U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–996 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–267 

WILDFIRE: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

ON BUDGETARY IMPACTS AND THREATS 

TO NATURAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL, 

STATE, AND PRIVATE LANDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 5, 2015 

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 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

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 

JOEL T. LEFTWICH, MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

ANNE C. HAZLETT, MAJORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Wildfire: Stakeholder Perspectives on Budgetary Impacts and Threats to Natural Resources on Federal, State, and Private Lands ...................................... 1 

Thursday, November 5, 2015 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 1 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 3 

Witnesses 

Dessecker, Dan, Director of Conservation Policy, Ruffed Grouse Society/American Woodcock Society, Rice Lake, WI ............................................................... 6 

Dougan, William R., National President, National Federation of Federal Employees, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 7 

Stewart, Ken, Chair, Board of Trustees, American Forest Foundation, Marietta, GA ................................................................................................................. 9 

Treese, Chris, Manager, External Affairs Department, Colorado River Water 

Conservation District (Colorado River District), Glenwood Springs, CO, Testifying on behalf of the National Water Resources Association ....................... 11 

Wood, Chris, President & CEO, Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA ....................... 12 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Dessecker, Dan ................................................................................................. 26 

Dougan, William R. .......................................................................................... 28 

Stewart, Ken ..................................................................................................... 34 

Treese, Chris ..................................................................................................... 40 

Wood, Chris ....................................................................................................... 49 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Roberts, Hon. Pat: 

Testimony of Congressman Bruce Westerman .............................................. 58 

Letter of support for H.R. 2647 from various organizations ......................... 60 

Intertribal Timber Council, written testimony .............................................. 62 

California Forest and Watershed Alliance (CAFWA), written testimony .... 68 

Federal Forest Resource Coalition, written testimony .................................. 73 

Letter of support for H.R. 2647 from various organizations ......................... 82 

Letter of support for H.R. 2647, Industry Sign On Letter, September 

2015 ................................................................................................................ 84 

National Association of Counties (NACo), September 18, 2015 .................... 86 

National Association of Counties (NACo), written testimony ....................... 88 

Western Governors’ Association, written testimony ...................................... 93 

Association of California Water Agencies, written testimony ....................... 101 

The Corps Network, written testimony .......................................................... 106 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, written testimony ................. 110 

Page

IV 

Boozman, Hon. John: 

‘‘Resilient Federal Forests Act Treats Symptom and Disease’’, October 

1, 2015 ............................................................................................................ 112 

Stewart, Ken: 

‘‘Western Water Threatened by Wildfire:’’ American Forest Foundation .... 113 

QUESTION(S) AND ANSWER(S): 

Dessecker, Dan: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 140 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 140 

Dougan, William R.: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 142 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 144 

Stewart, Ken: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 146 

Treese, Chris: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 149 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 151 

Wood, Chris: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 152 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 154 

(1) 

WILDFIRE: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

ON BUDGETARY IMPACTS AND THREATS 

TO NATURAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL, 

STATE, AND PRIVATE LANDS 

Thursday, November 5, 2015 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman 

of the committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts, Boozman, 

Perdue, Ernst, Tillis, Grassley, Thune, Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, and Casey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

Today, the committee turns its attention to a topic that is quite 

timely coming off the end of a disastrous wildfire season. It is my 

hope that this hearing adds to the public record about the need to 

address significant policy issues regarding catastrophic wildfire and 

forest management on federal, state, and private lands. 

Let me emphasize that our committee has the oversight responsibility for the U.S. Forest Service, whose primary mission is to sustain the overall health, diversity, and productivity of our country’s 

National Forests. Often thought of as a Western issue on public 

lands, this hearing serves as a reminder that the Agriculture Committee has a critical role in the larger wildfire debate. 

National Forests, unlike National Parks and Refuges, are supposed to be administered and managed in a manner to provide 

multiple uses and benefits. The Forest Service readily admits that 

nearly half of the acres of the National Forest System are at high 

risk of devastating insect infestations, disease, and catastrophic 

wildfires. As a result of policy decisions from decades ago, we are 

now witnessing a significant decline in timber harvests and frivolous lawsuits halting active forest management and forest restoration projects, leaving our National Forests consisting of overstocked 

stands, simply as more fuel for more fires. Coupled with other 

threats, such as chronic drought and uncharacteristic insect outVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 May 17, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\98996.TXT MICAH
2 

breaks, our National Forests are sitting as hazardous fuel stockpiles susceptible to damaging wildfires. 

Today’s wildfire season generates larger, hotter, and more dangerous wildfires, which unlike the occurrence of natural wildfires 

that have restorative abilities, these catastrophic emergencies devastate landscapes, ecosystems, communities, and people. 

In response to this, the 2014 farm bill provided some valuable 

tools and authorities to the Forest Service. The Forest Service has 

made positive strides in implementing these provisions, but we 

have to see more progress and work on the ground. 

This summer, the Administration warned Congress that wildfire 

suppression costs will consume the Forest Service’s annual appropriated budget in the coming years. Wildfire preparedness and suppression costs now account for nearly half of the agency’s annual 

discretionary budget. That is up from $1.6 billion in 1994 to $3.9 

billion in 2014, last year. 

Meanwhile, in order to address the rising agency costs, the Forest Service redirects other non-fire account program resources to 

cover the cost for wildfire suppression. This redirection of program 

funding, or ‘‘fire borrowing,’’ is disruptive to the Forest Service and 

its ability to conduct other vital activities like preventive active forest management and hazardous fuels reductions. 

The Agriculture Committee has a long history of working on and 

advancing legislation on forestry matters, most notably with the 

passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. I would 

like to remind everyone that our Committee is a resource and we 

want to work with you as we try to tackle this wildfire issue. My 

hope is the message shared with us today reinforces and necessitates that the status quo is unacceptable and Congress must 

focus on this issue. 

Before a shovel can break ground or even a chainsaw can enter 

a National Forest—obviously, not on its own—as a former Forest 

Service chief once said, quote, ‘‘there is a crazy quilt of laws’’ that 

the Forest Service must comply with which is time consuming and 

costly. The Forest Service must comply with well over 50 separate 

laws, like NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, just to name a few. The entire process, averaging at least 

three years for agency review and approval from the project’s original inception—three years—not to mention the threat of frivolous 

lawsuits to stop this kind of restoration work, adds further time, 

uncertainty, costs, and delays. 

These are fundamental and systemic problems contributing to 

the degradation of the National Forest System. It is time that Congress, the Administration, and stakeholders advocate for solutions 

that not only address funding fixes, but more importantly advocate 

for solutions that improve the management of our forests. Tough 

decisions will have to be made on a bipartisan basis for policies 

that promote greater streamlining and agency efficiencies so the 

Forest Service can actually conduct this kind of work. 

Wildfire knows no boundaries. Forest Service efficiencies and bureaucratic red tape is a significant contributor prohibiting necessary and viable restoration work. If nothing changes, everything 

goes up in smoke. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

3 

With that, I recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Stabenow, for any remarks she might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a very important hearing, obviously, and we appreciate all 

of our witnesses coming, giving their time and perspective and expertise. 

I particularly want to give a special welcome to Chris Wood with 

Trout Unlimited, which was founded in my home State of Michigan 

in 1959, and we are so happy that you are here and look forward 

to your input on these critical issues. 

This summer was yet, as we know, another record breaking wildfire season that resulted in more than nine million burned acres, 

destruction of thousands of homes and properties, and tragically, 

these fires took the lives of 13 wildland firefighters. We all know 

our thoughts and prayers here today are with the families of those 

brave men and women. 

This devastation is a stark reminder of the challenges we face 

when dealing with the issue of wildfires. A warming climate, coupled with record droughts and increased residential development in 

fire-prone areas has made this problem worse and more complex 

for us to deal with. 

While there is not a singular solution that will fix this problem, 

there are several measures that we as policymakers can enact now 

to help make a significant difference, and I hope we will talk about 

those today. 

In July, this committee heard from USDA Under Secretary Robert Bonnie, who oversees the Forest Service, about the urgent need 

to fix the Forest Service’s budget. Fixing the Forest Service budget 

is of paramount importance and needs to be a top priority for this 

Congress and for our committee and others. 

The Forest Service is now routinely forced to transfer funds away 

from key projects, like forest restoration and timber sales, which 

help alleviate the threat of wildfires, and instead must use these 

funds to help pay for firefighting. This dynamic, known as ‘‘fire 

transfer’’ or ‘‘fire borrowing,’’ is a huge problem, as the Chairman 

talked about. These transfers can cause what is essentially a ‘‘stop 

work order’’ on ongoing and long planned projects, which only place 

much of our forest at risk to everything from fires to invasive species when this work cannot be completed. 

For example, a grant to help protect our Michigan forests against 

invasive species was pulled back by the Forest Service so they 

could spend that money on fighting fires. There are stories similar 

to this, I know, that colleagues have across the country. It is time 

to stop these transfers. 

To address this, Senators Crapo and Wyden introduced bipartisan legislation, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, which would 

end the fire transfers by allowing the worst one or two percent of 

wildfires to be treated like natural disasters. Under this plan, the 

Forest Service would be able to fight the most severe fires more effectively by using disaster funds—certainly, these are disasters like 

any other disaster in our country—rather than having to transfer 

4 

funds from other accounts as they are now doing. I am pleased to 

be a cosponsor of this legislation. I appreciate their bipartisan approach and I hope that we will pass the bill. 

Also, the 2014 farm bill, as the Chairman said, made significant 

reforms to the way we manage our National Forests. As we discuss 

building on these changes, something I am hopeful that we will 

talk about this morning, I suggest we also continue to prioritize the 

full implementation of the reforms enacted last year. 

In fact, just last week, the State of Michigan and the Forest 

Service entered into a Good Neighbor Agreement. These agreements, which we expanded in the farm bill, are a great way that 

states and the federal government can partner to help restore our 

forests and sustain the more than 26,000 jobs that depend on 

healthy, vibrant forests in Michigan. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee is going to continue, and I 

know we will, in a bipartisan way to develop consensus around restoring and protecting our natural forests. I hope we will start by 

supporting the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, which will free up 

needed resources to carry out policies that our committee as a 

whole has long championed. 

I appreciate, again, your calling this meeting, and as always, 

look forward to working with everyone on the committee. Thank 

you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate the comments by my colleague 

and friend. 

Welcome to our panel of witnesses before the Committee this 

morning. I am eager to hear testimony from all of you, as all members are, on this very important issue. I believe we have compiled 

a panel of witnesses that will be very constructive in the larger 

wildfire debate. 

Our first witness is Mr. Dan Dessecker, who is the Director of 

Conservation Policy for the Ruffed Grouse Society and is responsible for the administration and development of the organization’s 

conservation policy initiatives to promote forest health and wildlife 

habitat to sustain population for species of upland birds. In addition to his professional accolades, Dan serves on a number of wildlife and conservation boards, including the Department of Interior’s 

newly established Sporting Conservation Council. Dan joins us 

from Rice Lake, Wisconsin. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. William ‘‘Bill’’ Dougan, who currently 

serves as the President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, a union representing federal employees including U.S. Forest Service firefighters. Prior to his current position, Mr. Dougan 

has served in a variety of capacities throughout his career with the 

Department of Interior, U.S. Forest Service, as a former Forester 

in the West, and even as a former Forest Service firefighter. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony, sir, and your insight. 

Mr. Ken Stewart will be introduced by the distinguished Senator, 

Senator David Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to introduce today Mr. Ken Stewart from Marietta, 

Georgia. Mr. Stewart currently serves as Chairman of the Board of 

Trustees for the American Forest Foundation. He has also returned 

5 

to my alma mater, Mr. Chairman, Georgia Tech, to work as Deputy 

Director of the newly formed Renewable Bioproducts Institute, 

after having retired as a Senior Advisor of Industry Strategy at 

Georgia Tech in 2010. Previously, he was appointed Commissioner 

of the Georgia Department of Economic Development in January 

2007. He joined state government in September 2004 when he was 

appointed Director of the Georgia Forestry Commission. 

Mr. Stewart’s perspective on wildfire for the private landowner 

is especially important in our state, since Georgia has more privately owned commercially available timberland than any state in 

the country. Of Georgia’s 24 million acres, 55 percent is owned by 

private individuals, only eight percent by public, federal, state, and 

county. 

We should draw on Mr. Stewart’s wealth of knowledge along 

with the experience of private and family forest landowners in the 

field. Their voices and concerns are critical as we discuss the importance of forest management and other forestry issues that impact them directly. 

Ken, thanks for being here. We look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Our next witness is Mr. Chris Treese and 

Senator Bennet is planning to introduce this witness and I recognize the distinguished Senator. 

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

you and Senator Stabenow for allowing me to introduce our next 

witness. 

It really is my pleasure to welcome Chris Treese to today’s hearing. He lives in beautiful Glenwood Springs, Colorado, where he 

serves as the Manager of External Affairs for the Colorado River 

Water Conservation District, more commonly known as the Colorado River District. He oversees legislative and regulatory issues 

that affect the Colorado River basin, and over the years, we have 

worked with Chris on a number of issues important to this committee. 

You should know, Mr. Chairman, that he helped us to develop 

portions of the conservation title of the 2014 farm bill. He helped 

ensure that the bill focused on water quantity in the new Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program. He also helped us build consensus around the bill’s forestry reforms. This includes the new 

treatment program for forests suffering from insect and disease 

epidemics, which is so important to our State of Colorado. 

So, I would like to welcome Chris Treese to the committee and 

once again thank him for being here today. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. 

Our next witness will be Chris Wood. Mr. Wood currently serves 

as the President and CEO of Trout Unlimited, which is a national 

conservation organization dedicated to conserve, protect, and restore North America’s cold water fisheries and their watersheds. 

Prior to joining Trout Unlimited, Mr. Wood has also served in a variety of positions within the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management during the Clinton Administration. 

Welcome to our panel. I look forward to your testimony. It should 

be noted that the Committee worked very hard to get witnesses addressing this issue by the name of Wood and Treese. 

[Laughter.] 

6 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let us start off with our first panelist, 

please, and you may begin, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. DESSECKER, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION POLICY, RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY/AMERICAN 

WOODCOCK SOCIETY, RICE LAKE, WISCONSIN 

Mr. DESSECKER. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

be here with you this morning. 

If we are to maintain the full array of forest wildlife on our National Forests, we have to maintain the full array of forest wildlife 

habitats, and, frankly, we are not doing that at this point. 

National Forests throughout the Eastern United States have accomplished, on average, only 24 percent of their minimum goal for 

young forest habitats as identified in existing forest plans. We need 

to expand active management to move beyond that small number, 

and to do this, we need to provide the agency with adequate personnel and financial resources. 

Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the U.S. Forest Service is indeed becoming the U.S. Fire Service. When 50 percent of the agency budget is eaten alive by addressing these conflagrations, that 

can make it very difficult for the agency to accomplish much of 

anything else, and a big chunk of that money is going to these 

mega-fires, which are increasingly common on the landscape, and 

unfortunately, are only likely to become even more so. 

Every year, like wildfires in the West, we face tornadoes and 

hurricanes and we treat them and fund them as the natural disasters they are. It is time we consider doing the same thing for these 

mega-fires, these large, massive fires that simply consume the 

landscape. 

Personnel and financial resources used to combat these megafires, these natural disasters, are unavailable to be used for wildlife 

conservation and other agency objectives. This leads to the loss of 

wildlife habitat diversity on the forests, and what we see from that 

is a loss of wildlife that require diverse habitats. 

Ruffed grouse, a critter of immense importance to my members, 

is declining throughout forests across the country, particularly in 

the East. Elk and deer across the nation also are declining as these 

habitats become in short supply. Hunting is big business. Elk and 

deer hunters number about 11 million across the nation, and the 

expenditures that those folks provide local economies, rural economies, account for a major portion of the $34 billion spent by sport 

hunters every year. So, this is not small pocket change. 

It is not just game animals. When you look at Region 9, which 

is the Northeastern quarter of the country, approximately—if you 

look at just species that require young forest habitats, those species 

are apt to be six times as likely to be declining as they are increasing. Region 8, the Southeastern portion of the country, same birds, 

same species, nine times as likely to be declining as they are increasing. We need to address that. These trends are real. They are 

disturbing from an ecological perspective, but they are reversible. 

As you mentioned, this committee and others in Congress did a 

great job on the recent farm bill in providing Good Neighbor Authority, which will be helpful. It is just getting into gear, but we 

7 

think it has got tremendous potential to enhance what we can do 

on the landscapes by expanding state agency and other private 

partnerships. 

Targeted categorical exclusion to address insect and disease 

issues, again, an excellent tool. We need to expand these tools. One 

way to do so would be to identify additional targeted categorical exclusions, particularly one geared toward providing wildlife habitat 

diversity on the forests. 

We need to enhance budgetary certainty within the agency. We 

have to give them the resources to utilize to meet the challenges 

they face. 

In summary, wildlife is pretty much the window through which 

many within our nation view our National Forests, and we need to 

enhance the ability of the agency to meet the objectives and the expectations of the public. Thank you. 

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

26 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Dougan. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. DOUGAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. DOUGAN. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member 

Stabenow, and members of the committee, for inviting me to testify. Our union represents 110,000 federal workers across the country working in 35 different federal agencies and departments, including 20,000 in the Forest Service. 

Prior to being elected to national office at NFFE, I spent 31 years 

working for the federal government. I worked primarily in the U.S. 

Forest Service and spent 22 years fighting wildfires. 

I can tell you, firefighting is dangerous business. When you are 

on a fire, the only thing between you and trouble is your equipment 

and the brave men and women with you on the fire line. That is 

why it is so important that we arm firefighters with the training 

and resources they need to be safe and complete the mission. 

The wildfire problem in the U.S. is growing. Seven of the worst 

fire seasons since 1960 have occurred in the last 15 years. This 

year, nearly 54,000 wildfires have burned 9.4 million acres, compared to the ten-year average of nearly 69,000 wildfires burning 6.5 

million acres. We must recognize that this is the new normal and 

we must change the way we do business to account for it. 

The USDA Inspector General issued a report in 2010 that predicted future shortages of qualified firefighters in the Forest Service. Too few were being trained to replace those retiring. That prediction is now coming to fruition and it is a major problem. 

Wildland firefighting agencies have done tremendous work to improve interagency cooperation. The development of a consistent certification and training system, administered by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, is an outstanding achievement. My union 

is proud to be a partner in the Wildland Firefighter Apprenticeship 

Program, which we hope will take consistency in training to the 

next level. Unfortunately, this program has been underutilized, in 

our view. 

8 

The attrition rate for wildland firefighters is alarmingly high. I 

am proud that my union worked with Representatives Gerry Connolly, Don Young, and Rob Bishop in the House and Senator Tester 

in the Senate on the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act. 

I would like to thank Senator Johnson for his assistance in bringing the bill forward for a vote, where it was passed by unanimous 

consent and signed into law by the President in August. 

For a wildland firefighter, experience is hard earned on the fire 

line. Prior to passage of this legislation, the firefighter career path 

was blocked by flawed and dysfunctional federal regulations which 

prevented long-term temporary employees from being able to advance their careers. Because of this barrier to career advancement, 

many skilled firefighters eventually left, taking their valuable 

skills with them. With this legislation signed into law, it will ensure that these long-term temporary employees are allowed to compete fairly for permanent positions when they become vacant, 

thereby retaining critical skills within the fire workforce. 

I am disappointed to report that we are still awaiting OPM to 

issue implementation guidance to federal agencies. Unfortunately, 

while we wait, hiring for next year’s firefighting workforce is already underway. Pending OPM guidance, agencies are not considering long-serving seasonal firefighters for career positions under 

merit promotion. If this does not change within the next few weeks, 

the knowledge loss we have been seeing for far too long already 

will continue another year. 

Funding for wildfire suppression continues to be a problem. With 

the occurrence and severity of wildfires increasing, the portion of 

the budget that goes to fire suppression and preparedness has increased dramatically. In fiscal year 2015, the overall fire management budget for the Forest Service was $2.5 billion. Of that, $708 

million was for fire suppression and $303 million was in a special 

account for firefighting. This is a 60 percent increase from a decade 

ago. 

The expense of fighting wildfires often exceeds the funds appropriated for wildfire suppression. When this happens, agencies 

transfer funds from other programs into firefighting accounts to 

cover the shortfall. This so-called ‘‘fire borrowing’’ results in cancellations and delays in the agency’s on-the-ground program of 

work. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Forest Service was forced to transfer 

about $700 million from other programs in order to be able to continue to pay for suppression costs after initial funding was exhausted. Ironically, many of the canceled projects are those designed to reduce the frequency and severity of catastrophic 

wildfires. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul and it costs taxpayers 

more. We urge Congress to pass the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act 

to address this. 

In addition to ensuring that there is sufficient funding available 

to pay for wildfire suppression costs, reduction of hazardous fuels 

in our forests and within communities existing in the wildlandurban interface must be part of a holistic strategy to reduce the 

risk of wildfires escaping initial attack and becoming catastrophic 

in nature. Simply increasing the suppression budget by itself will 

not be effective in reducing the impacts of wildfires. 

9 

It is time for Congress to take action to provide the resources 

and the flexibility necessary to protect the critical resources found 

in National Forests across the country and to protect communities 

across our nation from wildfire. These reforms cannot wait until 

next year. They need to be acted on immediately. 

I thank the committee for holding this hearing and would be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dougan can be found on page 28 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Dougan, thank you very much for your 

personal testimony on behalf of our firefighters. I know the Ranking Member and myself, all members of the committee, will join me 

in trying to light a fire under the Office of Personnel Management. 

Senator STABENOW. Nice pun. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Stewart. 

STATEMENT OF KEN STEWART, CHAIR, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 

AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

RENEWABLE BIOPRODUCTS INSTITUTE, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MARIETTA, GEORGIA 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, and 

members of the committee, this is the perfect time for this hearing, 

of course. The fire season is coming largely to an end right now and 

I am so impressed with how well informed the committee is from 

the opening statements that were made about many of the issues 

that we are facing. 

The American Forest Foundation represents the interest of 22 

million family forest landowners across this country, and these are 

the private landowners that we are talking about here. The interest—your leadership on this issue is very important to us, and I 

would like to also submit for introduction into the record a report 

from the American Forest Foundation, ‘‘Western Water Threatened 

by Wildfire: It is Not Just a Public Lands Issue.’’ 

So, principally, I am going to talk about not the public side, but 

the private side today. Thirty percent of the lands in the 11 Western states are privately owned, and of that, 40 percent of the high 

fire threat lands are lands that are owned privately are in the critical fire hazard area. The interesting part of that is 64 million 

Westerners depend on that watershed for their drinking water. 

The catastrophic wildfires that they are facing out West right 

now and have been facing burned so hot that it creates what is 

called a parking lot effect. It effectively bakes the soil, so when we 

have snow melt or rain, it runs off. It takes all the debris and contaminants and things with it. It does not soak up into the soils and 

trees as would normally happen and filter it. As a result, a lot of 

the municipalities in the West are spending millions of additional 

dollars just treating their water that they depend on, 64 million 

Westerners. 

Well, the American Forest Foundation dug into this, mostly on 

the private side, and what we basically found, that there are some 

barriers to action. The people that own the land, yes, they are 

ready to go. Seventy-seven percent say, yes, there is a disconnect. 

We have got a couple things we need to deal with. One is the cost 

10 

of it and the other is that we if we treat our land and our neighbors do not, then what happens? What have we accomplished? 

They have got a good point. So, this is something that I think is 

appropriate for Congress to begin dealing with, for sure. 

The metrics I mentioned earlier, that we have had 16 percent of 

the Forest Service budget was dedicated to fires a decade ago, 50 

percent now, and projected to be two-thirds in 2025 if something 

is not done. The impact outside the West for this is what is important, and you would think that for Georgia and the Southern 

states, which also—and the Midwestern states also have fire problems, but state and private forestry programs are impacted and 

they have seen a 12 percent decrease in the last five years in their 

budget. Part of these are mitigation programs, too, which caused 

this not to happen. Some individual programs are down 20 percent. 

Earlier, it was mentioned the borrowing program. That is a significant issue in terms of the whipsaw effect on programs, and 

some 40 percent of the Service Foresters have been laid off in the 

states. 

So, this is not all about problems. Part of this is about solutions, 

and I am particularly going to focus on private lands here. But, 

first we recommend there are three solutions to consider. 

One is we just must fix how wildfire fighting is funded. Obviously, Congressional action is needed and has been introduced to 

treat it like other federal emergency funding. 

Secondly, we need funding to better enable the treatment of private family lands and do it on a landscape approach. This is simply 

words that say we need to be collaborative, we need to work with 

our partners, we need to work with the U.S. Forest Service, the 

National Resource Conservation Service, local and community 

agencies, as well, so that we have a coordinated landscape approach. 

Third certainly is about markets. That is near and dear to my 

heart. It starts with markets. We have a way of spending some 

public money to develop and support those markets through loans 

and grant programs to help develop them. 

So, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, certainly the time 

to act is now. Thank you for your consideration, and I believe that 

what we are talking about here should have good bipartisan support. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart can be found on page 34 

in the appendix.] 

[The information of Mr. Stewart can be found on page 113 in the 

appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Stewart, thank you very much for your 

testimony and more especially pointing out that 30 percent of the 

forestland is held in private lands and your rather dramatic statement regarding the 64 million people who depend on their water 

supply with regards to the real problems that we face. 

Mr. Treese. 

11 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS TREESE, MANAGER, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. TREESE. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, 

Ranking Member Stabenow, thank you, Senator Bennet, for the 

generous introduction, members of the committee. I have the honor 

today of representing both my employer, the Colorado River Water 

Conservation District, and the National Water Resources Association and its members across 13 Western states. 

As this committee knows, the founding purpose of the National 

Forest System was to secure favorable water flows. The currently 

degraded conditions of our National Forests adversely impacts 

water chemistry, runoff timing, and water yield. Large-scale highintensity wildfires are becoming more frequent and significantly 

larger. Colorado alone from 2004 to 2007, an average of 40,000 

acres of forestland was burned. That average jumped from 2007 to 

2014 to 140,000 acres per year. 

While wildfires can cause significant loss of water and hydropower infrastructure, wildfires’ greatest impact to the water community often comes after the fire is out. Flooding, siltation, and debris flows represent the major and recurring threat post-fire. A 

2003 study found post-fire runoff can increase tenfold and erosion 

rates increase up to 100 times over pre-fire conditions. 

Remediation costs quickly run into the tens of millions. Additionally, drinking water treatment costs suffer similar or greater increases. Nearly all of these costs are borne by local utilities and 

water providers. 

Federal actions must address both fire suppression and fire prevention. I applaud Senator Bennet’s introduction of the bipartisan 

PREPARE Act addressing FEMA’s limited funding of fire disasters 

and fire prevention. Already mentioned is the need to address ‘‘fire 

borrowing.’’ The adequate resources for fire suppression cannot 

come at the expense of fire prevention. 

Fire mitigation works. The record-setting Hayman wildfire in 

Colorado raced across Denver’s foothills as an uncontrollable crown 

fire until it reached an area of the forest that had been previously 

thinned, when it dramatically and immediately dropped to a lesser 

intensity and manageable ground fire. 

The 2014 farm bill’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

created an innovative and competitive grant program to encourage 

and facilitate innovative watershed partnerships. The Resilient 

Federal Forests Act builds on the good work of this committee and 

the 2014 farm bill by incentivizing collaboration with local governments by expediting permitting for qualifying projects. Too often, 

environmental permitting comes as an impediment to critical, time 

sensitive, on-the-ground actions. The farm bill’s authorization of 

categorical exclusion for insect infestations is very much appreciated and is being successfully employed in my district. These are 

good starts. 

The deteriorating conditions of our forests did not come overnight 

and we do not contend that immediate action is possible—excuse 

me, immediate resolution is possible, but immediate action is imperative. 

12 

The Western water community is committed to working collaboratively over the long haul to improve our forests’ health. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Treese can be found on page 40 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Mr. Treese, thank you very much for your 

testimony, especially emphasizing the need for expediting policy as 

best we can do that. 

Mr. Wood. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS WOOD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TROUT UNLIMITED, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, and thank you, Ranking Member Stabenow and committee members. My name is Chris 

Wood. I am the President and CEO of Trout Unlimited. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on wildfire 

management on public lands. The committee is right to focus on 

this issue. High levels of wildfire spending, including wholesale 

borrowing from other National Forest programs, are substantially 

undermining the ability of the Forest Service to manage our National Forests. 

I offer this testimony today on behalf of Trout Unlimited and its 

155,000 members, many of whom use and enjoy National Forests 

around the country. In fact, half of the nation’s blue ribbon trout 

streams flow across the green lands of the National Forest Service. 

As has been said, wildfires are becoming larger and more severe. 

Contributing factors include changing climate conditions, hotter, 

dryer summers, longer, more severe drought, increasing development in fire-prone areas, and the legacy of past timber management and fire suppression policies that have left many of our forested areas vulnerable. 

The practice of budget raiding to fight fires significantly disrupts 

the mission of the Forest Service and the very health of the forests 

underneath its jurisdiction. Ironically, the more money that is 

transferred or reallocated to fight fire, the less money is available 

for restoration activities that would improve forest resiliency and 

minimize the severity and impact of fires. 

We need to address two related problems: First, the mid-season 

unplanned fire borrowing, and second, the scope and scale of forest 

restoration work. 

A solution to fire funding would allow access to disaster funding 

and address the increasing costs of suppression over time. The 

Wildfire Disaster Funding Act is the right solution to solve this 

problem. 

In addition, we must accelerate the scope and the pace of restoration on our National Forestlands. As has been mentioned, the recent farm bill created opportunities, including a small targeted exemption from NEPA analysis for certain projects, permanent stewardship contracting authority, and the expansion of Good Neighbor 

Authority. 

It is important to note, however, that cutting trees alone will not 

restore our forests. Restoration must be looked at—must be approached by looking at how best to recover ecological functions and 

processes that keep the land healthy. Closing or relocating roads, 

13 

fixing culverts, removing unneeded small dams, ensuring adequate 

flows of water, cleaning up abandoned mines, and thinning are all 

part of an integrated forest restoration strategy. 

Fundamental to forest restoration is the fact that many of these 

forests that we are talking about are fire adapted and, in fact, need 

fire to remain healthy. Our general approach should be to allow 

fires to burn in remote areas so long as they do not pose risks to 

communities. Most hazardous fuels reduction and fire suppression 

should be focused first and foremost on urban-wildland interface 

areas where people live. 

It is also important that we educate landowners about steps that 

they can take to make their own homes fire safe. Homeowners and 

local governments must bear more responsibility for the proliferation of homes in fire-prone areas and help to work to reduce the 

risk to homes and firefighters. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony on 

this important issue. Trout Unlimited supports S. 235, the Wildfire 

Disaster Funding Act of 2015, as a critical and necessary improvement to the existing fire budgeting process and urge the committee 

to advance the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood can be found on page 49 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the witness. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter the following statements, letters of support, supplementary information into the hearing record 

on behalf of ten different organizations that complement the testimony of our panelists. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The following information can be found on page 60 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I am going to ask members to limit their 

comments to four minutes in the hope that we can conclude this 

hearing, because we do have a vote at 11:00. We have seven members—we now have six members present. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Did the distinguished Senator from Colorado 

leave? That means five. Let me ask our distinguished Ranking 

Member, five into 20 is four, is that not correct? 

Senator STABENOW. That is correct. 

Chairman ROBERTS. All right. I think we can do this. We ask the 

cooperation of the witnesses and we thank you again for your testimony. 

Mr. Dessecker, can you further elaborate on the need for maintenance of early successional stage forest habitat, more especially 

with the conservation and environmental benefits that accrue from 

this kind of management to maintain early successional stage forest habitat. It seems to me that if we do this, we can avoid a lot 

of the problems later on. Please. 

Mr. DESSECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, early successional forests are basically young forests, characterized by thick, 

dense protective cover, dense growth, dense vegetation. They house 

a host of wildlife species that you will not find anywhere else, so 

we have to have those forests on the landscape. They host a variety 

of pollinators, a class of critters right now that we are very conVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 May 17, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\98996.TXT MICAH
14 

cerned about. Pollinator numbers are declining across the country 

for various reasons. 

So, without question, we have to employ additional active management to try and get a better balance between mature forests 

and old forests—excuse me, mature forests and young forests, recognizing that mature forests are equally as important as our young 

forests. But, when we see the latter declining at such precipitous 

rates, we have to increase our efforts to address that. A failure to 

do so will simply mean that these species that are of great ecological importance, in some regards economic importance, will regain 

their standing on the landscape. A failure to do so, frankly, in my— 

from my perspective, and I am a little biased as a wildlife biologist, 

but I think it would be irresponsible. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you very much. 

I am going to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to all of you. 

I have just a simple question first. I just want to make sure we 

are clear. I would like each of you just to indicate whether or not 

your organization supports the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, if we 

could just start, Mr. Dessecker. 

Mr. DESSECKER. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. Okay. Mr. Dougan. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes. 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely. 

Mr. TREESE. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. I think we have unanimous agreement. That 

is great to know. That is a great place to start. 

Let me then go to more specific kinds of questions, and let me 

start with Mr. Wood, Chris Wood. When you talk about the partnerships and through your work with Trout Unlimited as well as 

with the Forest Service in the past, could you talk a little bit more 

about additional examples and details to illustrate how damaging 

the fire transfers are to agencies and their partners when you are 

trying to do the work that you are doing. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, ma’am. What is happening is that organizations 

that work with the Forest Service are doing everything they can to 

spend as much money as they possibly can before June, or before 

the fire season starts. In places like Michigan, we have seen inventories, important road inventories, that are not being done to help 

identify places where culverts in the landscape need to be replaced 

because they are bleeding sediment into rivers. We have seen lots 

of endangered species work that would be done that cannot be 

done. Of course, the more we do to offset the need to list species, 

the less social and economic disruption we have. 

Essentially, it was said earlier, we are basically robbing Peter to 

pay Paul. We are taking money away from programs that help to 

not only manage healthy landscapes, but create economic opportunity and jobs in order to fight fire. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Dessecker, could you talk a little bit more, in your work with 

the Forest Service National Advisory 

15 

Committee on the 2012 Forest Planning Rule, do you see new opportunities to improve the way the agency develops management 

plans that will reduce fire risk and restore wildlife habitat? 

Mr. DESSECKER. I think the primary impetus with regard to the 

implementation FACA Committee that you are referring to, we are 

very interested in the idea of collaboratives, bringing people to 

work together during project planning, during forest plan planning, 

so that there is a greater buy-in. We feel quite strongly, and I want 

to be careful because I do not want to speak for the members of 

the committee, but I think it is fair to suggest that there is broad 

consensus that if we can reduce the rancor, we will have more 

funds to spend on conservation. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Dougan, I wonder if you might speak a little bit more about 

your observations over the years. You started, you said, in 1979 

with the Forest Service, and what implications have the changes 

that you have seen had for the wildland firefighters who are out 

on the front lines? 

Mr. DOUGAN. I think it is pretty clear that, when you look at 

wildfires over the last ten to 15 years, we are seeing an increase 

in the severity of the fires. These fires are burning hotter. They are 

covering a lot more ground in shorter periods of time, which creates 

problems from a safety standpoint for these crews that are out 

there on the landscape trying to dig fire line to stop these fires. We 

are seeing a lot more crown fires, where the fire gets up into the 

tops of the trees and it can spread very rapidly. These fires, if they 

are large enough, they can create their own weather system. 

Much of the large amount of money that is being spent on fires 

is with one percent of the fires that escape initial containment and 

then the landscape characteristics are such and the forest characteristics are such that they become catastrophic very quickly, placing not only the firefighters, but the communities in and around 

these fires in danger. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just comment, 

as we close—I will not have a chance to ask Mr. Treese, but I really appreciate you mentioning the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. I look forward to talking with you more about that. 

I think that was one of the real successes of the last farm bill and 

we are hopeful it will continue to be a positive tool. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Tillis. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Dougan, I have a question. We understand the discussion 

going around the ‘‘fire borrowing,’’ but I have a question maybe related to some of the underlying cost. What thoughts do you have 

on things that we can do to reduce the cost of suppressing large 

fires? 

Mr. DOUGAN. I think we need to invest more in hazardous fuel 

reduction, in pre-suppression activities. It is the same approach as 

going to a dentist and getting your teeth cleaned. It is insurance, 

trying to help not get a cavity. The same principle applies in the 

forests. We have to actively manage, these forests. 

If you look at the predominance of forests out in the Western 

United States, these are fire-adapted forests. These forests depend 

on fire. The problem that we have out there today is our own makVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:21 May 17, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\MW42035\DESKTOP\DOCS\98996.TXT MICAH
16 

ing. Over the last 100 years, we have been very aggressive in putting out every fire that starts and not allowing fire to have a natural role in the landscape and in the ecosystems, and because of 

that, we have had these large build-ups of both ground fuels and 

standing fuel. So, if we get a fire going now, it creates a problem. 

So, we have to be actively managing, actively looking at reducing 

hazards. 

Senator TILLIS. I agree with the ounce of prevention argument. 

The question about once it occurs, are we as efficient as we can 

possibly be in ultimately trying to address these wildfires once they 

occur? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Well, I think there is always room for improvement. When I look back on my career and I look back on the history of firefighting in this country, other than some of the new 

technology that we have in terms of having planes that are dropping fire retardant—we did not have that at the beginning of the 

1900s—but in terms of the actual work and the tools that people 

on the ground are using to dig fire line, that really has not changed 

very much over the last 100-plus years. 

So, I think it is worthwhile thinking about and asking the fire 

agencies, such as the Forest Service and BLM, whether there is 

any interest or whether they think there would be any good outcomes in investing some in research and looking at new technology 

to help these folks out on the line. 

Senator TILLIS. What about the structural relationships with 

states? I am from North Carolina. We have had a lot of firefighters 

go out West from time to time to assist. How would you assess that 

cooperative relationship when you need additional resources to go 

out there? 

Mr. DOUGAN. It is absolutely critical, and, this year at its peak 

of this fire season, we had over 30,000 people out on fire lines nationwide fighting fire. So, without having the ability to move crews, 

whether they are contractor crews, whether they are federal employees, without the ability to move those folks where we need 

them, where the most critical fires are, we would have a much 

worse situation. So, I really appreciate the fact that your state and 

others have pitched in over the years and made people available. 

Senator TILLIS. Yes. I want to keep to my time, because the 

Chair scares me—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TILLIS. —but I do appreciate all the witnesses. I appreciate all the witnesses being here and would appreciate any feedback after the hearing in my office. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Klobuchar. 

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

In Minnesota, forests are a big part of the culture of our state, 

but also of our economy, employing 40,000 people in the forest industry, $9.7 billion. That is what my Grandpa did after the mine 

closed down, so it is near and dear to my heart. 

I, like so many people have talked about today, am most concerned about the fact that the transfers of money, which have to 

obviously take place for emergency, for fighting fires, is taking 

away from what we can do to prevent these fires from happening 

17 

in the first place. Budget transfers prevented the Chippewa National Forest from conducting fuels reduction burns on 165 acres 

this year. This work not only protects the forests from wildfires, 

but also the surrounding communities. 

Mr. Treese, you talked a little bit about how communities and 

water infrastructure is impacted and often destroyed by wildfires. 

How have water resource agencies had to adapt their safety procedures to accommodate wildfire risks? 

Mr. TREESE. Thank you, Senator. They have done their best, but 

it is an enormous investment. Some of the larger communities have 

been able to create redundancies, interconnects with cooperating 

neighboring agencies, neighboring utilities, and created or established multiple watershed sources for their water. For the most 

part, however, that is not possible in rural Colorado, in Western 

Colorado. In my district, mostly small communities, that is simply 

cost prohibitive—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. TREESE. —and you simply run the risk. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. Stewart, what role can private forest landowners play in restoring forest health? You mentioned that in your testimony. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, and I speak mostly to the private landowner, 

but, in fact, it is a cooperative effort. I also talked about neighbors, 

and public lands and private lands are neighbors throughout the 

country and they both need to be actively managed. The lack of 

management combined with the climate conditions that we find 

and the drought particularly in the West are all contributing factors to where we find ourselves. 

But, interestingly, this ultimately gets back to the budget, and 

if we spend money on the budget, maintain the programs which 

continue to improve the land and invest in the state and local programs that the Forest Service has, it improves it over time and it 

makes the—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

Mr. STEWART. —it mitigates the risk. So, it is something we have 

to continue to invest in. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. Dessecker, or maybe Mr. Wood over there, again, back to my 

original point here, what do you think we should be doing—beyond 

putting money into fighting fires, what should we be doing to 

change some of our policies, craft solutions to address forest health, 

and along those lines, what concrete steps should we be taking to 

assist the Forest Service in meeting their forest plan, because I 

know in Minnesota, they have not reached even their goals of how 

many trees should be cut and it is obviously creating a further 

problem because the fires, then, can go more rampant. Mr. 

Dessecker. 

Mr. DESSECKER. Very simply, secure the budgetary authority of 

the agency to fund these things as the way they are, natural disasters, as opposed to taking the money from the budget, and allow 

them the personnel resources to get the work done on the ground 

that has been identified through the planning process. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr.—go ahead, if you want. Mr. Wood. 

18 

Mr. WOOD. No, I think it has been said before. I think the ounce 

of prevention is worth a pound of cure message is one that is apt 

here. We should be taking steps to make sure our communities are 

safe, first and foremost, by doing hazardous fuels treatments 

around those communities, making sure that we are protecting 

homes by taking fire-wise measures and operating at larger landscapes in terms of our restoration. But the first thing we have to 

do is fix the ‘‘fire borrowing’’ problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Dougan, for your 

work, as well. I am out of time. I will give you a question on the 

record. I am sure you will look forward to that. Thanks. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would like to remind the new members, or 

not the new members, the members who have come to the committee at this particular time, that we are on a four-minute time 

schedule trying to make the vote. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much. 

Thank you all for joining us today. I am sorry to join the discussion so late, but if you would, have any of your agencies or organizations utilized or witnessed utilization of the National Guard 

forces in any of these forest fire or fire activities, and if you could, 

just please share with us that experience. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes. This season was the first time since, I believe, 

2006, when the National Guard and military forces were called in 

to supplement the firefighting workforce. The Forest Service and 

other agencies responsible for managing those incidents utilized 

many hundreds, if not thousands, of military personnel. 

Senator ERNST. Anybody else have experience in utilizing any of 

the National Guard? 

[No response.] 

Senator ERNST. Well, we do have some wonderful Army Guard 

and Air Guard personnel out there, and I just want to reinforce 

that we should not overlook the capabilities that are available with 

those types of response units. 

So, that is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. 

Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say 

to you on behalf of the people I represent in Colorado how much 

we appreciate your holding this hearing. I think the testimony has 

just been excellent, and what comes through to me is that there is 

a compelling consensus that what we are doing now does not work 

and that we have got to change it, and it is long overdue. Your 

bringing the attention to this issue, I think, comes at a critical moment when we can get it done. 

I mean, look, there are two big issues here, I think, and the first 

is, in the name of fiscal responsibility, we are managing our forests 

in the most fiscally irresponsible manner we can manage them, 

which is to say that we are taking the money that could be spent 

on mitigation and on restoration and we are using it to suppress 

fires. Then there is not money left to mitigate or restore, which is 

why we talk about it as penny wise and pound foolish. That is 

what it is. It is ridiculous and we have got to stop it. Nobody at 

19 

the local level would ever accept this way of managing their resources and we should not accept it, either. 

The second part, I know it is fashionable now, we are having debate in this Congress about what the role of the federal government should be. Anybody who is downstream of these headwaters 

in Colorado needs to care about the condition of the forests in Colorado. We are all in this together. We are one nation, and this—I 

cannot think of an issue where it is more true than here. 

So, what we are doing right now, I think, fails the test in terms 

of fiscal responsibility and fails the test in terms of anybody’s perspective of what federalism means, and I hope we are going to be 

able to get this legislation passed. 

I thank you all again for your excellent testimony. 

Mr. Treese, it has just been great to work with you over the past 

number of years, and the farm bill process was difficult, but it resulted in a collaborative product that everyone could support and 

we are seeing the benefits. Two projects, as you mentioned in your 

testimony, are underway in Colorado to treat 3,000 acres of forests 

affected by insect and disease epidemics. Now, in the short term, 

as I mentioned, it is clear that we have to fix this ‘‘fire borrowing’’ 

problem, but I wonder if you could explain to us from your perspective as a water provider why it is so critical to address that and 

how these projects are working in Colorado. 

Mr. TREESE. Thank you, Senator. I think the projects are, in fact, 

working, but they are working on a limited basis. They are small 

acreages, but they are critically important. It is the prevention. It 

is, as the commercial says, pay me now or pay me later. This is 

an opportunity to treat the forests both through the categorical exclusion and, in fact, the program you mentioned also uses the extension of the Good Neighbor Policy to work on both federal and 

private lands cooperatively and conjoinedly in neighboring forests 

to address a larger watershed that is used by both the City of 

Grand Junction and the larger Ute Water District around that city, 

about roughly 100,000 people. 

Senator BENNET. Maybe, actually, that is the third point of consensus that we have heard here, which is the significance of collaboration in order to get this done, because fire does not know any 

boundaries, jurisdictional or otherwise. 

Mr. Wood, I am running out of time here. It is my own fault. I 

blabbed, which I do not usually do. But, it is not even the subject 

of this hearing, but I want to thank you for leading the effort on 

Good Samaritan legislation to address the acid mine drainage that 

is polluting streams across the West. This is something that we 

really need to address. I know Trout Unlimited has been very involved, and I wonder if you could just spend less than a minute 

talking about where you are in the work and where you think you 

are headed. I have 21 seconds. 

Mr. WOOD. Okay. I will be brief. Thank you for those kind words. 

There are essentially two problems with abandoned mines. There 

are literally thousands of them around the West affecting the water 

quality out there. One is that we need relief from liability that is 

implicit in CERCLA and the Clean Water Act, and we are making 

progress there. Then, number two, we need more funding to clean 

those mines up. 

20 

Senator BENNET. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Colorado. We can 

see you from Mount Sunflower on the western end of the plains. 

If the smoke is billowing, we know we have a problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Coop, you are up next. 

Senator THUNE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Stabenow, for holding this hearing. It is good to hear from 

stakeholders on this issue. This is a really important issue which 

deals with budgetary impacts and threats to our natural resources 

on federal, state, and private lands. I am, Mr. Chairman, pleased 

to have these very distinguished leaders in our conservation, forestry, and wildlife communities who all recognize the urgent need 

for changes in our current forest management policies. 

A lot of the hearing today, I think, is focused on firefighting, bor- rowing, with the cost of fighting fires rising to $3 billion this year. 

But, I would—we have got to find a more effective means of paying 

for fighting those fires and eliminate the borrowing from forest 

management funds. But I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is imperative that we couple funding firefighting with improved forest 

management. Failure to improve forest management will result in 

a continuation of dangerous increases in forest fires and damages 

to private property and to the environment, and there are three 

things that I think can be done to improve forest management dramatically. 

The three changes that I would suggest, and I want to get our 

panel’s reaction to this. But first would be to expand the use of categorical exclusions under NEPA. Second, to reduce litigated risk. 

Third, implementation of large landscape management plans, one 

of which is on the ground in the Black Hills National Forest in 

South Dakota and has proven to be very effective in battling the 

pine beetle infestation that we have had there. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I just think we have to—once again, we have 

a problem some believe can be solved by throwing more money at 

it, but I believe that if we can take a measured, common sense approach to managing our forests and to clearing the pathway for federal agencies to manage them effectively, we can make much better 

use of and even reduce the funding that is dedicated to fighting 

fires. 

So, I would like to get the panel’s reaction, if I might, to just 

their thoughts about the three things that I have suggested and 

ask the question, do you believe that these following three items, 

if implemented, would benefit forest management, again, categorical exclusion expansion under NEPA, reducing litigated risk when 

collaborative forest management projects are implemented, and allowing the use of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution 

mechanism, and then, finally, increased use of large landscape 

management plans. Mr. Stewart, do you want to lead off. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. I will speak to the landscape approach, which 

I see as a partnership, a collaborative approach, both public and 

private, and I think that is probably where our biggest strength is 

and the biggest opportunity that we have is in focusing on a common objective based on a large scale landscape. I think that is a 

big part of the solution. 

21 

Senator THUNE. Others on any of those. 

Mr. WOOD. On the categorical exclusion issue, I think in areas 

where you have broad agreement among multiple interests who 

have come together in some form of collaborative, I think relaxing 

some of the process requirements is probably a good idea. I would 

be nervous about doing that writ large across the landscape, because what you will do is you will end up creating antagonism and 

people will feel cut out of the process and they will try to gum up 

the works. So, that is my only comment. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Dougan. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes. I would also like to comment on the landscape 

idea. I know out in Eastern Oregon, my labor organization is working as part of a collaborative effort on stewardship with communities in Eastern Oregon, with other stakeholders, timber companies, environmental groups, bringing people together to talk about 

landscapes and what needs to be done and trying to iron out and 

reach agreement on as many issues in terms of how we should 

manage that land and what we should manage that land for in 

terms of timber and other values, and we are having some success 

doing that. 

So, I think those kinds of efforts, where you bring the stakeholders together and then hold everybody accountable for coming 

up with the solutions, I think that is a good approach to supplement this idea of landscape, because as has been pointed out, fire 

knows no geopolitical boundaries and we cannot just treat federal 

lands and let state and private lands go untreated because that is 

not going to solve the problem. 

Senator THUNE. Anybody else? 

Mr. DESSECKER. Yes to all three. 

Senator THUNE. Good. That is the answer I was looking for. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He 

has really focused on the one question I was going to ask with regards to the landscape issue and I appreciate that very much and 

I thank the panelists for answering. Senator Boozman, let me remind all members that the vote has started. We have informed the 

cloakroom that we will be arriving soon. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to take a second to highlight the efforts of my home 

state colleague, Congressman Bruce Westerman. Congressman 

Westerman is a professional engineer and the only Forester in Congress. He worked in forestry for almost two decades, earned a Master of Forestry degree from Yale University in 2001. He is a diverse 

guy. He played football at the University of Arkansas, also. His legislation, the Resilient Federal Forest Act, treats both the sickness 

of overgrown mismanaged forests and the symptoms, which include 

wildfire, disease, and insect infestations. I strongly support the bill. 

I would like to ask consent that we include a bipartisan op-ed 

that Congressman Westerman and his Democratic colleague, Congressman Kurt Schrader, have written titled, ‘‘Resilient Federal 

Forest Act Treats Symptoms of Diseases’’ into the record. 

[The information of Hon. John Boozman can be found on page 

112 in the appendix.] 

22 

Chairman ROBERTS. Without objection. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very quickly, Mr. Stewart, while these issues 

are largely high profile in the West, we have serious impacts in the 

South, and I am really pleased that you are a witness and from 

that region, which includes a significant blend of federal forests, 

private, family land, and ownerships of an assortment of things. 

While I know your report focused largely on the West, how are the 

issues in the South similar or different when it comes to wildfire? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, the wildfires know, again, we talked about, 

no geopolitical boundaries, and certainly we have lots of wildfires, 

generally not as large, but they are all catastrophic when we have 

them. We have, again, the impact on the budget affects those states 

not in the West, just like it affects the states in the West—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Mr. STEWART. —and, so, if we look at the state and private programs and the mitigation efforts and the employment of the Service Foresters and others that are doing work for the private landowners, they are certainly impacted outside the West as a result 

of these fires and the way the budget is handled. So, it is a very 

significant impact throughout the country. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, what more can we do on public lands, 

since much of the inaction stems from lack of public land management? Does AFF have a position on the federal forest reform bill 

that is before this committee? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, our focus principally is on private lands, so 

that is where our focus is. But, certainly, the more management we 

have on both public and private lands, the more successful we are 

going to be in mitigating not only the risk, but the exposure that 

we have for—not just from wildfire, but also, as we reported in our 

report we submitted to the committee, related to water, as well. 

That is not exclusive to the West. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Sure. Have you taken a position on the bill? 

Mr. STEWART. Not that I know of, no. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Okay. Very good. What more can we do to 

stimulate markets for forest products to help address these wildfire 

and other issues? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, I am kind of a market person, so I think it 

is not a field of dreams approach, necessarily, that we take here. 

But something has to get this virtuous cycle started, and I think 

the grant programs that can begin to develop markets for forests 

that need to be restored, public or private, is most appropriate, as 

well as programs that identify those markets. Then the last component of it relates to research. I know in the Renewable Bioproducts 

Institute where I work at Georgia Tech, a lot of the focus is on the 

bio-based materials, and cellulose is going to be the backbone, I believe, of the future for our green chemistry and materials industry 

of the future. 

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

all for being here. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Let me advise members we have eight minutes left on the vote. Senator Casey, if you could wrap up for us. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will keep 

within my time. 

23 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We are 

grateful for your testimony. 

I wanted to maybe direct my questions to our first two witnesses, 

and I say this as representing a state where we have got something 

on the order of 57 percent of our state is forested. We have got 

about 80,000 people that work in the forestry business. So, this is 

a major issue for Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Dessecker, you spoke of budget certainty, or a lack of budget 

certainty, and you also talked about the specific issue of funding 

for wildfire suppression affecting the ability of the Forest Service 

to meet wildlife management and invasive species management. 

Can you talk about those two issues? I know they are related, but 

I think it bears repeating how devastating, at least in my judgment, sequestration has been, among other problems you have had 

to face with regard to—or that the country has had to face with regard to budget uncertainty. 

Mr. DESSECKER. With regard to uncertainty, it is rampant within 

the agency at this point because although they have a budget, they 

simply do not know what proportion of that budget is going to be 

pulled mid-year or late-year, so they do not know exactly what portion they can spend, and they do get directives to watch what they 

are doing, and they have to determine how the fire season is going 

before they can really implement projects that they have already 

planned. 

Senator CASEY. Well, we appreciate you raising that, and I know 

we are very limited on time. 

Mr. Dougan, I wanted to ask you, I noted in your testimony 

about 22 years of fighting fires, a good part of your life, and the 

focus that you brought on the issue of well-trained firefighting 

staff. Can you walk us through that basic concern that you have? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes. There is a system in place, an interagency system in place that was put together to certify wildland firefighters, 

and they are required to take certain training, certain on-the-job 

training, and they are evaluated on the job, and then if they are 

found proficient, then they are certified to do certain jobs in the 

fire organization. 

Again, part of the problem is we have got a lot of—within the 

federal government, we have got a lot of people that we invested 

a lot of money in and have a lot of years that are at that age that 

they are making plans to retire and walk out the door, and with 

them is going to go that knowledge and those skills. The federal 

government overall has not done, in my opinion, a real good job of 

succession planning, not just in the fire organization, but certainly 

across many other agencies. So, that is one of the things we are 

facing. 

The other problems that we have, again, are budget related. A 

lot of agencies, if they have concerns over their budget, typically, 

the first thing that they set aside to try to save money is training 

and travel, which is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy for not being 

able to do a good job of succession planning within the future leadership of the fire management workforce. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the time, I will submit 

questions for the record. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

24 

This will conclude our hearing today. I want to thank each of our 

witnesses for sharing your views on wildfire. The testimonies provided today are valuable for the Committee to hear firsthand, and 

we will take action. 

To my fellow members, we would ask that any additional questions you may have for the record be submitted to the committee 

clerk five business days from today, or by 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, 

November 12. 

The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

NOVEMBER 5, 2015 

26 


98996.001
27 


98996.002
28 


98996.003
29 


98996.004
30 


98996.005
31 


98996.006
32 


98996.007
33 


98996.008
34 


98996.009
35 


98996.010
36 


98996.011
37 


98996.012
38 


98996.013
39 


98996.014
40 


98996.015
41 


98996.016
42 


98996.017
43 


98996.018
44 


98996.019
45 


98996.020
46 


98996.021
47 


98996.022
48 


98996.023
49 


98996.024
50 


98996.025
51 


98996.026
52 


98996.027
53 


98996.028
54 


98996.029
55 


98996.030
(57) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

NOVEMBER 5, 2015 

58 


98996.031
59 


98996.032
60 


98996.033
61 


98996.034
62 


98996.035
63 


98996.036
64 


98996.037
65 


98996.038
66 


98996.039
67 


98996.040
68 


98996.041
69 


98996.042
70 


98996.043
71 


98996.044
72 


98996.045
73 


98996.046
74 


98996.047
75 


98996.048
76 


98996.049
77 


98996.050
78 


98996.051
79 


98996.052
80 


98996.053
81 


98996.054
82 


98996.055
83 


98996.056
84 


98996.057
85 


98996.058
86 


98996.059
87 


98996.060
88 


98996.061
89 


98996.062
90 


98996.063
91 


98996.064
92 


98996.065
93 


98996.066
94 


98996.067
95 


98996.068
96 


98996.069
97 


98996.070
98 


98996.071
99 


98996.072
100 


98996.073
101 


98996.074
102 


98996.075
103 


98996.076
104 


98996.077
105 


98996.078
106 


98996.079
107 


98996.080
108 


98996.081
109 


98996.082
110 


98996.083
111 


98996.084
112 


98996.085
113 


98996.086
114 


98996.087
115 


98996.088
116 


98996.089
117 


98996.090
118 


98996.091
119 


98996.092
120 


98996.093
121 


98996.094
122 


98996.095
123 


98996.096
124 


98996.097
125 


98996.098
126 


98996.099
127 


98996.100
128 


98996.101
129 


98996.102
130 


98996.103
131 


98996.104
132 


98996.105
133 


98996.106
134 


98996.107
135 


98996.108
136 


98996.109
137 


98996.110
138 


98996.111
(139) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

NOVEMBER 5, 2015 

140 


98996.112
141 


98996.113
142 


98996.114
143 


98996.115
144 


98996.116
145 


98996.117
146 


98996.118
147 


98996.119
148 


98996.120
149 


98996.121
150 


98996.122
151 


98996.123
152 


98996.124
153 


98996.125
154 


98996.126
155 


98996.127