of that tool kit is timber sales, 

yet these sales have continued to decline for decades. Responsible 

timber harvest has been shown to reduce fuel, limit susceptibility 

to pest infestation and enhance wildlife habitat. 

Despite significant cuts to Forest Service budgets due to sequestration, we had an opportunity to increase our board-foot production in the timber from national forests by 11 percent over 2012 

levels. However, due to injunctions and a NEPA analysis, we are 

projected to miss that mark and actually fall short of 2012 levels. 

Preparedness is another key component, and tools exist to help 

individual citizens and forest communities take common-sense 

steps to mitigate threats. While this is certainly a problem that requires Federal resources, we need to work with individuals and forest communities to reduce their vulnerability to forest fires. 

One good program through the National Fire Protection Association is the Firewise Communities Program, which is co-sponsored 

by the Forest Service, the Department of Interior and the National 

Association of State Foresters. This program teaches Americans living in forest communities how to act individually or with their 

neighbors to protect life and property from the risk of forest fires. 

I think that we all agree there are significant shortcomings in 

terms of our budget process, funding allocations and how they are 

impacting our ability to achieve the goal of healthy forest management. At the same time, solving our funding problems will not 

automatically solve all the problems that contribute to increased 

risk of forest fires on national lands. 

The good news is that by working together to reform our management policies, eliminate red tape and fixing our budget, we can 

be on a path to a healthier, more sustainable forest system that is 

less susceptible to catastrophic fires that threaten life and property. 

5 

Again, I appreciate your holding today’s hearing, and I look forward to the testimony. 

I thank all of you very much for being here today and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Unlike me, you actually came in under the five minutes. So we 

all express our gratitude. 

Senator Klobuchar, would you like—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Chairman Bennet, for holding 

this—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Remember that in the future. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Now I am under a lot of pressure. 

Thank you, Chairman Bennet—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. —said what I said. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, you are eating into my time. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Chairman Bennet and Senator 

Boozman, for those words. 

I think maybe not many of you know this, but I actually grew 

up in a logging family. My grandfather, when the mines shut down 

up in northern Minnesota, became a logger and did that practically 

until the years that he got sick. And it was an important part of 

our life. 

In northern Minnesota, the logging industry is very important, 

as well as the paper mills and other industries relating to the forests. And so forest management decisions have a major impact on 

employment up in our State and our neck of the woods, and forest 

health and economic development is very, very important. 

As a member of the Senate Agriculture—I always like to say— 

and Forestry Committee, I have long advocated for policies that 

promote biomass power like a renewable electricity standard, a 

broad, consistent definition of renewable biomass and the Biomass 

Crop Assistance Program. 

Just as our forests are a great natural resource that provide multiple benefits, from keeping our water clean and providing habitat 

for wildlife to providing the biomass for our pulp and paper industries, forests also pose threats as fires can bring a significant 

amount of destruction. 

In the fall of 2011, I actually got to fly over in a helicopter the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area following the massive fire they had 

there, and the fire was actually still going on. And I saw how incredibly close it was to Ely, Minnesota, where my grandpa did his 

mining and logging, where my dad grew up, where tourism is now 

their major industry, and in fact, it could have literally gone into 

the entire town. 

That made me very concerned about, one, firefighters and their 

well being but also the money that we are spending on forest management and if we are doing the right things. 

6 

I am concerned about the sequestration and the cuts and the effect that it is having on our forest management. 

I am a big fan of passing this Farm Bill, not to go off-topic, but 

it is not off-topic because it will help us with debt reduction by $24 

billion; the Immigration Bill, something Senator Bennet and I have 

both worked hard on, $160 billion in debt reduction; and some of 

the other smart ideas that are put out there as a way to replace 

sequestration and make this a lot easier so we can do the right 

long-term things for our forests and for our firefighters. 

But, as we have heard today and we are going to hear more 

about, the current model of robbing Peter to pay Paul when it 

comes to forest management is unsustainable. It is harming the 

economies of the same communities we are protecting from damaging forest fires. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from you, Mr. Hubbard, 

about solutions and how we can do this in these limited budget 

times. 

But I think part of it is resources, and then part of it is smart 

management techniques so we can both protect our forests but also 

understand that this is part of a livelihood for people in my part 

of the country. And we think that there is a lot of possibility out 

there if we do this right. 

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. For the record, 

you win for the briefest opening statement. 

We have two great panels today, and let’s get to them. 

I am now pleased to introduce our first panelist, who is Jim Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry at the U.S. Forest Service. The Deputy Chief is responsible for, among other 

things, forest health protection and fire and aviation management. 

Mr. Hubbard has held the position since 2006. 

Before working at the U.S. Forest Service, Jim spent over three 

decades working for the Colorado State Forest Service, including 20 

years as our State Forester from 1984 until 2004. 

We are delighted that you are here today, Mr. Hubbard, and 

please go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JIM HUBBARD, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you, Chairman Bennet and Ranking Member Boozman and Senator Klobuchar. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

I will talk a little bit about the fire season, some about risk and 

community protection, and how we might get at those issues. 

The hearing is part of a process where we come together and we 

learn, and we think this process is not only important for public 

policy, but we also think after the tragic season we had with the 

loss of 34 firefighters that it pays respect and does honor to them 

by learning from what we have been through. 

Our seasons are more complex than they used to be. Temperatures are higher and humidities are lower which has caused fire intensity to increase and length of the season to increase. Dealing 

with fire has become a more complicated job. 

7 

We burned 9 million acres 3 times since 1960, and that has all 

been in the last 7 years. We expect those kinds of difficulties with 

fire to continue. 

Even though we are still able to control 97–98 percent of our 

fires with initial attack, the 2 percent that get away and grow large 

and produce fires of 100,000 acres or more are becoming too common and very difficult to deal with. 

You throw in the wildland-urban interface and the values at risk 

in front of those large fires, and we have a problem that we need 

to deal with. 

The cost of large fires is also proving to be difficult at the current 

levels. The Forest Service does not stay within its suppression 

budget. As a result, we have to transfer money from other programs during the season when it has the most impact and when 

we could be doing other work. 

A financing fix to suppression is something that would be something we would really like to pursue and try to find a solution for. 

As to risk, we think of risk in terms of communities, how we respond to fire and risk on the landscape. 

The response to fires are suppression strategies. We look at probability of success. We look at firefighter exposure. We protect life 

and property as a priority. Then, we determine how to go about 

dealing with any particular fire. 

In communities, it takes vegetative treatment, local development 

work, individual homeowner responsibility. Even then, as you well 

know in the Waldo Canyon and Black Forest fires, you throw in 

wind and anything is fair game and causes us more difficulties. 

On the landscape, the system is out of balance. Insect and disease have shown us it is out of balance. Fuels have shown us it 

is out of balance. Climate change has also shown us it is out of balance. The landscape definitely needs treatments of some kind. 

We have identified 58 million acres on the National Forests system that have high or very high potential of catastrophic wildfire 

that would be difficult to suppress. Ten million of those acres need 

some kind of a treatment, and currently, we are able to do approximately two million acres a year. 

But, as I said, fire treats more than that, sometimes nine million 

acres a year. How we deal with fire on the landscape also becomes 

important. 

Community protection is a matter of setting priorities. It starts 

with risk, but it is more than risk. It takes the land managers of 

all jurisdictions. It takes state and local government working with 

individual homeowners to implement practices that make a difference. And, without a forest industry, that usually does not get 

very far. 

So our tools become timber sales, become stewardship contracts, 

become Good Neighbor agreements. Our approaches become collaborative and across the boundary, working together. 

The only way we approach this problem is working together with 

the kind of panel that you have assembled next. It’s the right kind 

of discussion to have. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard can be found on page 

37 in the appendix.] 

8 

Senator BENNET. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I guess I will start and then kick it over to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. Hubbard, due in part to congressional budget reductions, the 

Forest Service recently proposed sizeable cuts to the Hazardous 

Fuels Reduction Program based on the Forest Service’s budget proposal for this fiscal year. Some suggest that acreage treated could 

drop from 1.8 million acres thinned in 2012 to 685,000 acres next 

year. 

Can you speak a little bit in more detail about the Forest Service’s thinking here? 

Do you agree that hazardous fuels reduction is an important priority, and what can Congress do to support more robust hazardous 

fuel reduction and other mitigation activities? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Congress certainly has the last word on the subject. 

The Forest Service very much agrees that hazardous fuels reduction is effective. In an analysis of over 1,400 cases, 90 percent were 

found to be very effective at accomplishing the objectives that we 

set out to do. 

Our proposal, as was presented to Congress, is simply a matter 

of a constrained budget and covering things like suppression cost 

and preparedness cost to fight fire as a priority and not having 

enough room left in a budget to propose the rest of what we would 

like to. It does not indicate that we do not believe that it is important, it is important, but we did not have the means. 

Senator BENNET. It goes back to Senator Boozman’s observations 

about the budget. 

This mindless across-the-board stuff is just not allowing us to set 

our priorities, and we are seeing it here where these dollars, if 

spent, would actually mean that we spend less on the back end. So 

it is costing us money. 

You mentioned the importance of private citizens in doing all of 

this work. Colorado has more than 180,000 farmers and ranchers 

and other private landowners who own forested private land across 

the West. These private sector partners are going to be critical, as 

you said in your testimony, as we seek to reduce fuel loads and 

lower the risk of fires. 

Can you talk a little more about the Forest Service’s strategy to 

engage these folks on the ground, and how do we make sure that 

our wildfire prevention efforts effectively cover both public and private lands? 

Mr. HUBBARD. It is our position that if fuels treatments do not 

cross that boundary we are not effective. 

So, if all we do is manage the public property and the private 

property is not managed, then we will not succeed. If it is the other 

way around, we will not succeed. It takes crossing that boundary. 

Crossing that boundary involves dealing with many individual 

landowners. It is our experience landowners want to do the right 

thing if they understand what that is, but it is a matter of making 

sure that you reach them in the priority areas that are most at 

risk. 

Doing so takes a combination of the Federal, the state and the 

local folks working together with those individual homeowners beVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:23 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\87568.TXT MICAH
9 

cause if we do not put the whole puzzle together we will not succeed. 

Senator BENNET. How about local first responders—the same 

sort of thing? 

I mean, the fires obviously do not have any appreciation for any 

of these boundaries that we are talking about. 

I know from the first responders that I have met with in Colorado there is sometimes frustration that people are not finding 

ways to work more quickly together. We are getting better at that, 

I think, unfortunately, because of all the experience that we have 

had. 

But I wonder whether from the Agency’s perspective if you have 

got a thought. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Well, part of the Forest Service program is reaching out to those local fire departments and working with them as 

part of an interagency system because, when you have the conditions we do, that initial attack is critical. Even though we are successful most of the time with initial attack, in these high-risk areas 

it is extremely important because of the values at risk and because 

of the firefighter exposure. It is really important that we work 

closely together in forming our response to any fire. 

Senator BENNET. I have got one last question, and it is about our 

current air tanker fleet, which just seems not to be adequate for 

our long-term fire suppression needs. 

The average Forest Service tanker is more than 50 years old, and 

the number of available aircraft has declined dramatically over the 

past decade due to accidents and attrition. 

It is our understanding that the Agency has recently awarded 

contracts for seven next generation air tankers, which is a good 

step forward. 

Are you satisfied that the Agency will have the aerial assets it 

needs in the 2014 fire season, and in the long term how does the 

Agency plan to move forward with an air tanker modernization 

program? 

Mr. HUBBARD. We are satisfied with the progress that has been 

shown, but it is not enough. 

Of those seven contracts that have been awarded, only two are 

currently performing. We expect the others will be before the season, but they have not yet. Because they are dealing with new 

planes and new systems, it takes a while to make that work. So 

they are working towards that, but we are not there. 

Even if they were to succeed, we will struggle. We will still depend on those old airplanes, those legacy planes, for our fleet this 

summer. We would like to move beyond that, to modernize that. 

Senator BENNET. What would it take to move beyond that? 

Mr. HUBBARD. It will take more planes. It will take a different 

kind of plane. If the current next gen contractors are successful— 

and we hope that they will be—it will take adding more of the 

planes that they have offered, and it will take looking at other options. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. 

My time is up; Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10 

The Chairman alluded to the fact that the President’s fiscal year 

2014 budget cut funding for hazardous fuels and timber management. 

Can you tell us what is in the budget regarding land acquisition 

through the Forest Service, and then the criticism that I hear all 

the time, that we are in the process of spending significant sums 

on land acquisition and really struggling to maintain and manage 

the lands that we currently have in inventory? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Certainly. I cannot speak with any expertise on 

the land acquisition part other than I know it is a part of the budget and it is not, to my way of thinking, necessarily a priority of the 

Forest Service in that budget formulation. 

If you ask the Chief of the Forest Service his priorities, he is 

going to say restoration of the landscape and all the different programs that contribute to restoration of the landscape. So that does 

include the forest management budget, the wildfire budget, those 

pieces of the budget that actually treat the land, because we know 

that we are in need of that treatment. And that is our highest priority. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

The other thing I would like to talk about is the NEPA compliance. 

You mentioned in your testimony that the complexity that we 

face with these fires is greater than ever. It is just not your oldfashioned forest fire at times. 

I guess what I would like to know is—can you talk about the 

time that you have spent on NEPA compliance, things like that, 

and then, again, what is the time spent on that compliance now as 

compared to 10 or 15 years ago? 

Mr. HUBBARD. NEPA has become an important part of our operating procedure for sure. The environmental clearance process is 

something that we respect and we will continue to work through, 

but we need to do better at it. 

It is not so much the time it takes for NEPA that stops us as 

it is the litigation that results. Even though that litigation is not 

a high percentage of our projects, it can be in some places. 

We have tried to do a couple approaches within NEPA. We use 

the objection process which tries to settle issues early and resolve 

differences before you go into an appeal and litigation. Secondly, 

we look at landscape-scale planning so that we can deal on a larger 

scale and not on individual small projects but lay out a work that 

makes sense and is consistent with forest plans, is consistent with 

NEPA, and has the acceptance of the people that are paying attention to that environmental clearance. We think both of those will 

help us to get more land treated. 

Senator BOOZMAN. A few years ago we had the situation where 

we had the bridge fail in Minneapolis-St. Paul, and the bridge was 

rebuilt in a matter of a year, you know, which was just unbelievable. 

Do you have the ability when you run into situations where you 

know that there is a possibility of great impact, not to do away 

with the processes that you have to deal with not just this but 

other things? 

11 

Do you have the ability to coordinate and expedite so that you 

do not get yourself in a situation where we have a large fire and 

then tremendous flooding and things like that? 

Mr. HUBBARD. To some extent. Categorical exclusions do help in 

some situations, but mostly it is those relationships that are built 

through the objection process and landscape-scale agreements on 

what we need to do. 

It does not inhibit our fire suppression efforts and our actions 

taken in response to fire, but we do have to pay more attention to 

it after fire. 

Senator BOOZMAN. There was a 2009 GAO study that recommended action to mitigate the effects of fire suppression cost on 

other agencies, with better methods of predicting necessary suppression funding to reduce the need of transferring funds. 

Can you talk to us a little bit, 25 seconds worth, about some of 

the steps that the Forest Service perhaps has done to better predict 

funding needs for fire suppression? 

Mr. HUBBARD. We typically have a pretty good predictive services 

group and the scientists behind that tell us what suppression is 

likely to cost us in a given year based on weather patterns setting 

up well in advance of the season in the Pacific Ocean. Those predictions have been accurate and have provided good estimates of 

our suppression costs. 

It is finding the money to deal with those emergencies. Those 

large fires that escape and become emergencies are what we need 

to probably have more conversation about—is how to finance that 

kind of suppression. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. Thank you 

for your hard work. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbard. 

I want to start with we had an incident last year in my State, 

with 84-mile-per-hour straight-line winds in the Chippewa National Forest that blew down thousands of acres in trees. We had 

an actual opportunity in the days and weeks that followed to perhaps harvest some of the wood before it started to degrade from 

beetles and fungus. And, in this case, it is easy to see how permitting delays—Senator Boozman was getting at the time-sensitive 

nature of your work—but how permitting delays turned what could 

have been a profitable salvage operation into a cost liability. 

What can you do at the Forest Service to be more responsive to 

incidents like these to better meet the multiple goals of supporting 

local communities and reducing dangerous fuel loads after a disaster? 

Mr. HUBBARD. That is a problem. I understand it is. 

It is a problem with blow-down. It is a problem with salvage 

after fire, and it is one that we think within the current statutes 

that we operate, that there is probably room for some modifications 

that might help to address that in a better way, and we would like 

to work with you to do that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That sounds great. Good answer. In February, the Agriculture Committee held a hearing on drought and 

12 

disaster, and we were briefed on the cost of the 2012 drought and 

predictions that we will continue to see more extreme weather due 

to climate change. 

You testified then, as you have mentioned today, that you were 

seeing twice as many acres burn each year and seeing 7 times as 

many large fires, defined as fires that burn over 10,000 acres, as 

compared to 40 years ago. 

Given the additional risk that these fires have on communities 

and forested areas—what we have certainly seen in Colorado and 

in Arizona, and what we have seen in Northern Minnesota—how 

do you see the goal of harvesting three billion board-feet each year 

as assisting the preventative efforts that protect life and property 

in forested areas? 

Mr. HUBBARD. I see it as a challenge, but I think part of that 

challenge is finding ways of doing more than that. And that is with 

public-private partnerships. That is with NEPA streamlining. That 

is with picking the priorities and then getting the right people together. 

So it becomes increasingly important that we pick the right 

places to apply what resources we have and do what work we can. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And do you think has sequestration reduced the amount that we can get toward your goal? 

Mr. HUBBARD. The timing of sequestration did not work to our 

advantage. It hit us during a period where we could have accomplished some opportunity work. When that is prescribed fire, you 

only have a certain window. If you lose that window, then you just 

have to wait. 

So that was unfortunate. We lost some productivity that way, but 

we will work to gain it back. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, it was unfortunate for you, but it is 

unfortunate that we cannot make the changes we need to replace 

it. So it is a shared unfortunate situation. 

How would additional commercial harvesting help offset some of 

the costs of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which supports local governments that have Federal 

public lands within their borders. 

Mr. HUBBARD. We cannot do any of the work that we have been 

talking about without a forest industry, and forest industry exists 

because of some—in part because of the supply from the Federal 

lands. And many of those communities depend on forest industry 

for their economy and their jobs. So it is extremely important to 

us. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, along those lines, what do you see as 

concrete steps that we could take in the near term to complete 

sales in a more timely manner and expedite many of the projects 

that can get tied up for months and assist some of the NEPA issues 

you were raising? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, I think we would have to have some more 

discussion about that. There are things we would like to propose 

that we think make some sense, but in the meantime we are going 

to continue to press with the objection process and the landscapescale planning so that we can get more work ready to go that has 

an agreement and the support from enough of a base that we can 

actually carry it out. 

13 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. So my last one—I sound like a broken record, but it is around this idea of the shutdown and sequestration. But, do you see budget uncertainty as impacting some of 

the private investment decisions throughout the forest industry, 

from the loggers to the mill operators? 

I just know it is such a fragile industry as it is, with world demand and things that are going on with paper and the value of the 

dollar. I see it with our competition with the Canadians right 

across the border. 

Would it be helpful if we stop the brinkmanship so at least you 

could have some certainty and budget certainty for the private industry that we need so dearly to be involved in these parts of our 

country? 

Mr. HUBBARD. In the time I have left, yes, it would be. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator BENNET. And, with that, we will close the first panel. I 

want to thank Mr. Hubbard. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

As I listen to my colleagues talk about the budget situation we 

are in and also reflect on the dysfunction of this place, one of the 

things I think would be good would be to figure out how to pilot 

some of these practices rather than wait to figure out how we are 

going to do it for the whole country. 

Everybody has their examples. The bark beetle kill in Colorado 

is ours, but I know every state has their own challenges. 

So we look forward to working with you in the future, thanks for 

coming today. 

I would like to ask the witnesses on the second panel to make 

their way forward and be seated. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, something that we might consider doing that I think would be helpful, and Mr. Hubbard alluded 

to it, was perhaps looking at the NEPA structure, you know, things 

like that, and maybe having a hearing. I know that our Infrastructure Committee, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have worked 

really hard to try and expedite that, not in an effort to do away 

with things but just to make sure that the different groups are 

talking and see if we can get some—— 

Senator BENNET. Okay. Well, let’s think about that, and I will 

certainly talk to Senator Boxer and Inhofe. 

Welcome to our second panel. Thanks for joining us today. We 

are looking forward to your testimony. We will hold our questions 

until the final witness’s testimony. 

Please try to keep your remarks to five minutes. Your written 

testimony will be submitted for the record. 

With that, I am pleased to introduce our first panelist, Mr. 

Davey Pitcher. Davey is the President and CEO of the Wolf Creek 

Ski Area in southwest Colorado. Mr. Pitcher has been involved 

with the ski area since 1976, managing the area’s overall operations since 1987. He has the privilege to live in beautiful Pagosa 

Springs, Colorado, with his wife, Rosanne, who is here today. 

Our next panelist is Dr. Chris Topik. Chris directs the Nature 

Conservancy’s Restoring America’s Forest Program that aims to 

help restore forests’ health and improve the ecological management 

of America’s forests. 

14 

Previously, Chris was professional staff of the House Appropriations Committee for 15 years. Before his time in Congress, he 

worked for the Forest Service for 16 years. During this time, he 

worked as an area ecologist for 10 years on National Forests in Oregon and Washington. He received his undergraduate degree from 

the University of California-San Diego and earned his Ph.D. in forest ecology from the University of Oregon. 

Next, we have Mr. Tom Troxel. Tom is the Executive Director of 

the Intermountain Forest Association in Rapid City, North Dakota. 

It is nice to see you again. 

He has worked for the association since 1989, representing forest 

products companies in Colorado, South Dakota and Wyoming primarily on issues relating to National Forest timber programs and 

timber sale contracts. Tom received a Bachelor of Science degree in 

forestry from the University of Montana in 1973 and worked for 

the U.S. Forest Service in Idaho, Montana and California from 

1973 to 1989. 

Last, but certainly not least, we have Commissioner Sallie Clark 

from El Paso County, Colorado. Her district encompasses western 

El Paso County, including the central and west areas of the City 

of Colorado Springs and the City of Manitou Springs. She also 

holds a leadership position in the National Association of Counties 

as their Second Vice President. 

As Sallie will tell you, El Paso County has been hard hit by 

wildfires and flooding in each of the past two years. The community has shown remarkable courage and resilience as they have 

begun to rebuild from these terrible disasters. 

So thank you, Sallie, for being here. 

Thanks to all of you for being here. It is an outstanding panel. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chairman, I just have a little Midwestern update, that is it Rapid City, South Dakota. 

Senator BENNET. What? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. South Dakota. I think you said North Dakota for Mr. Troxel. 

Senator BENNET. Yes, South Dakota. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It was a little Midwestern thing that I 

could not let go. 

Senator BENNET. South Dakota. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I often confuse—— 

Senator BENNET. Where did you say you are from? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNET. I cannot remember. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It is like me confusing Colorado and Wyoming, like they are all the same thing. 

Senator BENNET. Milwaukee? 

Did I screw that up? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNET. All right, now I am pleased to turn to the 

panel. 

Mr. Pitcher, why don’t you take it away? 

Thank you very much, again, for being here. 

15 

STATEMENT OF DAVEY PITCHER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WOLF 

CREEK SKI AREA, PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO 

Mr. PITCHER. Chairman Bennet, Ranking Member Boozman and members of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry and Natural Resources, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today and share my thoughts about the spruce beetle outbreak, the 

ensuing fires and my perceptions of the U.S. Forest Service and 

their ability to adjust to these changing conditions. Being born and raised in New Mexico and Colorado as a second- generation owner and operator of Wolf Creek Ski Area, growing up 

with a family business that is entirely on U.S. Forest Service lands, 

as well as being an avid outdoorsman and a private pilot, has given 

me a perspective with some relevance. 

Wolf Creek Ski Area is located on top of Wolf Creek Pass and 

lies between South Fork and Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Our family 

has built it up for the last 40 years to be one of the largest employers in the tricounty area, with over 400 seasonal and year-round 

employees and a payroll that has averaged over $4 million a year 

for over a decade. Over 200,000 skiers visit each year, bringing economic stability to the region. Around 2001, with the onslaught of drought and the monolithic spruce forest structure, it was the perfect breeding ground for the 

spruce beetle. The Forest Service advised us of this plight. As a private business, they could clearly see the potential impact to our 

livelihood. 

We budgeted and began to methodically treat our 1,600-acre per- mit, using Forest Service specialist guidelines. We budgeted about 

$100,000 per year and systematically treated our permit by using 

a helicopter and removing infested and hazard trees. During the same time, we began to see some signs of the spruce 

beetle in our surrounding forest and requested permission to extend treatment beyond our permit as part of a boundary management fire protection plan. We were informed by the local foresters 

that there was no mechanism in forest regulations to do this and 

that it would require administrative funds, which were not available, but they were being sought. And, certainly, there was a level 

of frustration expressed by the forest staff about their inability to 

react, given the regulations they work under. 

By 2011, it was obvious that the spruce beetle was overrunning 

Wolf Creek Pass and the surrounding forest. The sheer number of 

bugs made our efforts on the permit seem pitiful. It also set the 

stage for fire. 

In mid-June of 2013, 2 fires broke out, and within 7 days the 

complex was over 90,000 acres and uncontained. Our ski area was 

consumed in smoke. Flames were licking the edge of our permit. 

The West Fork fire ran 50,000 acres in 3 days. The flames were 

400 to 600 feet tall, and the smoke column topped 30,000 feet. It 

was entirely possible that Wolf Creek Ski Area was going to be 

overrun by the fire. 

We were not without support. The U.S. Forest Service supervisors and district rangers, under a different set of emergency 

rules, were quick to respond with structure protection and aerial 

support. Resources were quickly mobilized, and a very high level of 

professionalism was apparent. 

16 

What struck me was how different the U.S. Forest Service performed when operating under rules that allowed decision-makers to 

apply resources in what had to be a timely manner. 

I believe that a paradigm shift in the U.S. Forest Service policy 

is needed. Rather than continuing to only have funds for these reactive moments of fighting fires, Forest Service supervisors should 

be enabled to work within a regulatory structure which empowers 

them to apply funds to mitigate the chances of large, overwhelming 

fires that are becoming more and more common in the West. 

I believe this can be done without jeopardizing the values at risk, 

which include: 

Protecting sensitive areas and watersheds. This is a priority for 

conservation groups and makes good sense. 

Identifying and creating fire buffers. The Forest Service should 

prioritize forest treatments near communities, ski areas, 

inholdings, highways and critical power lines. 

This can be done in a variety of ways, which include (a) timber 

removal for local industry, fuel reduction, utilized as biofuels, and 

controlled burns which closes the cycle that nature has started 

with the spruce beetle outbreak. 

In closing, Wolf Ski Area has just invested over $5 million in new 

lifts and infrastructure. This is our commitment to the future. We 

understand that we live and work in a dynamic forest in which 

there will continue to be forest mortality and fire, but it does not 

have to be catastrophic. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitcher can be found on page 48 

in the appendix.] 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Pitcher. 

Dr. Topik. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS TOPIK, DIRECTOR, RESTORING AMERICA’S FORESTS PROGRAM, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. I am 

particularly pleased that the Senate 

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is getting involved in 

this issue, and I hope you will stay deeply involved. 

I would also like to closely associate myself with the opening remarks of the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I think you pretty much said my speech, so I will try to summarize. It was terrific. 

I am with The Nature Conservancy, and our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which life depends. We have been 

around for over 60 years, and for over 50 years we have been doing 

controlled burns. And, in fact, our staff this past year did nearly 

100,000 acres of burns ourselves. We have a long history of using 

science to get involved with on-the-ground management. And our 

Fire Learning Network has been working now for 12 years with 

communities to build capacity to learn to live with fire. 

My own history—I have visited most of the most destructive fires 

that occurred in the previous decade—most were destructive and 

deadly. 

17 

I think this is really the time, like you have all said, for us to 

make a big step up and a sizeable change in investment. We can 

do it. 

We have been hearing about all these up-front investments that 

need to be done. We know that the up-front investments in forests 

and communities do reduce fire danger. We know they have tremendous other benefits such as improving our water quality and 

quantity, helping with jobs in our communities and helping a whole 

variety of industries. 

We know many of the steps that can be done. I hope you have 

a chance to look at my rather long written testimony which has a 

lot of specific things. It will take more efficiency, but work can happen. 

Twelve years ago, the Congress and the Administration and the 

states got together with a National Fire Plan and stepped up activity dramatically, but since then it has waned. And so we need to 

step up. 

First of all, Federal funding for hazardous fuels reduction programs—this is absolutely essential. You have all mentioned it. 

There is no reason why we cannot at least do a 50 percent increase 

in these funds. 

We know these projects work. We have ample evidence for the 

Department of the Interior as well as for the Forest Service, that 

these projects have tremendous benefits. My paper references several Science Review articles that give more detail. 

Another important project that needs to be funded is the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. In essence, as the 

Chairman mentioned, the collaborative forest program is a pilot effort that is bringing people together across the country. The Conservancy is involved deeply in 16 of the 23 efforts. 

I personally have visited many of these. I have had the good experience of going to Colorado with the Front Range Group which 

is doing terrific work. I also had the good experience this past summer to go to Arkansas and spend time in the Ozark National Forest where I was amazed at the terrific work being done there to 

reintroduce fire, to bring out pine for the forest products industry 

and have tremendous biodiversity. 

Now how are we going to do this? 

We need to step up with—as we have mentioned—changing the 

way fire suppression is funded. The fire suppression is just killing 

us, all the money going to the reactive areas. 

I have been suggesting that we need to create a separate 

wildland fire disaster suppression fund, and I think this can be 

done. 

I encourage you to also take a look at the pending House and 

Senate fiscal 2014 Interior appropriations bills. Each of those uses 

emergency declarations, and I think a similar process could be used 

to help get the funding for the fire suppression, to free up sizeable 

increases in resources for these other efforts that we know work. 

As Senator Boozman mentioned, non-Federal funding and partnerships are essential. There are a lot of terrific efforts going on. 

Colorado, in particular, is a leader of having various partners—utilities, industrial partners—working to get work done on the ground. 

The recreation and tourism industries can be deeply involved. We 

18 

are seeing more and more municipalities get directly involved in 

helping take care of Federal lands because they understand how 

critical that is for their own work. 

We have heard mentioned about the NEPA problems, and I think 

there is a lot to be done there to increase the efficiency and scalingup of efforts. But by keeping public transparency, it is essential to 

create the social license to be able to get better projects done, and 

I think that is something we cannot forget. 

Lastly, let me mention the Fire Adapted Communities Coalition. 

This is something. The Conservancy, the Federal agencies, the 

states, the insurance industry and many others are working with 

the Fire Adapted Communities Coalition to produce education materials. And I think a lot more can be done with those kinds of efforts to get people directly involved with protecting their communities, to get directly involved with the surrounding wildlands. 

With Federal and non-Federal investments, we can make a big 

difference. 

All that can happen if we can figure out and actually implement 

a better way of funding the fire suppression. 

So let me just finish by kind of reflecting. I had the good fortune 

of visiting several of these hearings, and the bipartisan agreement 

is so profound on these issues that it would just be a terrible 

shame if we do not seize this moment and make a big step up. 

I think the Farm Bill has some terrific forestry provisions in it. 

And I think you guys, if you stay involved, you can help us bring 

this across the finish line. 

So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Topik can be found on page 54 

in the appendix.] 

Senator BENNET. Thank you very much, Dr. Topik. 

Mr. Troxel. 

STATEMENT OF TOM TROXEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST ASSOCIATION, RAPID CITY, SD 

Mr. TROXEL. Chairman Bennet, Ranking Member Boozman, Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify 

today. 

I am Tom Troxel. I am from Rapid City, South Dakota. I am here 

on behalf of—— 

Senator BENNET. See, I told you—South Dakota. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That would be the power of the Chair. 

Mr. TROXEL. I am here today on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, which represents 650 forest products companies 

in 32 states. 

I would also like to start by complimenting each of you for your 

opening statements and your understanding of the issues in framing this hearing. 

The inadequacies of the current Forest Service fire funding 

model are well documented. First of all, when suppression costs exceed appropriated funding levels, the Forest Service is forced to 

withdraw funds from ongoing programs. This so-called fire borrowing diverts funding from current programs, increases Forest 

19 

Service costs and distracts forest managers from their day-to-day 

business. 

The second, and more significant, issue is that 82 million acres 

of the National Forests are in poor health due to the combined effects of fire suppression and undermanagement. As fire suppressions costs have consumed an ever larger portion of the Forest 

Service’s budget over the past 20 years, the funding available to 

implement forest health programs has gone down. 

This is a vicious cycle—the more the Forest Service has to spend 

fighting fires, the more fires there will be in the future. 

The Federal Forest Resource Coalition has long advocated for a 

sustainable fire funding model that includes preparedness and 

emergency funding, eliminates the need for fire borrowing and increases science-based proactive forest management that can reduce 

the potential for catastrophic fires and restore the health of the National Forests. 

To reiterate, proactive forest management works, and any new 

fire funding model must include a substantial increase in the 

amount of on-the-ground proactive management in the National 

Forests. This is crucial for rural America. 

Last year, the Forest Service published a restoration strategy 

which called for increasing the pace and scale of restoration, reducing hazardous fuels, restoring forests and increasing timber sales 

to 3 billion board-feet. However, the Forest Service is struggling to 

increase the pace and scale of restoration. At their current rate, it 

will take 242 years to treat the 82 million acres currently in need 

of restoration. 

The GAO has recognized the need to reduce hazardous fuels. The 

Western Governors Association and the National Association of 

State Foresters both support increased management. However, litigation, misuse of NEPA, analysis paralysis, and the failure to respond rapidly to catastrophic events are preventing the Forest 

Service from meeting its management goals whether the metric is 

acres treated, timber sold or habitat improved. 

I offer the following recommendations: 

Adequate funding is essential. This is not a budget hearing, but 

budgets reflect policy. The President’s 2014 budget goes the wrong 

direction in proposing reductions in timber harvest and hazardous 

fuels treatments. 

Reduce Forest Service costs through finding efficiencies, using 

more cost-effective processes and reducing overhead costs. 

Use timber revenues to offset the cost of restoration, thinning 

and hazardous fuels reduction. 

Finally, increased funding by itself is not enough. Congressional 

legislation is needed to streamline NEPA compliance, endangered 

species consultation, judicial review and program implementation. 

Reforming these laws is critical to treat the systemic infection 

plaguing the National Forest system. 

Forest products companies are the Forest Service’s most efficient 

tool to help address the forest health crisis on the National Forests. 

However, in some areas, forest products companies are on the 

brink because National Forest sale programs have been shut down 

by serial litigation. 

20 

Ultimately, the future of these companies and the restoration of 

the National Forests hinges on providing certainty to forest managers, to communities and to private industry that these programs 

will be properly managed. 

Our domestic forest industry is well positioned to help improve 

the health of the National Forests, create thousands of new jobs 

and generate critical revenue for counties and the Treasury. Again, 

however, that depends on a predictable, sustainable supply of timber from the National Forests, especially in the West, where in 

many areas the Forest Service is the dominant landowner. 

We need to do better than watch our National Forests burn and 

our rural communities struggle while lumber is being imported. We 

have an opportunity to meet the needs of all right here in the 

United States through active, sustainable forest management. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Troxel can be found on page 67 

in the appendix.] 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Troxel. 

Ms. Clark. 

STATEMENT OF SALLIE CLARK, SECOND VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND COMMISSIONER, 

EL PASO COUNTY, CO 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman Bennet, 

Ranking Member Boozman, Senator Klobuchar and Committee. 

I will not introduce myself because Senator Bennet did such a 

nice job. 

But, the Waldo Canyon fire started in my commissioner district 

on June 23, 2012, along a popular U.S. Forest Service hiking trail 

just a few miles west of Colorado Springs. Two citizens lost their 

lives, 346 families lost their homes, and more than 18,000 acres of 

scorched earth was left behind. 

The photo over here to my right shows what it looked like to see 

the neighborhood burn. 

The Waldo Canyon fire also destroyed huge areas of vegetation 

and burned the soil so badly that it will no longer absorb water and 

has created devastating flash flooding. 

We hope and pray each time we see a typical summer thundershower developing over the massive burn scar that we will not 

have a repeat of the disastrous flash flooding, evacuations and fear 

that has ripped through the small town of Manitou Springs and 

communities along our major highway. 

Experts tell us that vegetation will be slow to return to the steep 

mountain slopes, and so far, more than $30 million has been spent 

on recovery, restoration, flash flood mitigation and protection of 

critical water systems. However, much more is needed. It is estimated that $50 million more is needed, as a conservative estimate, 

for additional combined agency funding. 

Our story is one that has been repeated many times throughout 

the West. Cerro Grande, New Mexico destroyed 400 homes and 

burned through parts of Los Alamos National Laboratory, estimated damages at $1 billion. 

21 

Colorado’s Hayman fire scorched 180,000 acres of forest land, destroyed 180 homes, and 10 years later flash flooding destroyed a 

major mile-long section of Highway 67. 

The Schultz fire in Coconino County, Arizona—15,000 acres, loss 

recovery and flood mitigation costs have topped $120 million. 

Thousands of acres of dead or dying trees, basically, adjacent to 

our neighborhoods have a recipe for the kind of disaster we experienced. As our community begins to recover in the aftermath of a 

fire, the burned and scarred mountainside continues to generate 

dangerous flash flooding. Lives have been lost since flooding has 

started. A major highway washed out, homes destroyed and utilities infrastructure lost. Our water system is threatened, and jobs 

and our economy devastated. 

There are many lessons learned, but essentially, the problem is 

that our beautiful public lands not controlled by the local government are great contributors to our quality of life but also pose a 

substantial threat to lives and property nearby. 

In a recent flash flood post-fire, another life was lost on a major 

highway to the mountains. Hundreds of thousands of dead trees 

currently surround mountain towns, cross major highways and 

threaten the headwater regions of the Colorado, Platte, Arkansas 

and Rio Grande Rivers. 

Appropriate forest mitigation recognizes the need to preserve our 

national resources while protecting the health, welfare and safety 

of our citizens. It is important to also recognize that fire suppression should be considered as an emergency in terms of funding replenishment so that it maintains the important efforts by agencies 

like the U.S. Forest Service to provide needed resources for continued healthy forest efforts. 

We understand that fire mitigation projects, despite the fact that 

they will pay for themselves many times over, are rarely funded by 

FEMA. The number is getting larger every day. So I cannot tell 

you what the total cost to El Paso County and its citizens would 

be, but I can say with absolute certainty that pre-fire mitigation in 

Pike National Forest would have been an excellent return on investment. 

We need to mitigate the greatest threats for fires and floods, 

whether on public or private property. Fire knows no boundaries 

and neither does flash flooding. 

In the Black Forest fire, the second fire that hit us in one year, 

firefighters were able to successfully defend areas where trees were 

healthy and property owners had taken proper mitigation steps, 

but where there had been little or no mitigation were completely 

wiped out. 

NACo, the National Association of Counties has been actively involved in the Cohesive Strategy. The three goals are restore and 

maintain landscapes, create fire adapted communities and respond 

to wildfire. 

One thing is clear; we can no longer afford to have one disastrous 

wildfire after another. Healthy forests and pre-mitigation efforts 

are the only answer. The opportunities to prepare and prevent are 

priceless. 

22 

Senator Bennet, as you know, I generally bring a memento of our 

area. I have debris from Fountain Creek that shows that wildfire 

and the flooding afterwards is worse sometimes than the fire itself. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clark can be found on page 34 

in the appendix.] 

Senator BENNET. Thank you for bringing that. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

We have been joined by Senator Thune. 

It really was excellent testimony. 

Ms. Clark, I just want to tease out a point that you made for everybody, which is that we are talking about the headwaters of a 

big part of this country. This is not just about the State of Colorado 

or one place, as Senator Boozman said earlier. This is happening 

in many, many places, and the potential aftereffects, when you 

think about what could happen in these watersheds, is something 

that should be of profound interest to everybody in the country. 

I wonder whether you would share a little bit in more detail 

what the citizens of Manitou Springs are going through right now 

as a consequence not just of the fire, which we did not do sufficient 

mitigation for, but then the flooding as well. 

Ms. CLARK. Well, as you know—and we appreciate your visits to 

our county to tour the area time and time again, but—the Manitou 

Springs is a town of around 6,000 people. It is right next door to 

Colorado Springs, which is our largest community. The areas to the 

west include the town of Green Mountain Falls and unincorporated 

El Paso County. 

But all summer long the sirens would go off. And it is a tourist 

town. So all the tourists would flee. 

Then we would decide whether there was going to be a big rainstorm on the mountain scar or not, and then they would go back 

to their life. And then they would leave again. 

Several times during those time periods, there were significant 

floods that totally wiped out houses. In fact, one lady was actually 

on her front porch when the house lifted up off its foundation and 

floated downhill. She survived. 

But it is a frightening experience to see where this town, even 

though they have never experienced this kind of flooding—there is 

no historical data to show you that there was flash flooding in the 

past related to Waldo Canyon, but now because of the scarred burn 

area up above, basically, it has very much affected the economy of 

the town, and some businesses are actually closing their doors and 

moving out. 

Senator BENNET. So I will use the Chairman’s prerogative to say 

that Manitou Springs is open for business and please go spend your 

money there. 

Mr. Pitcher, you had said in your testimony that—and you put 

it much more eloquently than I will repeat it, but—you had noticed 

a difference in the way the Federal Government approached things 

when it actually had an immediate deadline of putting a fire out 

versus doing the mitigation stuff to begin with. 

I wonder whether you could elaborate a little bit about the frustrations you heard from Forest Service personnel or others who felt 

that the rules and regulations were somehow getting in the way of 

23 

their ability to play a more constructive role or allowing you to play 

a more constructive role. 

Mr. PITCHER. Yes. I guess the biggest contrast I saw was during 

the time that the spruce beetle was starting to infest the forest and 

we were attempting to move outside of our permit area, the fuel 

reduction we were doing within was orchestrated in conjunction 

with the Forest Service. 

The administrative problems that arise with some of the NEPA 

regulatory guidelines that they work under, I think, are always a 

challenge. And I think it is something that is necessary, but I think 

with regard to the nature of the timeline of these disaster-type 

fires, or outbreaks, maybe something could be done better. 

I think the other item that they expressed some frustration with 

is the funding that they go through to get to the point where they 

can actually determine whether they can do timber sales or fuel reductions. Because of the nature of the funding coming in on a yearly basis, they are always struggling with trying to meet budget and 

then trying to decide if they have money. And then it is the next 

year, and it is a different budget. So that is a concern, I believe. 

Senator BENNET. How would you describe this for the people that 

are not familiar with Colorado—the state of the forest today? 

Mr. PITCHER. Oh, it is—you know, 20 years ago, if you had come 

to me and said that there was going to be forest fires in southwestern Colorado of the scale that I have seen this last year, I 

would have probably laughed. It is just incredible. 

There is about 90 percent mortality. The forest up in Wolf Creek 

Pass and that whole area—Mineral County, Hinsdale County—is 

very monolithic, and it is all spruce, and it is all dead. 

It is part of the natural process. I do not think anybody is debating that. 

I think how we deal with the interface—I am not sure that 20 

years ago anybody really extrapolated how even in these areas with 

4 million acres of National Forest, for example, and very low population density, how with inholdings, ski area permits, roads, power 

lines, there really is not any area where this kind of natural fires 

of a grand scale that really take place without affecting somebody. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pitcher, you mentioned that you had a situation where you 

wanted to extend your permit. I know that processes have to get 

done. But, was there any common-sense reason not to do that? 

Mr. PITCHER. On the fire management plan and trying to extend 

our work, I think common sense—again, the regulatory structure 

that the Forest Service works within disallowed the planners to 

really move forward with being able to do that. 

They did not say they could not do it. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Mr. PITCHER. They just said it is going to take time. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But it truly was an emergency situation, as 

we—— 

Mr. PITCHER. Well, I believe—this was over the course of the last 

decade, and I believe that there was an awareness that the spruce 

beetle was getting worse every year. And I think that the Forest 

24 

Service, the local decision-makers, were working towards getting a 

mechanism set up that they could actually allow something to happen. But, you know what? With the NEPA regulations and so on 

and so forth, it was very difficult for them. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right, and that is why we need to have some 

sort of vehicle, a hearing or whatever, try and cut through some 

of that stuff. 

Dr. Topik, The Nature Conservancy does a tremendous job in Arkansas. Scott Simon and, again, you all are exemplary and just a 

great example of what public-private partnerships can do. So, 

again, I want to commend you for that. 

I would like to ask you and Mr. Troxel. You know, we have heard 

about climate change. We have heard about budget cuts and this 

and that. We have heard about the problem of fighting fires and 

expending all of our funds doing that versus mitigating these 

things. 

What percentage of this is caused over the last 20–30 years just 

from poor management as far as the situation that we are in now? 

Mr. TOPIK. I think the intent—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. In the situation we are in now, Ms. Clark said 

that the forests are a threat to her community. I do not want to 

put words in your mouth, but essentially she is concerned because 

this is a danger now—the surrounding landscape. 

I think Mr. Pitcher alluded to the same type of thing in the sense 

we have got all this acreage that is a tinderbox for a variety of different reasons. 

What percentage of that is just poor management? 

Mr. TOPIK. I do not have a percentage, but I mean, I would say 

that we would be wrong if we did not attribute an awful lot of the 

weather-related events to these real intense fires. The very intense 

fires we have had in the last decade or so are due to these hightemperature, long-drought events, and there is a tremendous relationship there. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Ms. Clark mentioned that the areas that were 

well managed in her area did not have as much problem—— 

Mr. TOPIK. Sure. 

Senator BOOZMAN. —as the others. 

Mr. TOPIK. Yes. I have had the good fortune of visiting a number 

of sites. I got to spend time up in the air around the Wallow fire, 

the largest fire in Arizona. 

Thinning can often be a very good use, and it is something we 

very strongly advocate for. We are involved in a project with the 

City of Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs and the Forest Service ourselves. That is the kind of work we support. 

So it is a combination. There are several fire problems, and we 

are going to need several fire solutions. But, if it were not for the 

problematic climate and weather problems, it would not be nearly 

as bad. 

But the overzealous fire suppression that we had for many decades when we had warmer—excuse me, when we had wetter 

areas—I mean, that is a big contribution also. We cannot overplay. 

It depends where you are. It is very different between chaparral 

and high-elevation forests versus the pine zone. Each have comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:23 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\87568.TXT MICAH
25 

pletely different sorts of ecologies. So it is important that we do not 

overgeneralize. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Troxel. 

Mr. TROXEL. I agree with what Dr. Topik said. There are so 

many different forest types and the right treatment in a ponderosa 

pine forest type is different than the right treatment in Engelmann 

spruce. 

Mr. Pitcher referred to the monolithic forest on the Rio Grande 

National Forest, and that is part of the problem, with so little age, 

class and structural stage diversity. That was a result of the history of fire suppression in those areas and not taking the initiative 

to do more management to create that diversity. 

Diversity is good, whether we are talking about forests or stock 

portfolios. We just did not have that diversity in the National Forests, which is why so many huge areas of forest in Colorado and 

other western states have been so affected by the beetle epidemics. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much to all of you. 

I wanted to follow up. Dr. Topik, you know The Nature Conservancy has a very strong presence in Minnesota, and there have 

been great strides at a more collaborative approach to forest management in part because of The Nature Conservancy. And I think 

other regions of the country would look at the work you are doing 

with some envy. 

But, despite these improvements, I think you know, the timber 

industry still struggles with some of the red tape issues. What do 

you see—you mentioned some potential reforms. What do you see 

as steps we can take in the near term to complete sales in a more 

timely manner and expedite many of the routine projects that get 

tied up for months? 

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you for complimenting our Conservancy staff. 

They are good in Minnesota. They are good in Arizona. 

Senator BENNET. They are great in Colorado. 

Mr. TOPIK. Excuse me. They are great in Colorado, Arkansas and 

South Dakota. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. South Dakota. 

Mr. TOPIK. Our Minnesota and South Dakota folks work together. That is a great partnership for The Conservancy there. 

One of the things—directly answering the question—I have tried 

to avoid it here for a moment. 

Directly answering the question is I believe larger-scale NEPA 

projects that include an adaptive component. 

So I would like to see—and I saw this actually in Arkansas, in 

the Ozark National Forest, and I hope people can copy what they 

have done there—over a whole range of districts, of a couple hundred thousand acres, having an environmental analysis done that 

allows projects to be done without then having to do it over and 

over again, real local detailed projects. 

So you still have the benefits of having NEPA and public involvement. We have the decision-making that is open and transparent. 

But we are doing it at a scale that you can actually assess treatVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:23 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\87568.TXT MICAH
26 

ments and have a better idea of cumulative impacts. So I think 

that is an area where a lot more can be done. 

There are places—and South Dakota, I believe, is another place 

where they have stepped up with some large-scale NEPA project 

analysis. 

So I would like to see those done in a lot more places. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I mentioned in my earlier comments, 

in talking to Mr. Hubbard, about bioenergy. 

Could you talk about how you see working forests and bioenergy 

as part of a broader strategy to support economic development—we 

certainly see it in Northern Minnesota—still understanding that 

we have to preserve large tracts of our forests and make sure we 

do it right? 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, I am not an expert in that field. I did have a 

good experience up in Arizona, visiting some areas where a terrific 

small factory, I believe, has 48 employees and is generating wood 

pellets for local industry, not for the European export. So that is 

a very important kind of component. 

So I would like to see more of this distributed local energy use 

through bioenergy done in a lot of places. 

I think there are many parts of this country where that could be 

done. We have seen, for instance, in eastern Oregon a lot of hospitals and schools are able to use locally grown fuels for heating 

and such. 

I think there is a lot to be done there. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. In Minnesota, we have seen a dramatic decline in the number of moose, which is really a big deal in our 

State. It is an icon up in northern Minnesota. How can improved 

forest management and changes in the forest habitat play a role to 

help protect this critical species? 

Anyone want to weigh in on moose? 

[Pause.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, I will do it in writing later. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You can go back and check your books. 

But it is something that we are seeing a change. It may be some 

of the climate change issues that you are raising. 

Mr. TOPIK. This is way out of my area of expertise. I know that 

up in Maine in particular there are weather-related impacts and 

disease on the moose. I am not familiar at all with the Minnesota 

situation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Then just two last questions here—Ms. Clark, one of the things 

we have tried to do in recent Farm Bills is to try to encourage a 

more regional approach for rural development. We have seen significant returns in Minnesota when we do this. 

Fire management is another area where coordination can help 

with town, counties, state and Federal agencies. 

How can Federal agencies be more responsive to your needs and 

coordinate better with your local government units. 

Ms. CLARK. Well, I think that some of the bipartisan legislation 

that is moving through various agencies here and through Congress will help in terms of stewardship and partnership programs 

that really look to local governments to help in the planning of 

27 

those forests because they are right adjacent to private property; 

they are adjacent to both county and city parks. And I think that 

collaborative nature is important—that we are brought to the table 

early in the process, not at the end of the process when they have 

already decided. 

If you look at Pikes Peak and the Pike National Forest on the 

Pikes Peak side, which was not impacted—actually did light on 

fire, but our hotshot crews got it out—there are over 1,000 trees 

per acre there. It should be around 100 trees per acre. 

So that is not good for wildlife. It is a threat to Cheyenne Mountain complex, which includes NORAD, a major military installation. 

I just think those partnerships are critical to us. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. 

I will just—my colleague is here from South Dakota, and so I will 

put my question in writing for you, Mr. Pitcher. 

But, I used to head up the Subcommittee on Tourism and now 

head the Tourism Caucus and know how important this is. And I 

think when we talk about these wildfires we need to go beyond 

talking about them in terms of the timber industry, important in 

my State, but also the effect it can have on tourism and as an argument for the economic importance of investing in forest management. 

So thank you for being here. 

Senator BENNET. As head of that tourism thing, you should know 

Wolf Creek is open for skiing already this year. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That is very good. We will put that up on 

our web site, and everyone can look at that. 

Senator BENNET. So glad Senator Thune has joined us because 

he has been a leader on these issues for a long time. 

We are glad you are here. 

On the NEPA point, you and I did some work in the Farm Bill 

to try to update for faster NEPA analysis in the beetle kill areas 

of our respective states. So I wanted to thank you for that. 

With that, I will turn it over to you. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you 

and Senator Boozman for calling this hearing and for assembling 

such a great panel of witnesses to talk about these issues. 

As you mentioned, we have, in the Farm Bill, tried to address 

some of these—in the forestry title—challenges that we face and 

particularly in your area of the country and my area of the country. 

I think the moose have migrated to South Dakota. That is why 

they do not know about the Minnesota moose. No, I am kidding. 

We have pheasants in our state, no moose, at least not any so 

far. 

But I would want to especially recognize Tom Troxel who is 

someone—he is the Executive Director of the Intermountain Forest 

Association from my home State of South Dakota and somebody 

who knows full well the positive benefits of successful thinning in 

a timber harvest program and what that can achieve in terms of 

proactively diminishing the risk of wildfires and protecting our 

western forestlands. 

28 

He has worked extraordinarily well with the Forest Service and 

the timber industry and other stakeholders in our State, putting 

forth common-sense solutions to a lot of the problems and the concerns that are represented by those who care about, and depend 

upon, our western forestlands for their livelihood and for recreational interests as well. 

There are some things, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that 

are going on in our State, and I would like to have Tom speak a 

little bit about that. 

We have, obviously, got tight budget constraints that we are 

dealing with now, which has been a challenge. And I appreciate the 

suggestions about how to, in new and creative ways, fund some of 

these issues that we face in the forests. 

We have been able, in the State of South Dakota, to combat the 

growing threat of the mountain pine beetle in an innovative way. 

And like many of the forests in the Rocky Mountain region, the 

Black Hills is experiencing this epidemic. It is not on the level that 

you are experiencing in Colorado yet, but I think one of the reasons 

for that is due to the innovative way in which the various stakeholders and the Forest Service have worked together to address the 

issue. 

They developed this Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project 

which was able to complete an environmental review of the most 

critical areas in the entire Black Hills National Forest, allowing 

the Forest Service the flexibility to quickly treat areas under the 

threat of the mountain pine beetle. Due to the unprecedented large 

landscape project this represents, more affected trees have been 

timely treated, fuel has been removed, and much more forestland 

is protected from the pine beetles. 

So there is a lot more work that can be done in other areas, and 

I guess I would suggest that this kind of an innovative approach— 

and you referenced it too, Mr. Topik—is something that could be 

replicated in other areas managed by the Forest Service. 

So the question, I guess—and I would direct this to you, Mr. 

Troxel—is would the Black Hills National Forest Pine Beetle Response Project, with its large-scale NEPA, be something that could 

be an effective tool for future forest management? 

Mr. TROXEL. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Absolutely. As you know, it analyzed about 250,000 acres and 

made decisions about how to treat the 250,000 acres, about half of 

it commercially and half of it noncommercially. 

The Black Hills is a great example because the link between 

thinning the ponderosa pine forest and reducing the risk of fires 

and reducing the risk of mountain pine beetles is so well established. 

It is critical, and it is also cost-effective, and it helps the Forest 

Service be timely, to do a NEPA analysis on the scale of the Pine 

Beetle Response Project, and I believe it is a model that other national forests should emulate. 

Senator THUNE. If Congress were to change the way Forest Service fire suppression costs are funded, with your 24 years of experience in western forestlands, what would be the best strategy and 

how important is ensuring adequate funding for proactive forest 

management, and how important is that in fitting into a strategy? 

29 

Mr. TROXEL. Thank you, Senator. 

It is critical. It really does not make sense to just fix the funding 

piece without trying to incorporate a package of proactive forest 

management steps so that we have a chance to get ahead of the 

fire problems that we have. 

It is like preventive medicine. It is cost-effective. It is good for 

the patient—the same thing we have heard today from several witnesses. 

Mr. Hubbard talked about the proven cost-effectiveness of preventive measures. 

Proactive forest management absolutely needs to be part of the 

strategy, but there is just not enough money to pay for proactive 

forest management without doing some reform of the underlying 

laws. I included references in my testimony about changes to 

NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and litigation that would 

also be helpful components. 

Senator THUNE. And I would ask—anybody can react to this, 

but—what would you all think of the concept of using funds that 

are targeted for—and I have got a bill actually that would do this— 

for future Forest Service acquisitions, that be redirected to forest 

operations and maintenance on existing Forest Service lands? 

Before we buy more land, we redirect funds that we need—we 

know we need—given the fact that we have got these budget constraints that we are dealing with. 

Mr. TROXEL. I will take a shot at it. I think it is obvious that 

the priority for the Forest Service needs to be taking care of the 

lands they already own and acquiring additional lands would be a 

lower priority, at least for some period into the future. 

Mr. TOPIK. Just so we do not have complete comity and agreement on everything, I would hate to see a blanket kind of approach 

to something like that. I know that there are a number of incredibly important acquisition projects that often can occur and have a 

lot of management efficiency as well as protection quality. And so 

I would ask people to look at that very carefully rather than to 

make that kind of a blanket decision. 

When you think of the source of land acquisition funding being 

from our offshore oil, a one-time kind of agreement with the people, 

with the public, that as we use that one-time resource that we reinvest it in something that has some permanent value, I think there 

is something to be said for that. 

Ms. CLARK. Senator, if I might just—and I certainly speak only 

for myself when I give this observation, but I think it is important 

to be able to take care of what you have before you add on, or when 

you add on, you need to make sure you can take care of that new 

acquisition. 

At the same time, I think one of the issues is that, with the Forest Service, forest fire suppression is not treated like an emergency 

that is replenished. So, when these emergencies come up, the Forest Service has to manage their budget within their budget. So 

they have to reduce the pre-mitigation versus deciding where they 

are going to put that fire suppression money. 

I think that is a critical component to making sure that at least 

the funding for the mitigation stays stable even in the face of all 

of these wildfires that keep hitting. 

30 

Colorado has been hit time and time again, not just by fires but 

floods and other issues—floods related to fires. But I think that is 

a critical component, that fire suppression has to be also looked at 

as an emergency so that it does not do harm to what we are trying 

to prevent. 

Senator THUNE. I appreciate that. Yes, your area has been the 

front line of that. 

I guess my time is well expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BENNET. If you want another question, go ahead and 

take one. 

Senator THUNE. I think that is okay. I have probably exhausted 

that line of questioning. 

Senator BENNET. I have one. I am just going to ask a question 

to Dr. Topik and then turn it over to the Ranking Member. 

You have got such an interesting experience and background in 

the Forest Service and over on the House side, the Appropriations 

Committee. For those of us, all of us, that would like to spend more 

money on the front end and less on the back end, certainly get 

away from this fire borrowing, do you have any final words of advice for us about how we can make that case or what we should 

be thinking about in terms of approach? 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, I just think the investments work so well. Commissioner Clark mentioned the five-to-one returns on this. We really cannot afford not to do the up-front work. We know we are going 

to end up having these big costs afterwards. 

So it seems to me absolutely essential that the Congress just— 

you know. And that is why I was so happy to see this Committee 

also get involved. You can make these decisions, and we can ramp 

up Federal money, and that will attract non-Federal money and 

more participation by more sectors of society that can get involved 

and also help. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, I really do appreciate your leadership on 

this issue, Mr. Chairman. It is so important. 

This is an issue that is certainly not partisan at all. It is not this 

Administration’s fault. It is not the last administration’s fault. It 

is the last several, several administrations’ and Congress’s fault. 

But we do need to—you know, we do have to—it should not be 

that Ms. Clark and Mr. Pitcher feel like the adjacent lands surrounding them are a hazard and something that they fear instead 

of enjoy. 

I do think that in the situation where we have hundreds of thousands of logs laying around—that, to me, is a situation, in the watershed it is in, that is almost like the collapse of the bridge in 

Minneapolis. You know. 

I would hope that we are cutting through the red tape, that we 

are doing all that we can do to go forward so that we can aggressively get the area cleaned up and restored. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks also to the panel. You guys—you and Mr. Hubbard— 

were excellent. This was a very, very helpful hearing. We appreciate your making the trip. 

Thank you. 

31 

Senator BENNET. I would say to the Ranking Member and the 

Committee that my wife’s grandfather is from Arkansas and was 

an attorney in eastern Arkansas and his law firm is still there. 

And one of the times I met with him he remembered very fondly 

standing at the headwaters of the Arkansas River with the river 

running between his legs, and that was in the great State of Colorado. So that does connect us all. 

I want to thank my colleagues who are here today, and I want 

to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the Committee. 

Any additional questions for the record should be submitted to 

the Committee clerk five business days from today. So that is by 

4:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 12th. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 

34 


87568.001
35 


87568.002
36 


87568.003
37 


87568.004
38 


87568.005
39 


87568.006
40 


87568.007
41 


87568.008
42 


87568.009
43 


87568.010
44 


87568.011
45 


87568.012
46 


87568.013
47 


87568.014
48 


87568.015
49 


87568.016
50 


87568.017
51 


87568.018
52 


87568.019
53 


87568.020
54 


87568.021
55 


87568.022
56 


87568.023
57 


87568.024
58 


87568.025
59 


87568.026
60 


87568.027
61 


87568.028
62 


87568.029
63 


87568.030
64 


87568.031
65 


87568.032
66 


87568.033
67 


87568.034
68 


87568.035
69 


87568.036
70 


87568.037
71 


87568.038
72 


87568.039
73 


87568.040
74 


87568.041
75 


87568.042
76 


87568.043
77 


87568.044
78 


87568.045
79 


87568.046
(81) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 

82 


87568.047
83 


87568.048
84 


87568.049