[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. _____,
``RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS
ACT OF 2017''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 15, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR Jimmy Panetta, CA
Garret Graves, LA A. Donald McEachin, VA
Jody B. Hice, GA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
David Rouzer, NC
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Stevan Pearce, NM Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Norma J. Torres, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO Jimmy Panetta, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Vice Chairman Anthony G. Brown, MD
Darin LaHood, IL Vacancy
Daniel Webster, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
David Rouzer, NC
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
-----------
CONTENTS
-----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 15, 2017.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Freeman, Tim, Commissioner, Douglas County Board of
Commissioners, Roseburg, Oregon............................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Furnish, Jim, Former Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland.................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
MacDonald, Granger, Chairman, National Association of Home
Builders, Washington, DC................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Neiman, Jim D., President and CEO, Neiman Enterprises,
Hulett, Wyoming............................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Crapser, Bill, President, National Association of State
Foresters, June 13, 2017 Letter to Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva.................................... 49
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 50
Tidwell, Tom, Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Forest Service, Prepared statement......................... 48
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. _____, TO EXPEDITE
UNDER THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 AND IMPROVE FOREST
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS, ON PUBLIC LANDS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND ON TRIBAL
LANDS TO RETURN RESILIENCE TO OVERGROWN, FIRE-PRONE FORESTED LANDS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``RESILIENT FEDERAL FORESTS ACT OF 2017''
----------
Thursday, June 15, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Pearce, Thompson,
Tipton, Westerman, Rouzer, Bergman, Cheney; Hanabusa, Torres,
and Panetta.
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands of the
House Natural Resources Committee will come to order.
Today, the Subcommittee meets to consider a draft
legislation to save and restore what remains of our Federal
forests after decades of neglect. This legislation is the
result of many hearings that this Subcommittee has conducted on
this subject over the last 4 years, incorporating the advice of
top foresters in our country.
We will begin with opening statements by the Chairman and
the Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. As this Subcommittee has met to hear the
testimony of foresters, scientists, legal experts, water
agencies, and many others, one consistent point was made: our
Federal forests are dying.
Up until the mid-1970s, we managed our national forests
according to well-established and time-tested forest management
practices. These practices, supported by sound science, managed
the forests to prevent vegetation and wildlife from overgrowing
the ability of the land to support them.
Not only did this assure robust and healthy forests capable
of resisting fire, disease, and pestilence, it also supported a
thriving economy. Revenues from the sale of excess timber,
grazing and cabin permits, mining, and recreational activities
provided a steady stream of revenues to the Treasury, which
could, in turn, be used to further improve the public lands.
But 40 years ago, we replaced these sound management
practices with what can only be described as a doctrine of
benign neglect. Ponderous, byzantine laws and regulations
administered by a growing cadre of ideological zealots in our
land management agencies promised to save our environment. The
advocates of this doctrine have dominated our law, our
policies, our courts, and our Federal agencies ever since.
These policies have been weighed by experience and found
wanting--not only have they decimated the economy, they have
immeasurably damaged the environment.
Surplus timber harvested from our national forests has
dropped dramatically since the 1980s, while acreage destroyed
by forest fire has increased concomitantly. Wildlife habitats
that were supposed to be preserved are now being incinerated.
Precipitation that once flowed to riparian habitats now
evaporates in overgrown canopies, or is quickly claimed in the
fierce competition of densely packed vegetation. We have lost
vast tracts of national forests to beetle infestations, as
weakened trees can no longer resist their attacks.
Revenues that our forest management agencies once produced,
and that facilitated our forest stewardship, have all but dried
up. This has devastated rural communities that once thrived
from the forest economy, while precious resources are diverted
for lifeline programs, like Secure Rural Schools. Despite a
growing population, visitation to our national forests has
declined significantly as the health of our forests has
decayed. We can no longer manage lands to prevent fire or even
salvage dead timber once fire has destroyed it.
Appeals, lawsuits, and especially the threat of lawsuits
has paralyzed and demoralized the Forest Service, and created
perverse incentives to do nothing. Worse, the steadily
deteriorating situation is forcing managers to raid forest
treatment and fire prevention funds to pay for the growing cost
for wildfire suppression, creating a death spiral. The more we
raid prevention funds, the more wildfires we have; the more
wildfires we have, the more we raid prevention funds.
By all accounts, our private lands are now conspicuously
healthier than the public lands, precisely because they are
freed from so many of the laws that are tying the hands of our
public foresters. These policies may be making environmental
law firms rich, but they are killing our national forests.
The legislation before us is the first step toward
restoring sound, rational, and scientific management of our
national forests. I want particularly to single out the work of
our colleague and resident forester, Mr. Westerman of Arkansas,
for his work in advancing reforms in this bill.
It requires forest managers to consider the cost of no-
action alternatives. It streamlines the fire and disease
prevention programs, and ensures that fire-killed timber can be
quickly removed to create both revenues and room to restore
fire-damaged lands. It streamlines onerous environmental review
processes without sacrificing environmental protection, and
provides forest managers with alternatives to resolve frivolous
lawsuits.
This draft seeks to provide the Forest Service with tools
that they can use immediately, building on existing authorities
from the 2014 Farm Bill that have been successfully
implemented.
The management of the public lands is our responsibility.
For 40 years, we have experimented with laws that have proven
disastrous to the health of our forests, the preservation of
our wildlife, and the economies of our communities. That is on
us. And that is about to change.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Federal Lands
Today the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to consider draft
legislation entitled, ``Returning Resilience to our Overgrown, Fire-
Prone National Forests Act of 2017.'' This legislation has been
compiled by the Committee following detailed hearings over several
Congresses examining the declining health of our Federal forests and
the Federal policies responsible.
As this Subcommittee has met to hear the testimony of foresters,
scientists, legal experts, water agencies and many others, one
consistent point was made: our Federal forests are in grave danger.
Up until the mid-1970s, we managed our national forests according
to well-established and time-tested forest management practices. These
practices, supported by sound science, managed the forests to prevent
vegetation and wildlife from overgrowing the ability of the land to
support it. Not only did this assure robust and healthy forests capable
of resisting fire, disease, and pestilence, it also supported a
thriving economy. Revenues from the sale of excess timber, grazing and
cabin permits, mining and recreational activities provided a steady
stream of revenues to the Treasury which could, in turn, be used to
further improve the public lands.
But 40 years ago, we replaced these sound management practices by
what can only be described as a doctrine of benign neglect. Ponderous,
byzantine, and highly litigious laws and bureaucratized agencies
promised to ``save the environment.'' The advocates of this doctrine
have dominated our law, our policies, our courts and our agencies ever
since.
These policies have been weighed by experience and found wanting:
not only have they decimated the economy--they have immeasurably
damaged the environment.
Surplus timber harvested from of our national forests has dropped
dramatically since the 1980s, while acreage destroyed by forest fire
increased concurrently. Wildlife habitats that were supposed to be
preserved are now being incinerated. Precipitation that once flowed to
riparian habitats now evaporates in overgrown canopies or is quickly
claimed in the fierce competition of densely packed vegetation. We have
lost vast tracts of national forests to beetle infestations as weakened
trees can no longer resist their attacks.
Revenues that our forest management agencies once produced--and
that facilitated our forest stewardship--have all but dried up. This
has devastated rural communities that once thrived from the forest
economy, while precious resources are diverted for lifeline programs
like Secure Rural Schools. Despite a growing population, visitation to
our national forests has declined significantly as the health of our
forests has decayed. We can no longer manage lands to prevent fire or
even salvage dead timber once fire has destroyed it.
Appeals, lawsuits and especially the threat of lawsuits has
paralyzed and demoralized the Forest Service and created perverse
incentives to `do nothing.'
Worse, the steadily deteriorating situation is forcing managers to
raid forest treatment and fire prevention funds to pay for the growing
costs for wildfire suppression, creating a death spiral--the more we
raid prevention funds the more wildfires we have; the more wildfires we
have, the more we raid prevention funds. This negative feedback loop
must be stopped and we will give high priority to a lasting solution in
the days ahead.
By all accounts, our private lands are conspicuously healthier than
the public lands precisely because they are freed from so many of the
laws that are tying the hands of our public foresters. These policies
may be making environmental law firms rich, but they are killing our
national forests.
The legislation before us is the first step toward restoring sound,
rational and scientific management of our national forests. I want
particularly to single out the work of our colleague and resident
forester, Mr. Westerman of Arkansas, for his work in advancing reforms
in this bill. It requires forest managers to consider the cost of no
action alternatives; it streamlines fire and disease prevention
programs and assures that fire-killed timber can be quickly removed to
create both revenues and room to restore fire-damaged lands. It
streamlines onerous environmental review processes without sacrificing
environmental protection and provides forest managers with alternatives
to resolve frivolous lawsuits.
This draft seeks to provide the Forest Service with tools they can
use immediately, building on existing authorities from the 2014 Farm
Bill that have been successfully implemented.
The management of the public lands is OUR responsibility. For 40
years, we have experimented with laws that have proven disastrous to
the health of our forests, the preservation of our wildlife, and the
economies of our communities. THAT is on us. And THAT is about to
change.
______
Mr. McClintock. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
witnesses for joining us today.
In Hawaii, we often use the word ``kuleana,'' which roughly
translates to responsibility. Native Hawaiians and those who
grow up in Hawaii believe that society has a kuleana to the
natural environment. That is why our state supports efforts to
address the very real threats of climate change.
As we discuss the challenges of managing our national
forests to produce better outcomes, from reducing wildfire risk
to habitat conservation, and even increased timber harvest,
this word should resonate with all of us. It is our kuleana and
responsibility to ensure the future viability of our natural
forests that the bill before us today puts in jeopardy.
This discussion draft strikes at the core of environmental
laws put in place by Congress to ensure sound management of
public lands. Bedrock environmental laws like the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act ensure
that economic development and other essential activities are
balanced with the sound principle of conservation and
stewardship.
Unfortunately, the discussion draft we are considering
today upends both of these important laws.
First, it eliminates robust review of a wide range of
activities across the National Forest System. NEPA makes sure
that the public voice is heard, and this doesn't mean just
environmental voices, but also ranchers, farmers, timber
companies, recreation outfitters, and those Americans who
depend on the land for their drinking water and economic
livelihoods. NEPA helps the Forest Service consider alternate
proposals for the benefit of local landowners.
Second, this bill makes it easier to ignore protections put
in place by the Endangered Species Act intended to prevent
human-caused extinction. I would like to remind my colleagues
that the ESA has been 99 percent effective at preventing human-
caused extinction, the purpose for which it was enacted. By
cutting out Fish and Wildlife Service oversight of key land
management decisions, this bill could jeopardize that success
rate.
When it comes to addressing forest health and dealing with
increased disease, pestilence, and drought, the Forest Service
already has a variety of administrative tools to expedite NEPA
review in emergency situations to protect public safety,
property, or important natural resources. Unfortunately, this
discussion draft irresponsibly expands those tools in a way
that opens the door to unsound, unchecked management decisions.
The 170 million acres of national forests and grasslands
supply drinking water to 60 million Americans, provide critical
wildlife habitat, and create jobs through supporting a
sustainable timber industry and playing an important role in
the over $850 billion outdoor recreation economy. Making land
management decisions that reflect and honor all of these
multiple uses and various mandates from Congress can be a
painstaking process. Federal land managers are tasked with the
difficult role of managing our public lands for a wide range of
benefits and uses. This requires striking a delicate balance
and often requires compromise, patience, and a lot of hard
work.
And sometimes mistakes are made. This is why statutes like
NEPA, which provides an opportunity for public input through
the planning process, and, yes, even sometimes litigation, are
very important aspects of the American democracy. Challenging
government decisions is as American as apple pie. It is
embedded in the founding principles of our Nation.
Thomas Jefferson once said, ``When government fears the
people, there is liberty. When people fear the government,
there is tyranny.'' Thomas Jefferson was right; liberty
requires an informed public who question and challenge
government decisions. That is how our judicial system works.
When we talk about streamlining NEPA or doing away with
judicial review for timber sales, there is more at stake than
bureaucratic reform. Liberty and justice are at stake. Our
democratic and constitutional heritage is at stake. Nothing is
more tyrannical than Congress taking away a citizen's right to
challenge the government.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for a moratorium on
timber sales or active management of national forests. But I
believe that we should work together to enhance collaboration
without undermining due process, and fix the wildfire budget so
that half of the Forest Service budget does not get consumed by
wildfire suppression every year. That is the real way to
increase the pace and scale of restoration across the National
Forest System.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to today's discussion. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
In Hawaii, we often use the word, ``kuleana,'' which roughly
translates to responsibility.
Native Hawaiians and those who grew up in Hawaii believe that
society has a `kuleana' to the natural environment. That's why our
state supports efforts to address the very real threats of climate
change.
As we discuss the challenges of managing our national forests to
produce better outcomes--from reducing wildfire risk to habitat
conservation and even increased timber harvest--this word should
resonate with all of us. It is our kuleana, and responsibility, to
ensure the future viability of our national forests that the bill
before us today puts in jeopardy.
This discussion draft strikes at the core of environmental laws put
in place by Congress to ensure sound management of public lands.
Bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Endangered Species Act ensure that economic development and
other essential activities are balanced with the sound principle of
conservation and stewardship. Unfortunately, the discussion draft we
are considering today upends both of these important laws.
First, it eliminates robust review of a wide range of activities
across the National Forest System. NEPA makes sure that the public
voice is heard. And this doesn't mean just environmental voices, but
also ranchers, farmers, timber companies, recreation outfitters, and
those Americans who depend on these lands for their drinking water and
economic livelihoods. NEPA helps the Forest Service consider alternate
proposals for the benefit of local landowners.
Second, this bill makes it easier to ignore protections put in
place by the Endangered Species Act intended to prevent human-caused
extinction. I would like to remind my colleagues that the ESA has been
99 percent-effective at preventing human-caused extinction--the purpose
for which it was enacted. By cutting out Fish and Wildfire Service
oversight of key land management decisions, this bill could jeopardize
that success rate.
When it comes to addressing forest health and dealing with
increased disease, pestilence and drought, the Forest Service already
has a variety of administrative tools to expedite NEPA reviews in
emergency situations to protect public safety, property, or important
natural resources.
Unfortunately, this discussion draft irresponsibly expands those
tools in a way that opens the door to unsound, unchecked management
decisions.
The 170 million acres of national forests and grasslands supply
drinking water to 60 million Americans, provide critical wildlife
habitat, and create jobs through supporting a sustainable timber
industry and playing an important role in the over $850 billion outdoor
recreation economy. Making land management decisions that reflect and
honor all of these multiple uses and various mandates from Congress can
be a painstaking process.
Federal land managers are tasked with the difficult role of
managing our public lands for a wide range of benefits and uses. This
requires striking a delicate balance and often requires compromise,
patience, and a lot of hard work.
And sometimes mistakes are made. That is why statues like NEPA,
which provides an opportunity for public input throughout the planning
process, and, yes, even sometimes, litigation, are all important
aspects of American democracy.
Challenging government decisions is as American as apple pie. It's
embedded in the founding principles of our Nation.
Thomas Jefferson once said, ``When government fears the people,
there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is
tyranny.'' Thomas Jefferson was right. Liberty requires an informed
public who question and challenge government decisions. That is how our
judicial system works.
When we talk about streamlining NEPA or doing away with judicial
review for timber sales, there's more at stake than bureaucratic
reform. Liberty and justice are at stake. Our democratic and
constitutional heritage is at stake.
Nothing is more tyrannical than Congress taking away a citizen's
right to challenge the government.
Look, don't get me wrong: I am not advocating for a moratorium on
timber sales or active management of national forests. But, I believe
that we should work together to enhance collaboration without
undermining due process, and fix the wildfire budget so that half the
Forest Service budget doesn't get consumed by wildfire suppression
every year. That is the real way to increase the pace and scale of
restoration across the National Forest System.
Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. I look forward
to today's discussion.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Without objection, the Chair will now recognize Mr.
Westerman of Arkansas for 5 minutes to present his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, for holding
today's legislative hearing to discuss the Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017. I greatly appreciate your leadership on
this issue.
Gifford Pinchot, who was the first Chief of the United
States Forest Service, and the man who many consider to be the
father of conservation, once said, ``Conservation means the
wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of
men.'' He also coined the motto of the Forest Service from his
utilitarian philosophy of the `greatest good for the greatest
number for the long run.'
I strongly believe that the Resilient Federal Forests Act
of 2017 exemplifies Pinchot's version of conservation and
stewardship. By the end of this legislative hearing, I am
hopeful that our discussion will embrace a bold new vision for
our national forestlands that is grounded in our rich history.
The fact is, we have loved our trees to death, literally.
Our Federal forests are suffering, due to overgrowth, disease,
insect infestation, and wildfire. My bill aims to fix those
issues by giving the Forest Service the tools it needs to
proactively use proven, scientific, silvicultural techniques to
better manage our Federal forestlands, as well as reduce red
tape.
Though the current discussion draft of the Act is similar
to the bipartisan bill that was passed in the 114th Congress, I
will take just a moment to talk about two of the differences.
First, this legislation will expedite the NEPA process by
raising the acreage covered under categorical exclusions in a
forest management plan that both was and was not through
collaborative processes, was proposed by resource advisory
committees, or covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
It is important to note that these categorical exclusions must
meet the requirements of NEPA and the forest management plans.
If passed into law, the Forest Service could start executing
these CEs tomorrow.
Second, in the new version we removed the litigation
bonding requirements that caused trouble for several of our
colleagues across the aisle, and we replaced it with a more
palatable discretionary, arbitration-instead-of-litigation
pilot program. This will allow projects with merit to move
forward, while making those that may need a second look to be
rethought within a reasonable time frame.
We are seeing some changes in our climate. Drought
conditions can place more stress on trees, making them
susceptible to insect and disease attacks, and compound the
intensity and occurrence of wildfires. This is a valid argument
that my friends across the aisle have made over the last
several decades.
But there is more to the story. In my home state of
Arkansas, we have seen drought conditions and more
environmental stress on our forests, but at the same time we
have not seen an increase in the number or intensity of forest
fires. Although wildfire has not been as historically
devastating in Arkansas as in farther western states, we do
have wildfires. And if changing climate were the only factor in
increased wildfires, surely we would see increases in the
number and intensity of wildfires in my state.
But, like I said, there is more to the story. On our
private, state, and even to some extent Federal lands in
Arkansas, we are actively managing our forests, and we have a
thriving and growing forest economy. Sound, scientific-based
forestry management makes the difference in many ways.
While we have heard testimony from experts that the
forest's total biomass is actually decreasing year after year
in the states of California and Colorado, that have relatively
little forest management, in my state, where we have active
management and productive working forests, we are actually
growing 28 tons of wood per minute, more than we are harvesting
or losing to insects, disease, old age, or fire.
I would like to pose a question: If we are actively
managing our forests, and sequestering the carbon in 16 million
tons per year of new growth in Arkansas while other states'
forests are burning, dying, and releasing more carbon to the
atmosphere than they are sequestering, then which state is
actually doing more for the environment? Which states are
practicing true conservation? Which states are doing the
greatest good for the greatest number for the long run? It is
those states who are managing their forests.
If we truly want clean air, clean water, better wildlife
habitat, more biodiversity, thriving rural communities that can
supply renewable, American-made building products, energy,
paper, and packaging products, then we will pass this bill as
quickly as possible in the House and in the Senate, and the
President will sign it into law, so that our forestry
professionals across the U.S. Forest Service can implement it.
If any of my friends across the aisle can present a better
way to manage our forests, please present your ideas. Let's
debate the ideas. And if they pass muster, let's make them part
of the law. But we cannot continue down the same path and
expect to leave our treasured national forests in better shape
than we found them if we continue to do nothing.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bruce Westerman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arkansas
Thank you Chairman McClintock for holding today's legislative
hearing to discuss the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, I
appreciate your leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the United States
Forest Service, and the man who many consider to be the ``father of
conservation'' once said, ``Conservation means the wise use of the
earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.'' He also coined
the motto of the Forest Service from his utilitarian philosophy of the
`greatest good, for the greatest number, for the long run.' I strongly
believe that the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 exemplifies
Pinchot's version of conservation and stewardship. By the end of the
legislative hearing today, I am hopeful that our discussion will
embrace a bold new vision for our national forest lands that is
grounded in historical foundations.
The fact is we have loved our trees to death, literally. Our
Federal forests are suffering due to over growth, wildfire, disease,
and insect infestation. My bill aims to fix the aforementioned issues
by giving the Forest Service the tools it needs to proactively use
proven, scientifically sound silviculture techniques to better manage
our Federal forest lands as well as reduce red tape that cripples the
Forest Service's ability to plan for future management and
conservation.
Though the current discussion draft of the Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017 is similar to the bipartisan bill, H.R. 2647, that
passed the House in the 114th Congress, I'll take just a moment to talk
about two of the differences. First, this legislation will expedite the
NEPA process by raising the acreage covered under categorical exclusion
from 5 thousand acres to 10 thousand acres in a forest management plan
that did not go through a collaborative process, and from 15 thousand
to 30 thousand acres in a forest management plan that was developed
through a collaborative process, proposed by a resource advisory
committee, or covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
Additionally, CEs for salvage operations in response to catastrophic
events have been increased to 10 thousand acres. It's important to note
that these categorical exclusions must meet the requirements of NEPA
and the forest management plans. If passed into law the Forest Service
could start executing these CEs tomorrow.
Second, in the new version of the Resilient Federal Forests Act of
2017, we removed the litigation bonding requirements that caused
trouble for several of our colleagues across the aisle and replaced it
with a more palatable discretionary arbitration-instead-of-litigation
pilot program. This program will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to
use arbitration as a means of dispute resolution in lieu of judicial
review. This process will allow a quicker resolution to forest
management challenges and will allow all stakeholders concerned to come
to the negotiating table to voice their ideas and objectives. This will
allow projects with merit to move forward while making those that may
need a second look to be rethought within a reasonable time frame.
I believe that these changes are paramount to placing our Forest
Service in the best position possible to better manage our Federal
forest lands. While I've talked briefly about the importance of the
bill let me also talk for a moment about why a healthy forest is so
important for both the environment and our economy.
We are seeing some changes in our climate. Drought conditions can
place more stress on trees making them more susceptible to insect and
disease attacks and compound the intensity and occurrence of wildfires.
This is a valid argument that my friends across the aisle have made
over the last several decades. But there is more to the story. In my
home state of Arkansas, we have seen drought conditions and more
environmental stress on our forests but at the same time we have not
seen an increase in the number or intensity of forest fires. Although
wildfire has not been as historically devastating in Arkansas as in
farther western states, we do have wildfires and if changing climate
were the only factor in increased wildfires surely we would see
increases in the number and intensity of wildfire in my state. But like
I said, there is more to the story. On our private, state, and even to
some extent Federal lands in Arkansas, we are actively managing our
forests and we have a thriving and growing forest economy. Sound,
scientific-based forestry management makes the difference in many ways.
While we have heard testimony in this Committee from experts that the
amount of forests total biomass is actually decreasing year after year
in the states of California and Colorado that have relatively little
forest management, in my state, where we have active management and
productive working forests, we are actually growing 28 tons of wood per
minute more than we're harvesting or losing to insects, diseases, old
age, or fire. That equates to a net year over year gain of 16 million
tons. I would like to pose a question, if we are actively managing our
forests and sequestering the carbon in 16 million tons per year of new
growth in Arkansas while other states' forests are burning, dying, and
releasing more carbon to the atmosphere than they are sequestering,
then which state is actually doing more for the environment? Which
states are practicing true conservation? Which states are doing the
greatest good for the greatest number for the long run? It's those
states who are managing their forests.
If we truly want clean air, clean water, better wildlife habitat,
more biodiversity, thriving rural communities that can supply
renewable, American-made building products, energy, paper, and packing
products, then we will pass this bill as quickly as possible in the
House, and the Senate, the President will sign it into law, and our
forestry professionals across our U.S. Forest Service will implement
it. I don't claim to have the market cornered on good ideas. If any of
my friends across the aisle and especially in the Senate can present a
better way to manage our forests using sound, scientific-based
management, by all means please speak up. Please present your ideas.
Let's debate the ideas and if they pass muster lets make them part of
the law, but we can't continue down the same path and expect to leave
our treasured national forests in better shape than we found them if we
continue to do nothing.
______
Mr. McClintock. I thank you very much. That concludes
opening statements. We will now turn to our panel of witnesses,
and the Chair is pleased to defer to Congresswoman Liz Cheney
of Wyoming to introduce our first witness.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my
pleasure to introduce Jim Neiman to the Committee. Jim is a
friend and the third generation in his family to work in the
forest products industry. His grandfather, A.C. Neiman, started
a saw mill in the Black Hills in 1936, and his dad, James S.
Neiman, is still actively involved in the family's ranch and
timber businesses at the age of 85.
The Neiman family owns four forest products facilities:
Devil's Tower Forest Products in Hulett; Rushmore Forest
Products in Hill City, South Dakota; Spearfish Forest Products
in Spearfish, South Dakota; and Montrose Forest Products in
Montrose, Colorado.
Jim is a 1974 graduate of the University of Wyoming, with a
BS degree in range management and a minor in business
administration. He is also a past member of the Wyoming
Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the Wyoming Economic
Development and Stabilization Board, the Independent Forest
Product Association, the Enhanced Oil Recovery Commission, and
the Chairman of the School of Environmental and Natural
Resources at the University of Wyoming. He is past president of
the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees and a former
director with Summit National Bank.
From 2013 to 2015, he also served as a steering committee
member for Wyoming Governor Matt Mead's Task Force on Forests.
He is a founding member of the Federal Forest Resource
Coalition, and has served as its president since 2015. He has
also served on the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's
Economic Advisory Council since 2013.
Jim and his wife, Christy, of 38 years have two grown
children. Marcus works in the family companies and is also a
member of the Army National Guard, and Sonya lives and works in
Gillette, Wyoming.
It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to introduce Jim Neiman to
the Committee.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
I also should explain before we start the clock. Oral
testimony is limited to 5 minutes. Your full remarks will be
printed in the Committee record, and the lights will help keep
you within those guidelines. When you see the yellow light that
means you have 1 minute remaining.
STATEMENT OF JIM D. NEIMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEIMAN
ENTERPRISES, HULETT, WYOMING
Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Congresswoman Cheney. I really
appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa. I really appreciate it. My name is Jim Neiman.
As Liz well described, I am the President and CEO of Neiman
Enterprises, a third-generation, family run operation.
Liz has already described the operations and where those
are at. We currently have 475-plus direct employees, and that
supports over 250 independent contract workers, on top of that.
I am the President of the Federal Forest Resource
Coalition, representing purchasers of Forest Service timber
from 32 states, whose members employ well over 390,000 people
and provide over $19 billion in payroll.
This Committee acted on a bill similar to today's
discussion draft in 2015. The need for reform is greater today.
People in rural American have been waiting a long time for
Congress to act on meaningful reforms.
Our company is one of the last wood products companies to
survive the significant reductions in timber harvests from
Forest Service lands in the Central Rockies. Many other mills
did not survive. The decision to reduce timber harvest has led
directly to the crisis facing the national forests. Over 80
million acres are in need of restoration, primarily due to
overstocking after years of reduced harvests. This Committee
has heard about the large die-off in California. We are also at
the tail end of a significant bark beetle epidemic in the
Central Rockies.
More than half of the Forest Service annual budget is
dedicated to firefighting, in large part due to the poor health
of our forests. National forests in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Louisiana also suffer from a lack of management. Timber outputs
are less than half the amount called for in the current forest
plans.
The reforms embodied in the discussion draft address all
aspects of the crisis we are facing in the Forest Service. By
streamlining the required analysis and consultation process
while discouraging frivolous lawsuits, the bill will help
expand management and reduce fire danger. Critically, it also
creates a solution to fire funding crisis. I will highlight
just a few of the important provisions.
The bill expands upon the successful approach of the 2014
Farm Bill. We are particularly happy to see the expansion of
the existing insect and disease CE in more forest types, and
the addition of the CE for young forest types. The Forest
Service tells us that using streamlined approaches, they have
been able to treat twice as many acres in significantly less
time. We are very supportive of the pilot arbitration program
proposed in Title 3, as well as the corrections to the Good
Neighbor Authority that have hampered the growth of that
program.
The state-supported fund also provides a good structure for
states to help the Forest Service implement needed management.
Numerous states, including South Dakota, have stepped up with
millions of dollars to help pay directly for management of
overstocked national forests.
I would like to discuss the fire funding solution found in
the bill. Fire borrowing is a real problem, and it has a real
impact on the Forest Service's ability to achieve its goals. We
know that many of you on this Committee have worked tirelessly
the last few years to get the fire funding solution across the
finish line.
We appreciate the fiscal and jurisdictional challenges you
face. Whatever solution you settle on, we would urge you to
pass a bill that arrests the growth of the 10-year average. The
rate of growth in fire suppression spending is unsustainable.
We would also encourage the Committee to consider allowing
unsuspended fire suppression funds to pay for future hazardous
fuels reduction efforts. This will allow stepped-up fuels
reduction efforts, and could create efficiency in fire
suppression work.
I know firsthand how difficult it has been to keep my
family business going when the Forest Service struggles to
manage their forests. The Congress has ample evidence that the
no-touch management strategies adopted in the 1990s have
failed, whether you rely on the forest for timber supplies or
you would simply prefer to visit living, healthy forests.
The need for reform, both in forest management and fire
funding, has been evident for some time. We look forward to
working with you to address both problems. Thank you much, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim D. Neiman, President & CEO, Neiman
Enterprises, Hulett, Wyoming; President, Federal Forest Resource
Coalition
Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa. My name
is Jim Neiman, and I am President and CEO of Neiman Enterprises. We own
and operate four sawmills, one each in Hill City and Spearfish, SD, one
in Hulett, WY, and one in Montrose, Colorado. These mills create 475
direct jobs, and help support 250 contractors. Neiman Enterprises is a
third generation, family owned company that has done business in the
Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains since my grandfather--A.C.
Neiman--opened our first mill in Hulett, WY in 1936.
I am also President of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition,
representing purchasers of Forest Service timber from 32 states.
Collectively, our members employ over 390,000 people, and provide over
$19 billion in payroll. Our members purchase, harvest, transport, and
process National Forest and BLM timber into renewable wood, paper, and
biomass energy products.
Our company is one of the last wood products companies to survive
in the Central Rockies because the Forest Service controls 90 percent
or more of the standing timber in the areas we operate in. In the
1990s, the Forest Service deliberately--and drastically--reduced timber
sales across the board and in the Rockies in particular. We pride
ourselves on have survived downturns--including the depression era when
we started and the more recent Great Recession of 2007 to 2009. Many
other mills--and many other mill towns--did not survive.
The decision to reduce timber harvests has led directly to the
crisis facing much of the National Forest System; over 80 million acres
of National Forest land are in need of restoration, primarily due to
overstocking after years of reduced harvests. Many of the forests in
the Central Rockies, California and other parts of the west are
experiencing unprecedented mortality due to a variety of factors,
including drought, overstocking, lack of management, and climate
change. More than half of the Forest Service annual budget is dedicated
to fighting fires, in large part due to the poor health of many
National Forests. The agency is carrying a deferred maintenance backlog
of more than $5 billion. Timber outputs are less than half the amount
called for in current forest plans.
Many other eastern National Forests are well behind on their early
successional management goals, limiting opportunities for sportsmen,
birdwatchers, and other forest users. Forests in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Louisiana are substantially behind on creation of early
successional habitat.
Forest mortality, large scale fires, declining forest health, and a
forest management program that doesn't produce needed sawtimber or
needed wildlife habitat; this is not a recipe for success. The
significant threats building on our National Forests have been
recognized by several recent Chiefs and were described as a significant
threat by the GAO as early as 1999. In 2014, the Congressional Research
Service found that the Forest Service does more complex NEPA
documents--and takes longer to do them--than any other Federal agency.
Congress has haltingly moved in the direction of reform over the
last decade and a half. Most significantly, the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003, followed by the 2014 Farm Bill, provided
streamlined approaches to NEPA for certain projects on the National
Forests. Both provided guidance to the courts on how they should
evaluate proposed forest management projects, and guidance to the
agency on how to comply with NEPA.
Since the enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill, however, focus has
shifted to protracted discussions of how to best fund fire suppression
activities. While there is widespread recognition of the fact that our
current fire funding model has been broken for years, Congress has yet
to enact a long-term, sustainable solution.
FFRC strongly supported the earlier version of the Resilient
Federal Forests Act, which passed this chamber in 2015. Unfortunately,
our efforts to find a path through the Senate have been unsuccessful.
We welcome the new discussion draft as another step on the long journey
toward enactment of a combined fire funding and forest management
package that addresses the twin crises facing the agency.
forest management reforms
We strongly support the provisions in the Discussion Draft which
provide streamlined authority for a variety of badly needed forest
management projects. The authority to conduct Environmental Assessments
and Environmental Impact Statement's which evaluate only the proposed
action and the no action alternative will greatly reduce the planning
timelines needed to get needed projects implemented faster. Likewise,
we appreciate the Categorical Exclusions provided by the bill. Our
Forest Service partners tell us that using streamlined EAs, they have
been able to treat twice as many acres in 30 percent less time than
using traditional approaches to NEPA.
We also appreciate the provisions which reduce the need for
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and provide a
streamlined approach to consulting with State Historic Preservation
Offices. Both of these provisions recognize that the Forest Service has
trained professionals who can recognize when projects are unlikely to
impact critical resources like sensitive habitats and historic and
cultural resources. The provisions here will allow needed projects to
go through, while allowing the Fish & Wildlife Service to focus on
higher priority recovery efforts.
We appreciate the modest changes proposed for Stewardship
Contracting. In addition to those proposed here, we've long advocated
that retention of existing wood products infrastructure--including
logging capacity and local wood using facilities--should be a co-equal
objective for Stewardship Contracting. We understand that there may be
some limits on how much change can be made in this bill, and we
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for such changes.
We are particularly pleased to see a new, pilot arbitration program
proposed in Title III. The Forest Service has worked with an
administrative objection process since 2011, which became the standard
administrative review process for all Forest Service projects in 2014.
Experimenting with alternative dispute resolution--particularly one
designed to bring parties to the table with pro-active alternatives--is
definitely in order. We hope we can work with you to retain these
important provisions.
The Discussion Draft also includes provisions which would allow
states and other entities to provide support for forest management
projects through the establishment of a State Supported Fund. Several
states, including South Dakota and Montana, have stepped up with direct
financial support for needed management projects on the National Forest
System. We believe the fund created by this bill will encourage other
partners to provide financial support by allowing the projects to repay
receipts in to a State Supported Fund. This will allow success to build
on itself.
Good Neighbor Authority, expanded in the 2014 Farm Bill, has
experienced exponential growth since, but limits on the use of the
program for road repair and reconstruction have hampered its use. We
appreciate the provisions in the Discussion Draft and look forward to
working with you on them.
Litigation is a serious problem for the Forest Service. Frequently,
Forest Plans themselves, although they themselves do not allocate
resources or offer real timber sales, are subject to years of
litigation.
Individual projects are then also subject to litigation. This can
cause significant delays--in some regions, the Forest Service seems to
believe that they can ``bulletproof'' timber sales by engaging in
exhaustive NEPA analysis; this frequently just delays the eventual
litigation, while dead and dying timber deteriorates.
The litigation reforms in the Discussion Draft would right size
litigation so that it isn't an all purpose way for anti-management
groups to interact with the Forest Service. Without removing access to
the courts for cases against specific projects, the bill limits
dilatory litigation against Forest Plans, requires the balancing of
harms for litigation against projects, and cuts off the gravy train of
government funded settlements and legal fees. We believe these are
reasonable and prudent steps, given the large impact of litigation
against the Forest Service.
On balance, we are strongly supportive of the targeted reforms in
the Discussion Draft. We continue to believe that clarifying the Forest
Service's management mandate, particularly on the roughly 24 percent of
the National Forest System designated as suited for timber production,
is worth congressional consideration and action. A trust mandate works
very effectively on state forest lands, and would allow other, less
intensive uses on the other portions of the National Forest System,
such as wilderness and roadless areas.
However, we strongly support the enactment of reforms such as those
found in the Discussion Draft. They can be used--in most cases
immediately, and in other cases after minimal rulemaking--to put needed
projects together and begin addressing the various forest health crises
we are experiencing on Federal forests.
emergency fire funding
The Forest Service has repeatedly--and accurately--urged Congress
to act on a solution to the current, flawed approach to paying for fire
suppression. The current practice assumes that the Administration will
request--and Congress will provide--fire suppression funding at the 10-
year rolling average. When these funds prove inadequate, as they do
most years, the Forest Service is forced to ``borrow'' from non-fire
accounts. In most years when ``fire borrowing'' has occurred, the vast
majority of the funds come from timber related accounts, which directly
impacts the Forest Service's ability to care for roads and ensure
adequate reforestation.
FFRC has long supported a fix to the fire funding problem, and we
applaud Mr. Westerman for taking on this tough challenge. We recognize
that there are complicated issues regarding jurisdiction and funding
sources that Congress must grapple with, but we also stress that it is
past time for Congress to address this universally agreed-upon
challenge. The proposal in the Discussion Draft is a good step toward
fixing the problem.
The Draft allows access to Stafford Act disaster funding if and
only if the Forest Service has requested and been funded at the 10-year
average, and then on a fire by fire basis once the Chief has determined
that appropriated funds will be exhausted in less than 30 days. While
we understand fiscal concerns with other proposed fire funding
approaches, we are concerned that the one currently proposed here will
allow the rising costs of fire to continue eating into the Forest
Service budget.
In Fiscal Year 2016, fire suppression costs rose to account for 55
percent of the Forest Service discretionary budget. By 2025, this is
projected to increase to 67 percent of the budget. While Congress has
continued to provide increased spending for hazardous fuels reduction
and forest management, the growth of the 10-year average threatens to
eventually squeeze out other priorities, such as addressing large scale
mortality events or repairing the Forest Service's large--and growing--
infrastructure problems.
We support a fiscally responsible fire funding solution that
arrests the growth of the 10-year average while ending the practice of
fire transfers. The current Discussion Draft could be improved by
freezing the 10-year average at last year's level, with provisions to
revisit it periodically to allow Congress to evaluate growth in the
average. Once the 10-year average is frozen, the Discussion Draft
approach of requiring emergency declarations could operate fairly
seamlessly.
We would also encourage the Committee to consider allowing
unexpended fire suppression funds to be retained by the Forest Service
for use in hazardous fuels reduction and forest access. Congress has
been hard pressed to find funding for these priorities, and the
prospect of holding on to the funds could incentivize cost savings in
fire suppression operations.
conclusion
I know firsthand how difficult it's been to keep my family run
business going when the Forest Service struggles to manage their
forests. The Congress has ample evidence that the ``no touch''
management strategies adopted in the 1990s have failed the public,
whether you rely on the forests for timber supplies or you'd simply
prefer to visit living, healthy forests. Poverty, unemployment, and
population loss have for too long been the leading characteristics of
the rural communities that surround our National Forests. The fire
funding model adopted generations ago is in dire need of modernization.
We appreciate the fact that this Committee and the House have acted
on forest management and fire funding reforms in recent years. We urge
you to resume this effort, make a few targeted changes to the
Discussion Draft, and come to an agreement with the Senate as soon as
possible.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much for your testimony. The
Chair is now pleased to recognize Mr. Granger MacDonald. He is
the CEO of MacDonald Companies. He is here today from
Kerrville, Texas.
Welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF GRANGER MacDONALD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF HOME BUILDERS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. MacDonald. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking
Member Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. My name is Granger MacDonald.
I am the Chief Executive Officer of the MacDonald Companies,
and a home builder and multi-family developer from Kerrville,
Texas. I am also the National Association of Home Builders
Chairman of the Board.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in
strong support of Representative Westerman's Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017. The common-sense legislation significantly
reduces the red tape and prevents the U.S. Forest Service from
better managing its timberlands, and it increases the delivery
of domestic timber products into the market.
Increasing the domestic lumber production for Federal
lands, both as a means to improve housing affordability and
address the resilience of our national forests, must be a top
priority of Congress and the Administration. Restoring the
health of our national forests depends critically on the
ability of foresters to actively manage these invaluable
resources.
To untie the hands of our foresters, Congress must act to
reduce the regulatory and legal burdens. Expedited
environmental analysis review for certain forest management
projects, as well as the arbitration in lieu of litigation--
both included in Representative Westerman's bill--are positive
steps. They would put responsible forest management decisions
back in the hands of professionals, instead of being tied up on
some bureaucrat's desk or, worse still, in a courtroom.
Representative Westerman's bill represents not only a great
start, but a potential win-win-win that should be a no-brainer.
Over the course of three decades, there has been a dramatic
decline in timber production from our federally owned forests.
The result of the decline is fewer jobs and productivity in the
forestry sector, fewer board feet of domestically produced
lumber entering the market, and a marked increase in the
acreage ravaged by insects, disease, and fire.
From the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s, timber harvests from
National Forest Service averaged between 10 and 12 billion
board feet per year. That number has plunged to an average of
1.5 to 3.3 billion board feet per year in the mid-1990s, and it
has remained significantly low ever since.
So what happened? The unfortunate reality, as I understand
it, is that bureaucratic red tape and litigation have conspired
to cripple the once-thriving timber industry that relies on
harvesting logs from Federal lands. Decades of poor land
management have led to the declining health in our national
forests. Evidence of this is seen in the substantial acreage
under threat from insects and disease, as well as devastating
fires that have laid waste to millions of acres of forestland.
We must strike a more appropriate balance on how we manage
our national forests. Doing so will restore the health of one
of our great natural resources and offers the potential to
reinvigorate the foresting industry, while improving housing
affordability. That is the win-win-win, in my book.
In the housing industry, lumber accounts for approximately
$18,000 of the cost of constructing a typical single family
home. In my business, which focuses on affordable multi-family
rentals, I am spending about $2 million a year on lumber. And
that number is increasing, as the price of lumber has soared
with the housing recovery. Recent price increases are a result
of trade disputes with Canada. We depend on imports because we
do not produce enough lumber domestically to meet our own
needs. This leads to higher construction costs, an issue of
particular concern, as my business is focused on affordable
housing.
Affordability remains a real challenge for first-time home
builders. NAHB analysis shows that, nationwide, an increase of
just $1,000 in the median new home price will leave 152,903
households priced out of the market. As the U.S. housing market
continues to improve, demand for lumber and other building
materials will also increase.
Moreover, global demand for lumber is also increasing,
especially in China. Unless additional supply can be brought
into the market, there will be ongoing upward pressure on
prices. We have the opportunity to take a small step in
addressing housing affordability, as well as grow our economy
by increasing domestic lumber supplies.
I commend you, Chairman McClintock, for holding this
hearing today, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. We
look forward to working with you in advancing this important
legislation, and expand the availability of affordable housing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Granger MacDonald, Chief Executive Officer,
MacDonald Companies on behalf of the National Association of Home
Builders
introduction
On behalf of the more than 140,000 members of the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Granger MacDonald, and I am Chief Executive
Officer of the MacDonald Companies in Kerrville, Texas.
The MacDonald Companies have developed over 50 multifamily
apartment communities and scores of workforce housing units in my time
at the helm. On average, we spend about $2 million annually on lumber,
and we have found lumber prices to be much more volatile than the cost
of other products used in construction. We can see wide price swings
over a short period of time, which has a direct effect on the
affordability of our developments.
The price of lumber has soared as the housing recovery gains
momentum. For example, softwood lumber prices are up nearly 25 percent
\1\ since January of 2016; most of this increase is directly
attributable to the ongoing trade dispute between the United States and
Canada over softwood lumber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Random Lengths, NAHB calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rising cost of this critical component drives up the cost of
construction and the price of a new home. The impact is of particular
concern in the affordable housing sector, where I do my building.
Relatively small price increases can have an immediate impact on low-
to moderate-income renters and home buyers who are more susceptible to
being priced out of the market.
It is no secret that we have a rental affordability crisis in this
country, and that there is an acute need for additional affordable
rental options. Over 40 percent of renters are cost-burdened, which the
Department of Housing and Urban Development defines as paying more than
30 percent of income for rent.
According to a 2011 study by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing
studies, to develop new apartments with rents affordable to households
with incomes equivalent to the full-time minimum wage, construction
costs would have to be only 28 percent of the current average.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ America's Rental Housing: Meeting Challenges, Building on
Opportunities. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,
2011. Page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the solution to the rental housing crisis involves more
than reducing building material prices, and requires the support of
programs like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. But the effect of
lumber prices on affordability must not be ignored.
NAHB believes increasing domestic lumber production from Federal
lands, both as a means to improve housing affordability and address the
resilience of our national forests, must be a top priority of Congress
and the Administration. Specifically, NAHB strongly supports
Representative Westerman's Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, which
significantly reduces red tape that prevents the U.S. Forest Service
from better managing its timber lands and increases the delivery of
domestic timber products into the market.
win-win-win
Over the course of three decades there has been a dramatic decline
in timber production from our federally owned forests. The result of
this decline is fewer jobs and productivity in the forestry sector,
fewer board feet of domestically produced lumber entering the market,
and a marked increase in acreage ravaged by insects, disease, and fire.
We must strike a more appropriate balance in how we manage our
national forests system. Doing so will restore the health of one of our
great natural resources and, offers the potential to reinvigorate the
forestry industry while improving housing affordability. That's the
true definition of a win-win-win.
From the mid 1950s to the mid 1990s, timber harvests from the
National Forest System averaged between 10 and 12 billion board feet
(bbf) per year.\3\ That number plunged to an average of between 1.5 and
3.3 bbf per year in the mid 1990s and has remained artificially low
ever since.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA Forest Service, FY 1905-2015 National Summary Cut and Sold
Data and Graphs, January 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what happened? The unfortunate reality is that bureaucratic red
tape and litigation have conspired to cripple the once-thriving timber
industry that relies on harvesting logs from Federal lands.
Equally troubling, decades of poor land management have led to
declining health in our national forests. Evidence of this is seen in
the substantial acreage under threat from insects and disease as well
as devastating fires that have laid waste to millions of acres of
forestland. The U.S. Forest Service 2013-2027 National Forest Disease
and Insect Rick Map calculates 81.3 million acres of national
forestland are at risk from insects and diseases.\4\ And since the mid-
1990s, an additional 6 million acres per year, on average, have been
lost to catastrophic wildfires.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ USFS, National Disease and Insect Rick Maps, https://
www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm.shtml.
\5\ National Interagency Fire Center, Total Wildland Fires and
Acres (1960-2015), https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/
fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring the health of our national forests depends critically on
the ability of foresters to actively manage these invaluable resources.
To untie the hands of our foresters, Congress must act in concert with
the Administration to reduce regulatory and legal burdens. Expedited
environmental analysis review for certain forest management projects,
as well as arbitration in lieu of litigation, are positive steps toward
putting responsible forest management decisions back in the hands of
professionals and preventing them from being tied up on some
bureaucrat's desk or worse still, in a courtroom.
the lumber market, the housing industry, and unlocking economic growth
Among building materials, lumber accounts for the largest share of
the cost of a new home. It is used for wood-frame residential
construction and is common for interior and finishing purposes, such as
windows and doors. NAHB research shows that, at current prices, lumber
accounts for approximately $18,000 of the cost of constructing a
typical single-family home. As such, lumber price increases have severe
effects on our Nation's housing market.
Even modest price increases in the cost of lumber can deny many
American families an opportunity to achieve homeownership. Congress and
the Administration can take positive steps to reduce the cost of
housing by increasing the supply of domestically produced lumber from
Federal lands. Reducing the price of the average single-family home
would help unlock pent-up housing demand and add fuel to the economy.
Unlocking the pent-up demand for housing has the potential to
significantly grow the economy. Home construction is on the rise after
many years of stagnation, and demand for lumber is increasing
accordingly. For example, NAHB forecasts that single-family housing
starts for 2017 will rise to 855,000, an increase of about 9 percent
over 2016.
However, this level of production is only about 65 percent of the
1.3 million new units needed each year to meet the needs of our growing
population and replace homes that are taken out of service. For the
economy as a whole, Residential Fixed Investment comprised 3.5 percent
of Gross Domestic Product in the fourth-quarter of 2016, but over the
past 35 years, that number has averaged closer to 5 percent of GDP.
While housing has recovered significantly from the downturn, there is
significant potential for additional growth that has not been realized.
In particular, the first-time home buyer market continues to lag.
Affordability remains a real challenge for first-time buyers. A
2016 analysis by NAHB shows that nationwide, an increase of just $1,000
in the median new home price will leave 152,903 households priced out
of the market.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http: / / www.nahb.org / en / research / housing-economics /
housings-economic-impact /households-priced-out-by-higher-house-prices-
and-interest-rates.aspx?_ga=1.28211193. 437440231.1491967805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, reducing the price of the average new single-family home
by $1,000 would have a significant positive effect on economic growth.
NAHB estimates that such a reduction would generate $719.9 million in
additional single-family construction, $363.4 million in wages and
salaries, 6,313 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs,\7\ and an additional
$243.9 million in taxes and fees for Federal, state and local
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Full-time equivalents represent enough work to keep one worker
employed for a full year based on average hours worked per week in the
relevant industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the $1,000 reduction (indexed to inflation) remains in effect
for 5 years, the impact is even greater: $4.457 billion in single-
family construction, $2.250 billion in wages and salaries, 39,082 FTE
jobs, and $1.510 billion in taxes and fees for various levels of
government.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Measured in 2017 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any efforts to ease escalating price pressures, help rebuild the
supply chain, and support a continuing housing recovery are smart
economic policy. For these reasons, NAHB fully supports multi-use
forest management practices for national forests and an increase in the
supply of Federal timber products and strongly recommends that the
Committee support the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.
conclusion
According to the American Forest & Paper Association, one-third of
the United States, or approximately 751 million acres of land, is
forested. Privately-owned forests supply 91 percent of the wood
harvested in the United States, and U.S. state and tribal forests
supply another 6 percent. Federal forests supply a mere 2 percent of
the wood used by the forest products industry.
As the U.S. housing market continues to improve, demand for lumber
and other building materials will increase. Moreover, global demand for
lumber is also increasing, especially in China. Unless additional
supply can be brought into the market, there will be ongoing upward
pressure on prices.
We have the opportunity to take a small step in addressing housing
affordability as well as to grow our economy by increasing domestic
lumber supplies. Representative Westerman's Resilient Federal Forests
Act of 2017 encourages better management of our Federal timber lands.
At the same time, it is attentive of important environmental
considerations. This legislation will go a long way toward better
managing our Federal forest natural resources while also ensuring the
continued recovery of the housing industry.
I commend Chairman McClintock for holding this hearing today and
taking steps to discover what barriers the Administration is facing in
its pursuit of active forest management plans. It is important for
Congress to take a deep look at these issues and determine what actions
can be taken in an environmentally-friendly way.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you for your testimony.
The Chair next recognizes Mr. Jim Furnish. He is the former
Deputy Chief of the United States Forest Service. He comes to
us all the way from Silver Spring, Maryland to testify.
Welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF JIM FURNISH, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
Mr. Furnish. I am Jim Furnish, former USDA Forest Service
Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems. And I would like to
thank Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa for the
opportunity to testify today.
I left the Forest Service in 2002, following a 35-year
career that also included jobs as a district ranger and forest
supervisor. And I served from coast to coast. I managed
national forests and their issues in the same milieu of social
forces and emerging science that continue to vex and frustrate
people of good intentions, agency officials and private
citizens alike.
Speaking bluntly, the bill before you seeks to enact
legislation that is an affront to well-entrenched pillars of
our democracy and culture as a society, a society blessed with
a legacy of stunningly rich public lands. This bill puts forth
a false choice between commerce and our environment, and is
certain to exacerbate long-buried conflicts that can be, should
be, and have been effectively addressed by other laws and
pragmatic policies and practices already in use in our public
lands.
I do not believe that public lands are neglected, but
managed for different purposes than once was the case. No
longer is there singular focus on timber production.
In my recent memoir, ``Toward a Natural Forest,'' published
by Oregon State University Press 2 years ago, I noted that the
Forest Service I loved and left had refused to conscientiously
wrestle with this profound truth. A significant portion of the
public we had sworn to serve had rejected Forest Service
management of their public lands, and the land itself was
telling us of its distress. This, to me, describes the spotted
owl crisis of the 1990s and, more broadly, the misguided effort
to maximize timber production at the expense of other, more
valuable resources.
Now, rather than continue with a reading and recitation of
my prepared remarks, I would like to speak from the heart, if I
could, and take you back in time to the early 1990s, when the
Siuslaw National Forest, among the most productive landscapes
and timber in the world, was in the midst of gridlock,
freefall, absolute chaos, and crisis. And how did we work our
way out of that?
The celebrated Northwest Forest Plan that was developed
during the Clinton administration provided a blueprint, but not
a cookbook. We took the challenge of that blueprint and crafted
management that endures on the Siuslaw National Forest today.
They at one time produced 350 million board feet of timber.
That fell to basically zero in a period of a few years.
We had to build that back. And the way we did it was, in my
view, we let the owners back in the room. We had certain formal
practices that involved resource advisory committees and inter-
agency committees. But the true hammering out on the anvil of
public policy was done through ad hoc invitation to members who
were concerned about our public forests.
And we did, we worked things out. And it was not done
instantaneously. It took 2 or 3 years. But I will tell you we
did this without the benefit of this legislation that is under
discussion today. We used the framework of laws, as well as the
blueprint of the Northwest Forest Plan at that time to craft an
endurable and effective approach to managing our national
forests, primarily for restoration of the environment, not for
timber production. And you know what? Timber production today
on the Siuslaw National Forest is one of the leaders in the
Pacific Northwest, although timber production is viewed as a
by-product of environmental restoration, not a primary focus of
action.
I can't tell you, but I will tell you one metric that you
should pay attention to. There has not been one single appeal
or lawsuit of timber sales on the Siuslaw National Forest in
over 20 years. And the reason why is people believe in what
they are doing. And the reason they believe it is because they
are not against logging, they want to see logging done for the
right purposes and in the right way. The way we did this was we
let the owners back in the room and we talked about how to do
this in a conscientious and environmentally sensitive way. And
they have succeeded, profoundly.
I just want to say that asking the Forest Service to
faithfully implement all elements of this law is to assign them
a biased, prejudicial role unbecoming a professional. And I
know that you have this important work before you. I hope you
take a hard look, and don't go back to the old ways of making
timber number one. It didn't work then, it won't work again.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Furnish follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Furnish, former U.S. Forest Service Deputy
Chief
I am Jim Furnish, former USDA Forest Service Deputy Chief for
National Forest Systems. I'd like to thank Chairman McClintock and
Ranking Member Hanabusa for the opportunity to testify today. I left
the agency in 2002, following a 35-year career that also included jobs
as district ranger and forest supervisor, and I served from coast to
coast. I managed national forests and their issues in the same milieu
of social forces and emerging science that continue to vex and
frustrate people of good intentions--agency officials and private
citizens alike.
Speaking bluntly, the bill before you seeks to enact legislation
that is an affront to well-entrenched pillars of our democracy and
culture as a society; a society blessed with a legacy of stunningly
rich public lands. This bill puts forth a false choice between commerce
and our environment, and is certain to exacerbate long-buried conflicts
that can be, should be, and have been effectively addressed by other
laws and pragmatic policies and practices already in use on our public
lands. I would hope that you see your role as legislators as improving
circumstances, not worsening them.
I have heard many people blame our current difficulties with
wildfire on NEPA, ESA, and frivolous litigation, and this draft bill
echoes these views. Such views are simplistic and incorrect. We cannot
log our way out of this difficulty. The scale of biologic forces
associated primarily with climate change--longer, dryer burning
periods, increased insect mortality, and decades-long suppression
policies--have created a landscape at higher risk. This situation
requires focused and highly prioritized measures applied to the highest
risk acres. And an acceptance of the reality that climate change will
impose on us certain inevitable consequences long in the making.
My experience literally screams that this draft bill is misguided,
unnecessary, ultimately harmful, and just plain WRONG. This bill breeds
mistrust.
In my recent memoir, Toward A Natural Forest, I noted that the
Forest Service I loved and left had refused to conscientiously wrestle
with this profound truth: ``a significant portion of the public we'd
sworn to serve had rejected our management of their public lands, and
the land itself was telling us of its distress.'' This describes the
spotted owl crisis of the 1990s, and more broadly, the misguided effort
to maximize timber production at the expense of other more valuable
resources.
This bill seeks to take us back to the old days when logging
dominated public lands. That policy proved bankrupt socially and
legally. The bill essentially creates a series of work-arounds by
legislating fixes to non-existent problems, unless you see national
forest lands primarily as timber farms. As one who lived through that
era, this bill is a prescription for the same short-sighted policies
that caused gridlock. There has been a fundamental shift in thinking
about what values best represent the broader public. Water quality,
fish and wildlife, recreation, and now carbon all far exceed timber
products in value and importance.
As a frame of reference, I served on Oregon's Siuslaw National
Forest as Supervisor in the wake of the spotted owl crisis from 1992-
1999, instituting management reforms aimed at forest restoration rather
than exploitation, as chronicled in the video documentary Seeing The
Forest. These reforms are still in place, and have proven effective and
durable. Today the Siuslaw National Forest is one of the largest and
most reliable providers of timber in the PNW, and also carefully
safeguards endangered species habitat and restores salmon runs.
Notably, the Siuslaw has not had a single timber sale appeal or lawsuit
in over 20 years. The reason is that timber production is no longer a
primary goal there, but a by-product of restoration activities. And I
might add that all the above was accomplished without the provisions of
this draft bill. Even harsh critics of logging will accept commercial
timber activity IF the agency provides legitimate reasons to harvest
trees while fostering ecological integrity.
Let me give you examples. Siuslaw timber production slipped to
essentially ZERO in 1993, and we instituted collaborative processes
with friend and foe to dig ourselves out of the hole. I can assure you
the issues and table stakes exceeded those on most national forests.
Agency credibility and success rested on honesty, transparency, candor,
information sharing, power sharing, mutual respect, and a penchant for
listening well. We had to create new solutions that satisfied all
parties, and the law. Failure was not an option--we could sink no
lower.
Collaboration succeeds when trust and respect are nourished and
flourish. The discussion draft puts a heavy finger on one side of the
scale--the side predicated on logging. I guarantee you this provision
dooms success. Those citizens most needed to ensure successful
deliberations--those you consider intractable foes of logging--will
either refuse to participate or walk away, requiring the application of
numerous other band-aids to keep logging proposals from foundering. The
success we enjoyed on the Siuslaw NF was based on the assumption that
everyone was reasonable and would work toward solutions that truly
benefited the land and resources. This bill nullifies that presumption
by bullying those with viewpoints perceived as anti-logging. Asking the
Forest Service to faithfully implement all elements of this law is to
assign them a biased, prejudicial role unbecoming a professional.
Let's look at the bill's approach to the use of categorical
exclusions, or CEs. Increasing the threshold to 10,000 acres is
excessive and uncalled for. This is the equivalent of 15 square miles!!
Projects of such massive extent were never intended by NEPA procedures
to be excluded from public participation, analysis and review. This
provision can only be seen as intended to avoid scrutiny and due
process. Yet another provision increases the threshold to 30,000 acres
if the project is supported by collaboration. But NEPA is predicated on
analyzing and documenting environmental effects, not whether social
processes are invoked.
Title II accelerates the review timelines for salvage. I knew a
time when virtually all salvage was harvested, yet we now know that the
role of dead trees is very complex and deserving of the most careful
analysis. Haste and delay are both uncalled for in pursuit of consensus
solutions.
Another collaboration provision requires analysis of only two
alternatives--action and no action--thus stipulating that collaboration
must conclude with only one option and arbitrarily assigning other
meritorious alternatives to the trash can. NEPA contains important
learning functions that necessitate consideration of all reasonable
alternatives; a premise strongly supported by case law. Such
precautionary principles are intended to conserve resources and combat
smug certainty.
This unstable house of cards is built on progressively biased
strategies, all directed at making logging essentially mandatory rather
than discretionary. The approach is in essence the same tragic mistake
that created the spotted owl crisis; elevating logging over other uses
and values. Add one last insult--deny due process for litigation and
recovery of legal expenses. You are creating a system of haves and have
nots . . . again.
Regrettably, the have nots will include species protected by ESA.
Rather than viewing ESA as an obstacle, ESA should be seen as a
fundamental responsibility of public land management. Case studies
abound throughout the country illustrating recovery of species in peril
as well as how thoughtful forest management, done properly, supports
recovery.
I am also deeply distressed that this bill ignores the major
problem confronting the Forest Service today--the escalating cost of
fire suppression and its consequence of diminishing all other resource
management. Your legislative proposals aimed at resolving this long-
standing impasse enjoy broad bipartisan support, including mine, and I
suspect my fellow witnesses support them also. If you truly seek to
address the major problem standing in the way of applying sound science
to create effective solutions, pass the fire funding bill. And leave
this bill on the shelf where it belongs.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Our final witness is Mr. Tim Freeman. He is Commissioner
for the Douglas County Board of Commissioners. He is here today
from Roseburg, Oregon to testify.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TIM FREEMAN, COMMISSIONER, DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, ROSEBURG, OREGON
Mr. Freeman. ``Water, water everywhere, and all the boards
did shrink. Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.''
Good morning, Chairman McClintock, Vice Chairman Westerman,
Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you so much for inviting me here to testify.
For the record, my name is Tim Freeman, and I am a County
Commissioner from Douglas County in western Oregon, the most
productive timber-growing region in the United States, where we
are surrounded by millions upon millions of acres of Federal
timber that, unfortunately, is mostly withdrawn from even the
most benign economic utilization.
As with the ``Ancient Mariner,'' Samuel Taylor Coleridge,
the resource we so desperately need is all around us, yet we
are prevented by Federal policies from using it to help fulfill
our communities' needs. I am here today as the President of the
Association of O&C Counties. Since 1925, the Association has
represented counties in western Oregon that have a statutory
interest in 2.1 million acres managed by the BLM, pursuant to
the O&C Act of 1937.
We also have a statutory financial interest in about a half
million acres of O&C lands that are managed by the Forest
Service. The O&C counties also have within their boundaries
many millions of acres of national forest. We are quite
literally surrounded by Federal timberlands.
We, therefore, very much appreciate this Committee's
interest in streamlining some of the aspects of Federal forest
management. We are critically in need of forest management
reform legislation that addresses Federal forest management
practices to get more work done on the ground, to improve the
health of our forests, and to improve the economic
opportunities for our forest communities.
Proper management can also produce much-needed revenue for
the U.S. Treasury. I would like to remind the Committee that
for many years the Federal timber and forestlands produced more
revenue than what it cost to manage them. Only government can
take this great asset and turn it into a liability. As you
know, the O&C lands have a very unique history, having been
granted in the late 1800s in exchange for construction of a
railroad, but then taken back to Federal ownership in 1916, due
to the railroad company's violation of the terms of the grant.
For a complete history of this, we have a wonderful website.
Please go to the O&C website.
One way to look at this is that you, as the Federal
Government, and us, as the counties, are in a partnership, and
the BLM is our land manager. When reasonable management occurs,
we both see the benefit. The relationship between the Federal
Government and the counties worked very well until the early
1990s.
Beginning in 1990, becoming progressively worse since,
Federal policies have become so tangled, and the regulatory
agencies have usurped much of the management authority so that
the Forest Service and the BLM are no longer able to manage
Federal forests and timberlands as they should. It appears that
the BLM and the Forest Service are no longer even willing to
try. Fearful of litigation and criticism, the agencies have
taken the path of least resistance.
O&C counties and many other counties in the West are
reeling from two decades of Federal mismanagement on the O&C
and Forest Service lands. Because of this mismanagement, there
has been a drastic reduction in revenues from shared timber
harvestry seats. Counties struggle to provide even the minimal-
accepted levels of public service.
As an example, under the new O&C plans, if fully
implemented, only about 19 percent of historic payments will be
produced. Based on BLM's past performance, the Association of
O&C Counties is confident that the BLM plans will never be
fully implemented, and the shared timber receipts will resemble
those of recent years, which are only about 8 percent of
historical averages.
In rural timber counties, commissions are faced with
closing libraries, jails, mental health, public health,
sheriff's patrols, hundreds of employees have been laid off,
and services have been curtailed. Unfortunately, there is more
bad news to come, and it does not have to be this way.
In 1937, the inventory on the O&C lands was approximately
50 billion board feet. After 80 years of management, there was
approximately 50 billion board feet harvested, and today there
is 73 billion board feet of timber. This goes to show that
sustained yield management works.
We are very pleased that this Committee is giving attention
in the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 to some of these
issues. We stand ready to assist in developing and improving
legislation that recognizes the necessity of resuming
activities to manage in ways that contribute to the economic
health of local communities and reverse Federal policies that
are killing jobs and communities. We desperately need your
help.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Commissioner Tim Freeman, President, Association
of O&C Counties
With apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, I quote the most famous
stanza from his most famous poem:
``Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.''
I am Commissioner Tim Freeman and I am from Douglas County in
western Oregon, the most productive timber-growing region of the United
States, where we are surrounded by millions upon millions of acres of
Federal timber that, unfortunately, is mostly withdrawn from even the
most benign economic utilization. As with the Ancient Mariner, the
resource we desperately need is all around us, yet we are prevented by
Federal policies from using it to help fulfill our communities' needs.
I am here today as President of the Association of O&C Counties
(AOCC). Since 1925 AOCC has represented counties in western Oregon that
have a statutory interest in 2.1 million acres managed by the BLM
pursuant to the O&C Act of 1937, 43 U.S.C. 1181a-f. Similarly, the O&C
Counties have a statutory financial interest in about 500,000 acres of
O&C Lands that are managed by the Forest Service. And although I am not
here today specifically to address National Forests, the O&C Counties
also have within their boundaries many millions of acres of National
Forests.
We are, quite literally, surrounded by Federal timber lands. We
therefore appreciate very much this Committee's interest in
streamlining some aspects of Federal forest management. We are
critically in need of forest management reform legislation that
addresses Federal forest management practices to get more work done on
the ground, to improve the health of our forests and to provide
economic opportunity for our forest communities. Proper management can
also produce much-needed revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
The O&C Lands have a unique history, having been granted in the
late 1800s in exchange for construction of a railroad, but then taken
back into Federal ownership in 1916 due to the railroad company's
violations of the terms of the grant. For a complete discussion of the
fascinating history of the O&C Lands, visit the history section of the
AOCC website: http://www.oandc.org/o-c-lands/history-of-o-c-lands/.
In 1937, the O&C Lands were designated by Congress for sustained-
yield timber production. All of the O&C Lands classified as timberlands
``. . . shall be managed . . . for permanent forest production,
and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut and removed in
conformity with the principal [sic] of sustained yield for the
purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply,
protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing
to the economic stability of local communities and industries,
and providing recreational facilities . . ..'' 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181a.
The O&C Act goes on to require that ``timber from said lands in an
amount not less than one-half billion feet board measure, or not less
than the annual sustained-yield capacity when the same has been
determined and declared, shall be sold annually . . ..'' 43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1181a. The O&C Lands have a dominant use--timber production--that
has been recognized many times by the courts. See, for example,
Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, Medford Dist., 914 F2d 1174, 1183-84 (9th Cir.
1990). For more than 50 years following the O&C Act, the O&C Lands were
managed as Congress directed--for sustained yield timber production--
and our communities thrived as a result. For many decades the O&C Lands
supported local communities and were at the same time a source of
revenue for the Federal Government.
And yet currently, the vast majority of the O&C timberlands, about
80 percent, are withdrawn from sustained yield timber production. How
can this be?
Beginning in the 1990s and becoming progressively worse since,
Federal policies have become so tangled and the regulatory agencies
have usurped so much of the management authority that the BLM is no
longer able to manage the O&C Lands as it should. It appears the BLM is
no longer willing to even try. Fearful of litigation and criticism, the
BLM has taken the path of least resistance.
The most recent example of the avoidance principle on full display
is the resource management plan (RMP) adopted by the BLM for the O&C
Lands in 2016. The land use allocations in the RMP are (in the opinion
of AOCC) illegal, in that the majority of the O&C lands (about 80
percent) are allocated to reserves in which sustained yield management
is not allowed. Some of the driving policies are internal to the BLM,
but the inspiration for the management restrictions are largely
traceable to other agencies. The BLM's ability to utilize broad
flexibility under principles of sustained yield forestry is primarily
constrained by policies of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Just prior to the most recent BLM planning process the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service issued a recovery plan for the northern spotted owl
that precludes sustained yield management for substantially all older,
more structurally complex forest as a blanket restriction across three
states. This inflexible policy is supposed to be voluntary for the land
management agencies, but is being treated as though it has the force of
law. In addition, ``critical habitat'' was designated for the marbled
murrelet and northern spotted owl, covering 57 percent of the BLM
forest in western Oregon. This designation of critical habitat included
over a half million acres of younger forest, which are not currently
habitat, but as these forest age they too will have constraints placed
on sustained yield management.
These policies and designations were developed largely without
consideration of ways sustained yield management could provide habitat
that would aide recovery of the northern spotted owl and marbled
murrelet. There was almost no consideration by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service of forestry techniques that would permit simultaneous
achievement of sustainable economic and environmental objectives. The
BLM took the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies as binding, and in
its own planning process the BLM also gave little consideration to
forestry methods that would permit simultaneous achievement of economic
and environmental objectives. The door was shut to such consideration
by the BLM's up-front designation of reserves that precluded analysis
of sustained yield techniques within those reserves.
There are numerous kinds of ``reserve'' designations under the
BLM's RMP, but the story of the ``large block'' reserves is perhaps the
most troubling. The BLM in its planning process designated over a
million acres of large block reserves in which sustained yield
management is precluded. The boundaries of the BLM's million-acre
large-block reserves do not coincide with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service's designated critical habitat. The BLM's large block reserves
preclude sustained yield management on approximately 250,000 additional
acres that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did not think was critical
habitat.
Conversely, 40 percent of the lands that are allocated by the BLM
for sustained-yield management are designated as critical habitat by
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service--meaning that the BLM's planned
sustained-yield management activities within those areas will almost
certainly be substantially curtailed. The BLM RMP pretends that timber
harvests will occur within the designated critical habitat, but any
experienced observer well knows that they will be repeatedly litigated
and ultimately avoided by the agency.
On top of all this, at the end of the RMP process the BLM agreed to
a U.S. Fish & Wildlife demand for a ``No Take'' provision until more is
known about barred owl interactions with the spotted owl. The No Take
policy means that timber management is precluded on 30-40 percent of
the lands allocated by the BLM for sustained yield timber harvests,
which could potentially reduce by half the BLM's declared sustainable
harvest level.
The combination of these restrictions and impediments make it clear
to AOCC that the BLM's RMP--which is grossly inadequate to begin with--
will never be implemented as advertised. The regulatory actions by the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the BLM plans are not effectively coordinated
nor do they recognize the unique sustained yield mandate of the O&C
Lands to contribute to the support of rural communities. The counties
and the public had limited opportunity to participate in the up-front
decisions that severely limited the management strategies considered
under NEPA in the recent BLM planning process. These Federal Government
actions fail to address the human species and the well-being of rural
communities, which is directly tied to the management of the O&C
forests.
Numerous judicial decisions have made clear that O&C Lands are
dedicated to sustained yield timber production in order to generate
revenue for the O&C Counties and to provide an economic base for local
industries and communities. Pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1181f, the O&C
Counties share 50 percent of the total revenues generated from timber
harvests on O&C Lands. Counties depend on shared timber receipts to pay
for essential public services of all kinds, from public safety such as
sheriff patrols and jails to public health programs and libraries. When
O&C lands are withdrawn from sustained yield management, there is a
direct financial loss to county governments and a loss of services to
local citizens and their communities.
The O&C Counties are reeling from two decades of Federal
mismanagement of the O&C lands and a drastic reduction in revenues from
shared timber harvest receipts. Counties struggle to provide even
minimally acceptable levels of public services. Under the new BLM
plans, if ever fully implemented, payments would be only 19 percent of
historic payments. Based on the BLM's past performance, AOCC is
confident these BLM plans will never be fully implemented and shared
timber receipts will resemble those of the recent past that are only
about 8 percent of the historic payment average. In the rural O&C
Counties commissioners are faced with closure of libraries, jails, and
elimination of sheriff patrols. Hundreds of employees have been laid
off in recent years, services have been curtailed, and whole
departments shuttered. Unfortunately, there is more bad news to come.
Perhaps worse than loss of public services has been the loss of
jobs in the private sector. The lack of adequate timber supply has
caused many of our mills to close and forced thousands of people out of
work. Some mills in our area even have to import timber from Canada in
order to have the raw materials they need for operations. Living in a
sea of timber, we nevertheless must buy and transport logs from Canada,
a sad irony that makes local residents question their government at
every level.
We are very pleased that this Committee is giving attention in the
Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 to some of the issues that hinder
proper management. We stand ready to assist in developing and improving
legislation that recognizes the necessity of resuming active management
in ways that contribute to the economic health of local communities and
reverses Federal policies that are killing forest jobs.
Through sustained yield management, the O&C Lands can contribute to
the economy of local communities and county governments and
simultaneously provide a wide range of forest values such as
recreation, wildlife habitats, clean water, wood products, and carbon
storage. The O&C Lands can once again be a performing asset that
produces revenue to help balance the Federal budget. The benefits of
proper management accrue both locally and nationally. AOCC wishes to be
a partner in your efforts to correct some of the Federal policies that
interfere with these objectives.
In the coming weeks we will provide comments regarding specific
titles of the draft bill to Committee staff. The bill as a whole is of
major importance to us, but AOCC is likely to give extra attention to
sections dealing with the Stewardship Contacting, the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and, of course, anything
having to do specifically with the O&C Lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important issues.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much for your testimony. And
we will be happy to provide them for you, beginning right now.
Mr. Neiman, we have received extensive testimony that
private lands are in much better condition, overall, than the
public lands. I have seen it myself. You can actually see the
property line between private lands and public lands. On the
private land side, there are green, healthy, thriving forests.
On the public lands, there are dead and dying trees and scrub
brush. And yet we are told this is because of climate change.
What is your observation?
Mr. Neiman. We can show you many examples just like that in
the Black Hills, not only between private and Forest Service,
but between the Custer State Park in South Dakota----
Mr. McClintock. How is it that climate change can affect
one property completely different than another property next to
it?
Mr. Neiman. We can show you a picture of the wilderness in
the Black Hills, and it goes right down the border. It is all
dead on the wilderness side. And the Custer State Park----
Mr. McClintock. I have seen it time and again in my own
district. It is hard to believe that the climate can be so
precise as to know exactly the property line between the
private and the public lands. What do you think is causing that
difference?
Mr. Neiman. It is clearly over-aged, over-stocked forest.
Mr. McClintock. The president of the California Forestry
Association recently speculated before this Subcommittee that
the timber die-off in the Sierra has now become so severe that
he believes the forest may be becoming a net carbon emitter.
What is your observation?
Mr. Neiman. Clearly, old growth forests do get to that
point after they get so old. They just get to a stagnant state.
That is why part of this bill is so important to create some of
the young, resilient forest types. Like I talked about in my
testimony earlier, when you look at Louisiana and some of the
states back East, the forests are getting old, and they are not
sequestering as much carbon as they would if they were younger
and more resilient.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that is exactly right. And that gets
me to my next point, which is if we are facing warmer weather,
and if CO2 is the culprit, doesn't that point to a
greater need to keep the tree density under control, for
example, and to match that tree density to the ability of the
land to support it?
Mr. Neiman. If you have warmer temperatures, you probably
have a longer growing season, which could contribute to more
growth, annual, which means you might need to harvest more to
control that inventory.
Mr. McClintock. And if you have less----
Mr. Neiman. And if you have a longer----
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. Precipitation, obviously, you
also need to control the tree density to assure that the tree
density matches the ability of the land to support it in that
new condition.
Mr. Neiman. Yes. If you look at the climate change
scenario, and you have drought conditions--you heard the
testimony earlier, my degree is in range management--your
carrying capacity is not going to be as high.
Mr. McClintock. As you pointed out, a young growing tree
absorbs far more carbon dioxide than a fully grown older tree.
Correct?
Mr. Neiman. Correct, definitely.
Mr. McClintock. Well, doesn't that suggest that maybe we
ought to be harvesting some of the old trees, so that there is
room for young trees to grow, under this theory?
Mr. Neiman. Clearly, in Ponderosa pine, you want a mixture
of all. You don't want a total old growth. In many cases, we
are required to have 5 percent old growth, and we try to meet
that--so I support that scenario.
Mr. McClintock. Right, as do I. Does it suggest also that
perhaps we should expedite the salvage of fire-killed timber
while it still has some value and before it begins to decay and
release enormous quantities of CO2 into the
atmosphere?
Mr. Neiman. Ponderosa pine, you have about 10 months that
you can salvage that wood. So, you look at a normal NEPA
process that might take 1\1/2\ to 2 years, you are too late.
Mr. McClintock. Well, we have entire tracts in the Sierra
where there has been virtually no salvage. The result is that
these trees are decaying and releasing enormous amounts of
carbon dioxide into the air. At the same time, scrub brush is
growing up under them. They topple on top of that, and then you
have dry timber on top of dry scrub brush, which is a perfect
fire stack for a second-generation fire.
Do our policies promote any of those global warming-related
policies?
Mr. Neiman. Well, the original Farm Bill tried to focus on
that, but it clearly needs to be enhanced.
I just want to point out one other issue. We talk about
CO2. When you have, in some cases in Wyoming, 10
foot of downed timber, those trees, when they die and they
start rotting, it turns into methane gas. That is 22 times more
harmful than the CO2. So, you have a couple issues
here you are dealing with.
Mr. McClintock. There seems to be a complete disconnect
between the global warming enthusiasts and the policies that
they are recommending to us.
Mr. Neiman. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furnish, thank you for your 35 years of service. And we
are going to call upon that in, hopefully, your responses to my
questions.
Mr. Furnish. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa. On numerous occasions, you will always hear
that it is the environmental laws like NEPA and Endangered
Species Act combined with the citizen review of project
planning and litigation that are responsible for, basically,
the catastrophic wildfires that we are experiencing throughout
the country.
What I would like to find out from you is, you say in your
testimony that the bill puts forth a false choice between
commerce and our environment. I would like to understand what
you meant by that statement.
Mr. Furnish. I was trying to speak to the issue that--the
notion you could have one but not the other. I would argue that
the Forest Service that I grew up in, when I started in the
1960s, that went until, really, the spotted owl crisis, which I
argue changed everything in the early 1990s, was based on the
primary function of the national forests being a source of
commercial material. This came at the expense of numerous other
resources like water, wildlife, and it was litigation,
primarily, over wildlife--the spotted owl in particular, and a
number of other associated species--that brought this gridlock.
What I was trying to articulate with the Siuslaw experience
is, instead of having one or the other, we strove to have both.
Less timber, to be sure, but it was done in a way that was
truly sustainable and worked in concert with the needs of
wildlife habitat.
Ms. Hanabusa. We have all heard about the spotted owl
crisis of the 1990s. You, obviously, were part of that.
Mr. Furnish. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, what do you think caused that situation,
that you would call it the spotted owl crisis of the 1990s?
Mr. Furnish. I believe it was the result of a very
exuberant obsession with timber production on public lands.
There was more timber harvested on public lands in 1989 than
ever in its history, even after at least a decade of intense
litigation. This really came to a head with the spotted owl
situation, where a Federal judge found that the Forest Service
had willfully violated laws in its pursuit of timber.
The crash came. Then it had to begin to be rebuilt from
scratch, which is what we tried to do on the Siuslaw. And I
would point out that, rather than pursuing one or the other--in
other words, the total exclusion of logging--what we tried to
do was build a model that had some modest forms of logging that
were intended to work in concert with wildlife habitat needs
and clean water, salmon runs, these type of things, in a way
that was truly durable and sustainable. And we succeeded.
Ms. Hanabusa. You also hear statements that environmental
safeguards, primarily NEPA and ESA, which are designed to
protect the endangered species and, as you just mentioned, the
water, as well as the salmon and even the owls, that somehow
they increase the risk of wildfires.
First, have you heard that type of a connection? And
second, what does that mean to you, when you hear that?
Mr. Furnish. Yes, I have heard that. I tend to reject that
view as being too simplistic and incorrect. I think it is a
much more complicated situation than even I can understand or,
hopefully, articulate.
But we have had wildfires with us for millennia. We will
continue to do so. I do believe in climate change. I believe
that the firefighter is one of the best testimonials to climate
change. They say if you don't believe it, talk to any
firefighter and they will tell you climate change is with us.
It is real, all the phenomena that we are experiencing with
longer fire seasons, drought, all these kinds of things are
evidence of this.
But I don't think we are going to be able to log our way
out of this problem. It is simply too enormous, too costly. It
is going to require highly prioritized and rifled approaches to
deal with the risks where they are greatest. But the chickens
are coming home to roost, and we are going to be dealing with
this for decades to come.
Ms. Hanabusa. When you say we are going to be dealing with
this, what do you mean?
Mr. Furnish. I mean the elevated fire risk and
consequences. But I would quickly add that, although we look at
a fire of, say, 100,000 acres, it is important to note that
almost throughout history this 100,000 acres that burns, the
vast majority of that burns in a light to moderate fire
activity. There is a portion that burns severely. These are the
acres we would be most concerned about.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Westerman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for coming today to have this important discussion.
Mr. MacDonald, you talked about the home construction in
the United States. I believe you said the average cost of
lumber in a home is $18,000, but that is really a small
percentage of the total cost of building a home. And the reason
I point that out is because I think we sometimes forget the
overall economic impact to our country when home building is
strong, because you have appliances, you have plumbing,
electrical, all those things that go into building a home. And
it creates jobs, as well.
In the rural communities in my district, we are not seeing
too many homes being built, and we are seeing people
struggling. And on top of that, many of these communities are
surrounded by national forests, where they have seen a decrease
in funding for their schools, a decrease in funding for their
emergency services, and just overall tough economic times.
I had submitted for the record in a previous hearing a
paper authored by Chad Oliver, a professor at Yale, who did a
big study on the carbon benefits of good forest management. And
the conclusion was that active forest management is better for
the environment than not managing the forest. So, when I hear
testimony that there is a false choice between commerce and our
environment, I take strong exception to that.
As the need for housing continues to grow, what are the
alternatives if you don't have a lumber supply or a wood
product supply to build those houses? What kind of materials do
you use if you don't have lumber?
Mr. MacDonald. Well, obviously, there are alternatives,
such as metals and all that, metal studs, but that creates a
whole other set of environmental problems.
Typically, we will be substituting domestic lumber for
imported lumber. This is lumber that comes from Canada and
other parts of the world that, only because of the
transportation issue, continues to raise the price of housing.
Sweden and Germany are a perfect example of countries that are
much more socially liberal than the United States in how they
carry their business, and they manage their forests, and they
manage them very well, and they continue logging operations
year in, year out, which goes to the benefit of the housing
industry in Europe, as a whole, and, likewise, in Canada.
And, as I stated, just a $1,000 change in the price of a
home puts over 150,000 people out of being able to have housing
affordability.
Mr. Westerman. Seems like I have heard that for every home
that is built there are two or three jobs created for that?
Mr. MacDonald. There are four permanent jobs created with
every home that is built, yes, sir. For example, the National
Association of Home Builders has 140,000 members that employs
almost 12 million Americans.
Mr. Westerman. We are seeing new products like cross-
laminated timber that are going into the high-rise structures
that sequester even more carbon and offer more opportunities. I
have stated before that the forests need industry much worse
than industry needs forests today.
That is evident in my state, where we have a very active
forest management, we have a very active forest products
industry. We are a sequester of carbon, it is 16 million tons a
year. As I said in my opening testimony, that is 28 tons every
minute, every hour of every day. During the 5 minutes that I
have had to make this presentation, the forests in Arkansas
have sequestered over 100 tons--or there are over 100 tons of
new growth.
I just cannot see a downside to us managing our national
forests and keeping them healthy. We don't have to make timber
the number-one goal of forest management, but it does not hurt
if the country prospers economically while we are doing good
for the forests. I hope at some point we can understand that,
and that Congress can act, and that we can move this
legislation and other common-sense ideas forward. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Panetta.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
And, of course, to the four gentlemen who are here, the
witnesses, thank you very much for coming, preparing, and
giving your testimony. I appreciate that.
You, obviously, are the experts on this, and you know more
than me about this. I will admit that right up front. However,
I come from an area on the central coast of California that,
unfortunately, suffered the most expensive wildfire in our
Nation's history this last year, the Soberanes Fire. It was so
big and so vast that it actually got to a point where my two
daughters and I got to watch some of our hills burning around
us. And looking out our living room window, you could see the
backfires that were lit in order to contain it.
So, clearly, it is an issue, not just in your areas, in
Arkansas, and, of course, in California, we know that, but
throughout our Nation. So, I appreciate you coming here and
talking about it.
Mr. Westerman, thank you for your bill and what you are
doing. But obviously, there are some differences that we can
hopefully work out.
Mr. Neiman, you talked about the Farm Bill, you mentioned
it briefly, how it tried to focus on, I think, the balance
between old growth and new growth. Is that correct? What were
you referring to when you mentioned the Farm Bill?
Mr. Neiman. Part of what is in this bill focuses on--you
have some forests back East that have been no harvesting for a
number of years, and you have some out West with no harvesting.
And you have a fair amount of older-type forests, but you do
not have any young, successional forests in some of those
forests. The young successional forest is the next new
generation, just like babies. It is important to have a mixture
of those. So, that is partly what I was referring to in the
mixture.
Mr. Panetta. And the Farm Bill, it tried to do what?
Mr. Neiman. The Farm Bill talks about young successional
forests, and helping provide for that.
Mr. Panetta. OK, great, thank you.
Mr. Furnish, thank you for your experience, obviously, and
your testimony today. You talked about an area that I admit and
I apologize that I had not heard of, the Siuslaw--is that how
you pronounce it?
Mr. Furnish. Shame on you.
Mr. Panetta. Yes.
Mr. Furnish. Yes, correct, Siuslaw.
Mr. Panetta. And where, exactly, is that located?
Mr. Furnish. The central coast of Oregon.
Mr. Panetta. OK. And how big is it?
Mr. Furnish. About 1,000 square miles.
Mr. Panetta. OK, all right. You talked about, obviously,
and a lot of your testimony talks about a lot of the efforts
that went into managing that. And basically, it sounded like
you had all sides at the table----
Mr. Furnish. Absolutely.
Mr. Panetta [continuing]. In order to manage that. What are
some of the efforts that were done, and--I mean, obviously, it
is a complicated process when you do that. But, clearly, it is
worth it when you have everybody at the table to work out their
differences, correct?
Mr. Furnish. Yes. I would say that I could line up about 10
people across the table from me today that were former
entrenched enemies of me and the Forest Service. Today, I
consider them close friends. And it was because we hammered out
our differences in a very principled, respectful way. When the
coin of the realm were things like honesty, transparency,
sincerity, respect, trust, these things had to be forged over
forest policy.
It was not easy. We came into this with a great deal of
cynicism and mistrust, and we basically had to prove that we
were willing and open to hearing other views about how the
Siuslaw National Forest ought to be managed. And they had been
excluded. They had been excluded from the discussion for
decades, and when they came back in, yes, they had a lot of
bitterness to work through.
Mr. Panetta. Sure.
Mr. Furnish. But after a while, when they felt that they
were being respected and listened to, then we got down to work.
And we really started to make things happen. But the first key
was to invite them into the room. And the second thing was to
listen, and listen hard, and be humble. Take your medicine.
Mr. Panetta. And you write about that in your book that you
held up there?
Mr. Furnish. I do.
Mr. Panetta. Is that part of it?
Mr. Furnish. Yes.
Mr. Panetta. And have you seen that? In your experience,
have you seen that process replicated anywhere else in our
Nation when it comes to managing our forests?
Mr. Furnish. Well, I would say there has been a wave of
what I call a collaboration movement within the Forest Service
over the last 10 or 15 years. I would say the best examples of
collaboration, I think, mirror the experience I had on the
Siuslaw. It works in some places and it doesn't in others.
I would say that places where I see it not working is where
you put your thumb on one side of the scale and begin to
mandate and approach an outcome. And when you get your finger
off the scale, then you have a chance.
Mr. Panetta. Great, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. And thanks to the
members of the panel for being here. Clearly, we are seeing
some higher temperatures, certainly. And I appreciate the
observation that that provides for longer growing seasons.
Quite frankly, I think that just calls for more aggressive
active management, because the overstory and the understory are
growing at rates where we are not harvesting anywhere close
to--anywhere I know, within the National Forest System--the
sustainable rate.
I think the active management fulfills a promise, a
contractual obligation that our predecessors--when national
forests were created, that was an obligation between the
Federal Government and our communities and our counties. I have
a national forest, I am one of those eastern national forests.
I have to tell you my communities are not better off today,
economically; they struggle. Our schools wonder how they are
going to keep the lights on; the Federal Government has not
fulfilled its obligation.
If this was health care, it would be a malpractice suit,
and we would resolve it. I am not much for attorneys and
malpractice, but maybe we ought to extend that to the Forest
Service. It seems to work in other situations.
I also think, as a firefighter--although I am kind of an
old, fat firefighter today, so I am a little slow, but I still
have my turnout gear--but as a firefighter, prioritizing
restorative work over active management is like letting a house
burn down only to celebrate that we do really good salvage and
overhaul work. It does not serve anyone.
My question, Mr. Freeman, in Douglas County, Oregon--your
county--are your forests healthier than they were in the 1990s?
Mr. Freeman. Thank you for the question. Absolutely not.
Our forests are overgrown, both the O&C land that is in Douglas
County and the Umpqua National Forest. When we have wildfires,
they are much more intense. There is a lot more wood on the
ground that burns than ever before, and they burn much hotter.
After the fire, both the BLM and the Forest Service have
chose not to go after salvaging what is really a valuable
resource, because the time it takes to get through the
litigation, the value of that timber is lost and there is no
reason to do it. So, you end up just leaving huge stands of
burnt trees to rot.
So, on top of all that, during the fires--and I got to
witness a lot of fire activity in the fire camps as it
happened--the O&C is a checkerboard pattern of ownership, so it
is public land and private land. And you can watch the fire
activity as it goes through these sections of land. When it is
on the private land, they almost get a handle on the fire. And
then it crosses back over into the public, and it just takes
off again.
There was a question earlier about, if the management makes
a difference, and it certainly makes a difference as it
pertains to fire and putting fires out.
Mr. Thompson. So, forest health sounds like it is getting a
failing grade since the 1990s. How about your economic health?
Mr. Freeman. Again, thank you for the question. And perhaps
worse than the public services that I talked about earlier has
been the loss of jobs in the private sector. The lack of
adequate timber supply has caused many of our mills to close
and forced thousands of people out of work. Some mills in our
area even have to import timber from Canada in order to have
raw materials they need for operations.
We live in a sea of timber. We, nevertheless, must buy and
transport logs from Canada. It is a sad irony that makes local
residents question government at every level.
Mr. Thompson. I am fortunate. They describe our forests in
the East, at least in Allegheny, as asbestos. Not that we don't
have forest fires, but they are limited in scale, compared to
what I know are suffered in the West. But our wildfire impact
is our invasive species. I know currently on the Allegheny
National Forest we have huge stands of ash that the emerald ash
bore has taken down. We have a market for it, there is a
foreign market we know for it that are anxious to get access
to; but the longer that stands, the less value is there.
I know you have more wildfires, but are there situations
where you have a valuable asset that could contribute money to
your communities that is going to waste, standing?
Mr. Freeman. Absolutely, both on fire and bug infestation
and some drought-related trees that died. We used to say we had
about 2 years to harvest Douglas fir before the bugs got into
it and made it unvaluable. Now that has sort of sped up. There
is so much dead standing timber around, the bugs are so
intense, that within probably a year or so now that timber is
not worth the value to take it out.
And, of course, if it is not taken out, there is not a new
forest planted. If we were to harvest it, we would plant a new
forest, and it would grow back. So, we are literally taking
these huge stands of timber out of the rotation for a long,
long time.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our panel for
taking the time to be here. And I applaud Mr. Westerman, in
terms of his expertise and hard work that he is putting in on
this legislation.
Mr. Neiman, you have established Montrose Forest Products
in my district. I think it is worthy of note that that was the
last standing mill in the entire state of Colorado, and you
brought that out of receivership.
In terms of some conversations we have had through our
district office, there is a desire to be able to expand
production, to be able to increase shifts, to be able to create
jobs. And as Mr. Thompson was just pointing out, to be able to
provide more revenues for schools, to be able to create a
healthy environment, to be able to protect our watersheds, and
to be able to protect the structures in a variety of the
communities within the state of Colorado.
During your testimony, you had cited some of the challenges
that we see with the NEPA process, in terms of the complexity,
the longevity of those studies that are going on. What effect
would you say that a drawn-out NEPA process has in terms of
Montrose Forest Products' ability to be able to add those well-
paying jobs and to be able to create that forest health?
Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Congressman Tipton. I am going to
reflect back on your comments and some of the discussions we
had when we purchased the mill in 2012. We had no timber under
contract, but the Forest Service partly enticed us in. They had
40 million board feet on the shelf that had all the work and
was ready to sell with no purchasers.
We go ahead and buy the mill--and, by the way, a few of my
associates thought we were either very brave or idiots, buying
that mill with no timber under contract. We took the risk, and
then we went to the Forest Service and all of a sudden they
started looking at their timber sales and said, ``Oh, my gosh,
we have bugs on all 40 million feet. We have pine beetle, we
have the spruce beetle.'' So, they pulled them off the shelf
and did not offer them because they said there has been a
change in the process, in the NEPA--a change of conditions.
So, we started buying wood--291 miles away was our longest
haul--to keep our commitment to the community. If this bill had
a quicker way to handle that dead timber, they maybe could have
re-offered that wood. By the time they got the process
completed for the second time, those trees had been 3 to 5, and
in some cases 7, years dead and it was not salvageable. So, the
process at that time, we wasted a good part of that timber.
We went ahead and the Rio and some of the other forests
were moving in and now we have some processes, due to the last
Farm Bill. It took too long, but things were moving ahead. I am
excited to see some of the changes in this Farm Bill to do
larger CEs and move ahead at a quicker pace, when you look at
the salvage of some of those areas.
Mr. Tipton. Interesting observation, changing conditions.
Changing conditions is the trees were dying, and as a result
you had to haul in wood from 250 miles away just to be able to
operate the mill.
Mr. Westerman has put in a lot of work on this legislation,
and, Mr. Neiman, can you maybe tell me a provision in this bill
that would be particularly helpful to the facility that you now
own and operate in our district? And what specific challenge
would a bill be able to address for you?
Mr. Neiman. The salvage CE that I just briefly talked
about, and the salvage authority that is in there in Section
201, those are going to be very, very helpful. Those are going
to be important, I think, to help the Forest Service act
quicker and still comply and follow with all the rules. It will
give them an opportunity in salvage cases to get the wood up
much quicker.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Well, I appreciate that, and certainly
appreciate the efforts, the jobs, and your commitment to a
healthy environment, healthy watershed, being able to help
protect endangered species, to actually have an environment to
be able to thrive in through good forest management within the
3rd Congressional District of Colorado, and appreciate you
being here.
Mr. Neiman. It is important to note that we are getting
strong support from the ranch community and the irrigation
districts. Water is important to us, and they are seeing the
benefits both to water and wildlife as we work together
collaboratively to move ahead in the whole southwest corner of
Colorado.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McClintock. We will be doing a second round of
questioning.
Ms. Cheney.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the panelists for being here today.
I also want to just add my gratitude to Mr. Westerman for
his work on this, for this crucial bill which takes steps that
I think it is unquestionable that they are necessary, in terms
of improving management in our Federal forestlands. Also,
reducing frivolous litigation and increasing the tools that the
Forest Service has for responsible management.
We have seen across Wyoming the impact that it can have
when we have these devastating and catastrophic fires. And the
impact is not just in terms of what it is doing to the forest.
The impact is the effect it has on our communities, the effect
that it has on jobs. And, of course, the mismanagement has been
a direct cause of the bark beetle epidemic we faced, as well.
So, I applaud this bill, and I support continued action on it.
Mr. Neiman, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about NEPA
and, in particular, about large-scale NEPA. If you could
describe how the Forest Service handles that now. Is it really
working? And how could that be improved, going forward, in
terms of some of the provisions in this legislation?
Mr. Neiman. I could really reflect over the last 40 years
and talk in depth much more than the 5 minutes allowed here on
NEPA and the struggles we have had, both in the Black Hills and
what we have observed in other states.
There clearly, as I pointed out earlier--the NEPA process
is improving, but I have watched it shut down forests. I am
going to refer to one issue. When you look at the NEPA process
in our new experience in Colorado, the Southern Rockies lynx
that was adopted has tied up 5 million acres. Guess what is the
habitat that helps the lynx the most? It is the clearcuts. It
has a habitat for the white snowshoe rabbit. The old clearcuts
that shut down all that forest in the 1990s that were clearcuts
from the 1960s is the only habitat available for them right
now.
When I look at some of the bigger--and I will jump to
answer your question--when I look currently at this bill, this
will help us do some larger landscapes. They do not need to be
huge. We have watched some of them get too big. But doubling
the CEs and helping the NEPA, the litigation that stopped a lot
of the process in the past has really slowed down. And what it
does is forces the Forest Service to be perfectionists. They do
not take any risk, so they analyze it to death.
Now, this is going to give them some opportunities to
support, with the right administration, to move ahead with the
process so that they can have confidence to do the right thing
and with the right sciences.
Ms. Cheney. In your estimation, Mr. Neiman, is the choice--
sometimes we hear it described as streamlining the NEPA
process, or moving toward this kind of large-scale approach,
that somehow that is going to have a damaging impact on the
environment, that we have to choose. In your experience, is
that the case?
Mr. Neiman. Absolutely not. No question. It is not going to
be a choice of one or the other, and it is not going to damage
the environment. It is going to help move us ahead and treat
some of the acres. As my dad has said many times, sometimes the
worst thing you can do is to do nothing. And that is what we
used to do.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you. And let me just talk a little bit
about the Good Neighbor Authority and ask you if you could
describe how that has worked, and what considerations you would
urge us to use, in terms of trying to expand it nationwide, and
making it as effective as possible.
Mr. Neiman. My understanding of the new bill, the Good
Neighbor--one of the issues that we are faced with right now is
the road issue that is tied back to that. If there are any
roads, you can't--so this bill allows the states to work with
the Forest Service and deal with some of the reconstruction of
roads. That is an important issue to take care of. You have to
have roads, and you have to have access to the timber.
Bringing that provision back in to the Good Neighbor
Authority will help that tremendously, so I support that.
Expanding it beyond just right next to the borders will also
help that, too.
In the case of, in Colorado----
Mr. McClintock. I am going to have to call time on that,
but we will do a second round.
General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Freeman, over the past 30 years or so, changes
in Federal forest management policies have significantly
reduced forest management activities in the forests. I know you
have talked a little bit about this already, but would you
elaborate a little more on the impact this shift in policy and
the significant decline in the forest production has had on
your community and the jobs and the opportunities available to
the residents, or potentially future residents?
Mr. Freeman. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. I
believe somewhere along the way that we have forgotten the
purpose of timber and forestlands as a means to also create
habitat for the human species.
When I graduated high school 30-something years ago in a
little town called Oakland, Oregon--we call it the real
Oakland; I understand there is an Oakland somewhere else--the
people that I went to school with went to work in the logging
industry or in the mills, oftentimes making more money than the
teachers that were teaching them at school. Everybody could
have a job if they needed one.
Over this last 30 years, what has happened is our community
now is known for exporting our youth. There is very little
opportunity for young people in our community. They have to
leave rural Oregon to go find employment. That, in itself, has
really been tragic.
On top of that, areas like the Umpqua National Forest that
were managed very well in the heyday of management, they were
harvesting less than 50 percent of what grew in that forest,
and there was a balanced approach, because it was a multiple-
use forest. In 2012, the last year we have seen data for, they
harvested about 4 percent of what grew.
In my testimony earlier, I talked about the O&C lands--the
O&C lands grow 1.2 billion board feet of timber a year. The
plan calls for harvesting just over 200 million. Currently they
are not harvesting even close to that.
Mr. Bergman. Thanks. I hate to cut you short on this
because I have limited time, and I want to get to the next
question here. Some have asserted that the lost forest products
industry jobs can be replaced by recreation. Do you believe
this is the case, or is a healthy forest products industry
critical to your community's economic health and well-being?
Again, I have one more question, so give me a short answer.
Mr. Freeman. I will be quick. Thank you for the question.
It has to be all of the above. There is always this idea that
it has to be one or the other. People cannot recreate if they
don't have a job and the money to go recreate. I was told this
a long time ago: if you are living in your car, you are really
not camping.
Mr. Bergman. Living in the middle of the Ottawa National
Forest in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 1 million acres, we
have three national forests in the first district: the Ottawa,
the Hiawatha, and the Huron-Manistee. We live there because we
use it for recreation. We use it for all the right reasons, and
we manage it as best we can, given the current guidelines, to
promote health of all species, including the human species, as
well as everything that flies, swims, or walks.
So, would you agree with the statement that the best
option, going forward, is some kind of a shared use of those
lands to management by forestry and for forestry and
recreational activities by concerned partners with a skin in
the game here?
Mr. Freeman. I believe absolutely everything is possible,
if done correctly.
Mr. Bergman. OK, thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. We are going to go to a second
round.
Commissioner Freeman, you mentioned something that brought
a memory back to me. You talked about the behavior of fires at
treated land. I have now lost over 1,000 square miles of
forestland in my district alone over the last 5 years to
catastrophic wildfire. I have gone to all of the command
centers.
When I visited the command center for the Rough Fire that
threatened Yosemite Valley, I asked the firefighters what
message can I take back to Congress in your name? They did not
mention climate change, they mentioned two words: treatment
matters. They said that where the fire hit treated acreage, it
slowed to the point where they could often extinguish it, but
there wasn't enough of it. And that was the message they wanted
me to take back to Congress. Was that essentially the point you
were making earlier?
Mr. Freeman. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. They told me on the King Fire--and I will
never forget that day, because this is the one time where the
firefighters, who were usually cool, calm, and collected, were
actually frightened. They thought they were going to lose the
communities of Georgetown and Forest Hill that day. If they
had, the fire would have burned on to Tahoe.
One of the firefighters, one of the senior guys, comes to
me with tears in his eyes. He says, ``Congressman, I can't even
get to this fire on the ground.'' He says, ``We used to have
good timber roads. I could get the equipment on the ground with
these fires. All I can do now is drop stuff from the air and
pray to God the wind shifts.'' His prayer was answered, and if
it hadn't been, we would have lost those communities.
That is what they also tell me. Is that the situation in
your neck of the woods, as well?
Mr. Freeman. Well, it most certainly is. Back when we had
active forest management, we had people in the woods, loggers
in the woods, and that stopped a lot of these fires before they
got going.
Mr. McClintock. That is a tale I hear over and over again
in my district, in the Sierra.
Mr. Freeman. Yes. And today, when these fires get going,
they burn much hotter and much faster than they did,
historically, because of the amount of wood that is on the
ground.
And what I tell people, these forests are going to grow,
regardless of whether we manage them or not, so we are either
going to grow timber products and use them, or we are going to
grow firewood.
Mr. McClintock. That brings me to my next question, where
you mention 1.2--did you say 1.2 billion board feet grown in
the O&C forest every year?
Mr. Freeman. Every year, yes.
Mr. McClintock. And 200 million board feet harvested?
Mr. Freeman. The plan calls for that. They are, oftentimes,
not achieving that.
Mr. McClintock. So, at the most, 6 to 1, and you are saying
they are not even achieving that.
Mr. Freeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Now, what happens to the other billion
board feet every year?
Mr. Freeman. It just stacks up on the land.
Mr. McClintock. So, if I had a subscription to and received
six newspapers a day, and only threw one away, how long would
it take for my house to become a fire trap? Probably about as
long as the forest.
Mr. Freeman. Yes, that is a great analogy. That is exactly
what happens.
Mr. McClintock. What would the Good Neighbor Authority in
this bill do for the road problem?
Mr. Freeman. Well, I think, certainly, on the road access
and making sure that, especially in this patchwork area of
land, that the industry folks, along with the agency folks,
have equal footing on access, it makes a big difference.
And also, it sort of creates an even playing field between
the industry folks and the agency.
Mr. McClintock. We were told that this is a false choice
between the economy and the environment, and I could not agree
more. A forester told me long ago, all the timber comes out of
the forest one way or another. It is either carried out or it
is burned out, but it comes out. When we carried it out, we had
healthy, thriving economies in my mountain communities and a
healthy, thriving forest. When we changed the laws that have
made it virtually impossible to manage our lands, our economies
have withered and our forests are dying.
That is the story of the Sierra. Is that also the story in
the forests in your region?
Mr. Freeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Neiman, how would you characterize it?
Mr. Neiman. Well, in the Black Hills we have 4.5 million
visitors a year that visit the Black Hills. The water flow off
the Black Hills went down over the last number of years, so
there is a direct tie. Our whole area has strong support. They
see that it is synonymous, that it is important. Our area sees
the timber industry as the important tool in the toolbox for
the Forest Service to treat----
Mr. McClintock. Do you have a spotted owl population or
habitats in your region?
Mr. Neiman. We have goshawk, pine marten----
Mr. McClintock. We used to have an awful lot of spotted owl
habitats in my region, and the King Fire alone--scores of them,
as I recall, I think the figure was 80, were wiped out by the
fire, because we could not properly manage the land to prevent
those fires before they happened.
One final thing. Mr. MacDonald, I just wanted to emphasize
a point you made. We are not even producing enough timber to
meet our own needs as a Nation now, we are importing timber?
Mr. MacDonald. That is correct, sir.
Mr. McClintock. And we have seen an 80 percent decline in
timber harvest since the 1980s, is that correct?
Mr. MacDonald. That is--yes, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ranking Member.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Furnish, while potentially controversial, salvage
logging is often an appropriate tool that allows the harvest of
commercially viable timber without disrupting the sensitive
post-fire landscape. However, because each fire is different,
and ecological concerns have been considered, it is important
that salvage operations are analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act provides the Forest
Service with an expedited approval process for salvage
operations. But this draft bill expands on that irresponsibly
on the authority in a way that could create a lasting
ecological damage if improperly applied.
First, Mr. Furnish, can you define that when we hear
salvage operations, what does that mean? And also, when do you
believe it is appropriate to authorize such an operation?
Mr. Furnish. I think the Forest Service has benefited by a
lot of scientific research over the last few decades, and my
point of reflection would be back when I entered the Forest
Service in the mid-1960s. It was, I would say, kind of a given
that fire-killed timber would be salvaged. It just followed
that if you had a fire, you salvaged the timber and moved that
to market. I think, over time, we have come to understand that
the whole issue of fire is very complex. The issue of dead
timber is not a ``lost resource,'' it is transferred and
repurposed by nature for other things.
So, I would just say that, whether you are dealing with a
Ponderosa pine type, a lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, eastern
hardwoods, western Douglas fir, each of these has their own
unique personality and complexity that deserves careful,
meritorious consideration when it comes to things like fire
salvage.
I do believe that removal of dead timber has a place in
these questions. But I do not agree that dead trees ought to be
removed from the Forest Service--or, excuse me, from the
forest. It is not that simple. It is much more complex. And I
do think the Forest Service is at least trying to bring to this
issue a much more thoughtful outcome.
Ms. Hanabusa. Congressman Westerman is a great advocate of
this bill. He pointed out in his explanation of the bill that
the two major differences between this version and the version
that was here last year--I think it is in Section 103 where it
used to be, I think, 250 acres, and now it is going to be
10,000 for the categorical exemption of the NEPA.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Furnish. Well, I think--at least I go back to the
original law, NEPA. And I would agree that this is your job, to
enact laws. So, I agree that this is within your purview. But
the original idea of the categorical exclusion was that it was
excluded from detailed consideration, analysis, and
documentation. And it was predicated on being either minor in
context or repetitive in nature, so that it could be excluded
from environmental documentation and would allow the agencies
to just move forward.
I think this is a misapplied fix of the notion of a
categorical exclusion to create ever-larger exclusions that I
think do not honor the original nature of NEPA. But again, this
is your job to look at laws and change laws. I just don't think
that this is the way to do it.
Ms. Hanabusa. So, when we talk about the categorical
exclusion--and that means that it does not have the usual kinds
of reviews--can you see or in any way justify or support a
situation where you feel like 10,000 acres in certain
circumstances may be properly part of or subject to this
exclusion, and that is somehow in our best interests?
Mr. Furnish. Well, I mean, on just personal taste, that is
way too big for me. That is too big a gulp. But I would say
that I do believe in expedited approaches and putting your foot
on the gas when circumstances warrant. And there are ways that
the agency, in cooperation with other parties, can do these
things. I am all for that.
But I think caution needs to be exercised so that it is not
overdone. So, when I hear things like 10,000 acres, 30,000
acres, those, to me, are just too excessive.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Furnish.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. We will go to Mr. Pearce next, who deferred
on our first round.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate each one
of you being here today.
Mr. MacDonald, you had talked a little bit about the median
decrease in the cost of single family homes spurring the
economy. As you look at the bill in front of us today, do you
think that it would facilitate lowering the cost of entry for
median wage earners back into the housing market and spurring
the economy, getting economic growth? Will this bill accomplish
part of that or all of it?
Mr. MacDonald. Yes, sir. Every time that we can bring on
another home buyer in the affordable realm in the United States
we are not only creating another home for a family, but we are
also creating countless jobs, as it goes all the way down the
food chain. And that falls all the way through the economy, at
every level.
As we have seen in the last economic recovery, you really
do not have a solid economic recovery unless you have an
economic recovery in the housing market. The housing market
drives this economy, and always has, and always will.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Freeman, you have talked a little bit about the active
management of our Federal forests, the threat of wildfires in
your community. I find the same thing in southern New Mexico.
In other words, we used to have the jobs you were referring
to. They used to do a good job of keeping balanced out. They
would fund the schools. The Forest Service decided they were
going to quit cutting trees. It starved us for jobs. We export
our young people away from those rural communities. We also
break down the economy of rural states like New Mexico. We are
a resource-driven state, so it chokes off one of the main
resources we have.
Some have testified that a community only needs to perform
fuel reduction work in the area surrounding the community in
order to protect it from the catastrophic wildfires. Do you
agree with that viewpoint, or would you take a different
viewpoint?
Mr. Freeman. Thank you for the question. I think it has to
be much more than just a fuels reduction program or some of
these restoration things that go on. I don't think the Federal
Government could ever afford to treat these lands like they
would a park. And that is really oftentimes what these
restoration programs look like.
I think there has to be active forest management across the
landscape to reduce some of the fuel loads. That will certainly
help with the fires.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, thanks. Just in confirmation of that, I
have been working for the last 5 years very closely with the
National Association of Forest Service Retirees. They are
people who spent their life in the Forest Service, and they are
very, very critical of the way that we are managing our forests
today, and choosing to burn them down rather than to go in and
mechanically thin them.
I actually used a retired fire investigator out of the Los
Angeles forest--he was there for 30 years--to come in and study
the fire in my district that burned down 255 homes. It burned
right through any small efforts to clear away and protect that
area, because when you get the raging wildfires in the West
with these 60, 70, and 80 knot winds, then it blows through
everything. The embers will move miles downstream. We almost
lost the entire community of Ruidoso.
So, the gentleman that came in, Bill Dare investigated the
fire and said it is completely mismanagement.
So, we see that the species, the spotted owl, thrives more
in the logged areas. Our communities thrive more in the logged
areas, which, again, is what you were saying. The job market
thrives more. The economy of the state thrives more. Yet we
can't get the Forest Service to do almost anything.
Our forests in New Mexico are about a million acres,
generally, and they are doing 30-acre projects. They are doing
this extensive paperwork that is required, EIS, NEPAs,
whatever, and they are doing that for 30 acres. How in the
world are we ever going to get a million-acre forest cleaned up
a 30-acre block at a time?
So, for me, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you having
this hearing, because this is at the essence of protecting the
communities in the West, both our jobs and safety from a
perspective of the forest fires that burn right through our
communities.
Again, I appreciate all of your testimony today, and thank
you for being here.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for doing
a second round of questioning. I want to publicly acknowledge
the input we have had from Democrats on this bill, and for the
ones that will be co-sponsoring the bill.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a day in time where my constituents
ask me all the time, is there anything that Republicans and
Democrats can agree on? Is there something that you can do
together that is good for the country? And I tell them all the
time--I will ask them, do you like trees? Do you like healthy
forests? And Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike like
healthy forests. They like trees. And there is no downside to a
healthy forest. It is a win-win-win.
I tell my constituents and others that if there is anything
we should be able to agree on, it is to take care of this
treasured resource that we have.
They ask me all the time, ``Do something where you don't
have all the rhetoric.'' Forestry and healthy forestry is the
perfect thing to do that with. We have science that tells us
what a healthy forest looks like.
Mr. Panetta talked about the forest fire in his district.
And, I believe it is the same fire, where I also saw a picture
of a mountain slide that went into the ocean.
And Mr. Neiman, one thing that we have done in this bill is
try to address concerns that we had out of the 114th Congress,
and also to look at not just the arbitration, but to look at
things to help improve water quality, and to be able to address
water issues in the West using our forest to manage that. Can
you talk briefly about the nexus between good forestry
management and protecting our watersheds?
Mr. Neiman. I can step back a little bit, and I go back to
the Black Hills. We have example after example where we have
logged in the Black Hills, and the stream flow and the
establishment of trout year after year for about a 15-year
period was very healthy. Then the forest grew back up, the
streams dried up, and you lost your fishing and the clean
waters.
I would love to show you some direct examples of those that
are just evident, the relationship between selective proper
management and what it does to water quality and stream flow.
Mr. Westerman. I have been reading a lot of articles by
groups like the Nature Conservancy that talk about how you can
use natural solutions to solve problems, and forestry is a
natural solution to solve an issue with water management in
many areas.
Mr. Furnish, I understand you are opposed to this bill. It
is pretty evident as I look at your testimony. It says,
``Speaking bluntly, the bill before you seeks to enact
legislation that is an affront to well-entrenched pillars of
our democracy and culture as a society, a society blessed with
a legacy of stunningly rich public lands.'' You also go on to
say, ``My experience literally screams that this bill is
misguided, unnecessary, ultimately harmful, and just plain
wrong,'' with wrong in all caps.
My teenagers tell me, ``Don't ever type in all caps, Dad,
because that means you are screaming at someone.''
``This bill breeds mistrust,'' which, to me, this sounds
like a lot of rhetoric, the thing we are really trying to avoid
here. And we want to base this on the science.
You actually said some things in your testimony that I
agree with. You talked about how timber production does not
have to be the driving force on Federal lands. But it does need
to be part of the equation.
I understand the Siuslaw Forest--if I said that right--that
is an old plantation forest. It was planted in the 1960s. And
we know that sound management tells us that you need to thin
plantations.
But the question is, will you continue to manage that
forest in the future?
And also, I think you stated in your book, ``How did
the''--that the land told you of its distress.
My question to you, what is the land saying now? Is the
land not distressed now? Does it not cry out for us to manage
it, and to implement sound scientific principles on our
landscape?
Mr. Furnish. I have 15 seconds to respond? The Siuslaw is
healthier than it has been in a long, long time, and that is
because we have been practicing restoration forestry, not
timber exploitation.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I associate myself
with the comments of Mr. Westerman, in terms of having an
opportunity to be able to create win-wins, in terms of forest
health, and being able to admirably take care of our public
lands.
We have a great example, actually, in southwest Colorado,
outside of Pagosa Springs, where they went in through the
Forest Service and treated an area. Springs that had not flowed
for years started to flow again. Healthy forests were created,
and we turned around from that pilot project, Mr. Chairman, 180
degrees and looked, to my untrained eye, at a pretty forest.
The Forest Service was pointing out trees that were growing
there that should not be at that elevation, the overgrowth that
was taking place. So, that healthy forest management attitude,
to be able to create that win-win, I think is essential.
And Mr. Neiman, you have to be able to deal with a lot of
the contracts, in terms of being able to make sure that the
mill has the adequate resources to be able to keep those jobs
moving. Can you maybe just briefly elaborate for us on timber
sale and the harvest process, and explain how those contracts
can be tailored to be able to meet the needs, not only of the
commercial side, but also of the Forest Service management
objectives?
Mr. Neiman. There is a little bit of similarity in the
relationship between the size of a timber sale contract and the
CEs and the provisions in this bill that you talk about.
Clearly, a larger sale helps us because you get in, it reduces
the cost to move in. If you have a small sale, a half-million
feet or something, and you are traveling 150 miles, it is very
expensive.
The same thing goes with the Forest Service when you put up
a larger timber sale or stewardship. The larger that can be,
the more efficient the Forest Service is in putting that up.
When you look at the CEs, and you jump from a few hundred
acres to 3,000, the concern, I want to remind you the Forest
Service has a lot of really sharp, good scientists. Your rule
of the 10,000 acres, or whatever you decide to use, is a cap.
They are going to use whatever size below that. But if your cap
is 300 or 500 acres or 1,000, you restrict them.
I go north of where you are talking about and go up into
the Gunnison, you can go out there, there are landscapes that
are hundreds of thousands of acres that the bugs have wiped
out. In that case, that is where a 10,000-acre CE or something
applies. You can go down to some other areas, but they will
utilize the right size of CE. You have really good scientists
that are going to make the right decisions.
So, the higher the cap, it is only a limit that helps them
work in the right areas.
Mr. Tipton. If I may in the time we have remaining, I would
like to be able to go back a little bit to our conversation in
regards to the NEPA process that you go through to be able to
actually achieve some of those actual contracts.
One area that has been identified in terms of a challenge
is that the Forest Service tries to be able to
``bulletproof''--I think that was the phrase you had in your
testimony--some of their analysis for the NEPA process. I am
wondering. How many of your different projects have been
involved in litigation when you have been applying to be able
to actually get a contract?
Mr. Neiman. We have observed a fair number, there have not
been many the last few years. I have not observed very many at
all. But if I go back to around 2000, back in the 1990s, there
were a number of them, so that has been reduced. The process,
the Farm Bill, has helped. There has been less litigation, and
I think this will help, too. This will help.
Litigation is only a stall tactic, and it forces the Forest
Service to be perfectionist in what they do in the NEPA
process. Why? Why does the Forest Service take longer and spend
much more dollars than any other agency? It doesn't make sense
that they do that. We have to help them be as efficient as the
BLM and other agencies to be effective in doing their NEPA
process.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Thank you so much, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Cheney.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to pick up on the litigation issue and ask you,
Mr. Neiman, isn't it the case that it is not just the actual
cost of litigation that is a challenge to the Forest Service--
and I would say to those other agencies you mentioned, as
well--but it is the fear of litigation, and the threat of that
litigation that results in this kind of attempt to bulletproof
and attempt to--basically, the outcome is taking much longer,
in terms of the approval process.
So, if you look at the abuse of the court system, and the
sort of rote filing of lawsuits, while there is no one who
wants to deny people access to the system, we have to get to a
place where, in fact, the system is not being abused.
I think one of the terrific parts of this bill is the
arbitration provision. And if you could just talk a little bit
about the impact that the threat of litigation has, even on
permit processes where there may not have been a lawsuit filed,
but it is the knowledge that you have groups that are using the
system and abusing the system, and the cost in a number of
instances to the taxpayers, because of EAJA, which we are
trying to reform separately--but if you could talk about that
abuse of the court system and the impact that has on decision
making, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Neiman. Well, I have just watched over the last number
of decades, watched litigation attempt--it actually did shut
the Black Hills down in 2000. In 1999 through 2001, we had zero
timber for 2 years due to litigation, until the new forest plan
came out. That was a killer to us, and we lost two mills in the
Black Hills due to that one issue.
I want to talk quickly about two other subjects. And the
collaborative process that we see going on, both in the Black
Hills with the multiple-use group, which--the multiple-use
group has 60,000 members within all the groups that we sat down
and they put together the National Forest Advisory and that
collaborative group has worked.
So, when you take the next step past collaboration, and you
have the ability to have an arbitrator instead of it going the
legal route, I don't know how you are going to have it set up.
I am a little ignorant on how that process will work at this
point. But I am anxious to observe and see. I would encourage
you to move ahead with that process. I think that is a good
start to avoid litigation.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. And I think it is hugely
important for us to recognize how important, as you say, that
collaborative approach is, and ensuring that our local
communities have the voice that they deserve and that they need
to have as, really, the best stewards of these resources. So,
again, I want to thank you and thank everyone for being here.
And with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Pearce, for your----
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Neiman, if we follow that discussion on the lawsuits,
when we get the fires, the crown fires, especially in the West,
you know how the tree is standing there--how long do they have
value, if you are going to cut them down? Just approximately,
if you have a figure. If you don't, that is fine.
Mr. Neiman. I can give you my experience in the Black
Hills. You have someplace between--it depends on if the fire is
early in the season or late in the fall--you have someplace
between 2 and 10 months in the Black Hills. That is it. The
flathead wood borer comes in and wipes it out. You cannot do
anything with it. It is unusable.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, so the lawsuits generally come from
outside groups. Have you been able to watch any of those
lawsuits develop? In other words, the outside groups say you
cannot log this burned timber because of--and what we see is
that suit will be thrown out. It is then re-filed by another
group using almost the same language.
Mr. Neiman. Yes, we have had cases where we had our
arbitration group together in parts of Wyoming and in Colorado.
One group held out and then came back after you had a
considerable arbitration between great environmental groups,
like Nature Conservancy and others, that we worked together to
move ahead. And one purist stayed out and filed a suit.
Mr. Pearce. Yes, so then 10 months later, at the very
latest, then you have no value there to extract. Is that
correct?
Mr. Neiman. Correct.
Mr. Pearce. OK. Mr. Freeman, do you ever run across any of
this level of intervention?
Mr. Freeman. Mostly in our area, and on the O&C, and on a
lot of the Forest Service land, they have quit trying to even
harvest any of the salvage, because they know the litigation
process will be so costly and take so long, the value of the
timber will be below what it will sell for. So, they just
literally walk away from thousands and thousands of acres of
very valuable wood after these fires.
Mr. Pearce. Yes.
Mr. Freeman. We have recently just had the Stouts Creek
Fire, some of the most beautiful timber you can imagine, very
high value. The Forest Service virtually took nothing off the
burn.
Mr. Pearce. So, our schools starve because we don't have
the jobs, we don't have the tax base.
Mr. Neiman, are you familiar enough with the effect of the
insects? Why do insects get a foothold in our western forests?
Mr. Neiman. I have a huge amount of experience, or at least
followed the history. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt and the
first timber sale in the United States, it was in the Black
Hills, 1899. And Teddy Roosevelt came out in 1904 and, seeing a
bunch of dead trees, called in a world-renowned entomologist to
the Black Hills, identified it as the Black Hills pine beetle,
and renamed the mountain pine beetle, because they found out it
was endemic throughout the West.
What they discovered then was thick, old growth, dense
stands are going to be attacked by the bug. And it is a
function--if the trees have the water, it can create the sap
and eject the bug. If the tree does not have enough water, then
the bug gets in epidemic state, it can attack and kill the
tree.
So, very similar situations. Old growth, high-density
stands, not enough water because of closed-in canopies.
Mr. Pearce. Again, your earlier comments seemed to indicate
that dense growth equals not enough water. Is that correct?
Mr. Neiman. Correct.
Mr. Pearce. Yes. Dense stands of trees contribute to not
enough water. Are they linked together at all? They appear to
be in New Mexico.
Mr. Neiman. Yes.
Mr. Pearce. We are a very arid climate. We do not get much
rain. So, 100 years ago we had 50 trees per acre. The aquifers
were filled. We could pump water from fairly high levels. Just
recently, there was a fire around one of the well fields for a
small community. The water level had dropped 40 feet over the
past years. After the fire, it came back 40 feet and another 20
feet beyond it, so they had never seen levels that high.
Our trees--the heavy, dense--the density of our forests
sucked the water up. There is not enough water, not enough
nutrients. Then the insects get a foothold. They can then work
their way through an entire forest. And the Forest Service does
not seem to acknowledge that science, that pathway. Meanwhile,
we have millions of trees that died in New Mexico and Colorado
from insects, and we cannot quite figure that out with all the
scientists in the Forest Service.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I yield
back.
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you very much. I want to thank
our panel of witnesses for their time and their expert
testimony today. We rarely go to second rounds of questions,
which is an indication of how much we valued your testimony
today and how helpful it has been in the consideration of this
measure.
Our Members may have additional questions. If they do, we
will keep the hearing record open for 10 business days so that
those can be included in the official record.
With that, if there is no further business to be brought
before the Subcommittee, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
Submitted To
House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee On Federal Lands
On
The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present a statement regarding the Resilient Federal
Forests Act of 2017. The U.S. Forest Service is currently reviewing
this discussion draft, and the Administration does not have a position
on it at this time.
We appreciate the significant work the Subcommittee put into this
bill since it was last introduced in the 114th Congress. We also
appreciate your efforts to incorporate Forest Service comments and
recommendations and are encouraged by many of the goals outlined within
this bill. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your
staffs on the details to ensure this legislation results in meaningful
improvements to forest management work on the ground.
The Forest Service welcomes legislation that expands the toolset we
can use to restore our Nation's forests while staying within the
boundaries and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Endangered Species Act. Forest restoration projects provide rural jobs,
mitigate the severity of wildfires, enhance watershed conditions, and
ensure a variety of other economic, social and environmental benefits
for the American people. Provisions that expand categorical exclusions,
incentivize collaboration, and streamline environmental analysis or
consultation with other Federal agencies are all important issues in
the bill that we are reviewing.
It is notable that the Resilient Federal Forests Act does not
contain provisions that would mandate harvest levels, require a new
layer of zoning on the National Forests, or elevate one use over
another on these multiple-use lands, as we have seen in other recent
forestry bills.
While we support efforts to provide new tools to improve forest
management and restoration, capacity constraints, including the present
approach to budgeting for wildfire, continue to be impediments to
increasing the pace and scale of this work. We look forward to
continuing to work with you on the wildfire title to find a solution
that addresses the disproportionate growth of fire programs as a share
of the agency's overall budget.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement.
The Forest Service stands ready to continue working with you on this
important legislation.
______
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS,
Washington, DC
June 13, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
provide comments on the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. NASF
represents the heads of state forestry agencies in all fifty states,
the District of Columbia and the US Territories. Through the
development of comprehensive State Forest Action Plans our members
maintain a broad view of the full set of forestry ownerships within
their authority, including federally owned forest lands. For citizens
of the United States to realize a full set of forest related benefits,
federal lands need to provide a complete and balanced set of
environmental, economic and social values.
In February of 2016 our organization adopted a formal position on
desired reforms to federal land management policy. Suggestions are
organized around:
Reforms that would allow federal lands to develop a more
balanced set of social, environmental and economic
benefits;
Reforms that would lower the costs of agency
administration, planning, regulatory compliance and
litigation; and
Reforms that would enable vegetation management to be
carried out at a scope, scale and pace sufficient to create
more sustainable and resilient landscape conditions.
We feel this bill would indeed create the end results our members
support as our members want to see more active management of federal
forest lands. Expedited planning and analysis, prompt response to
catastrophic events, alternative dispute resolution, greater
collaboration and less costly litigation are all outcomes that for
which we strongly advocate. In addition, we're encouraged to see some
desired modification to Good Neighbor Authority allowing road repair to
be part of cooperative projects, as well as support for giving the land
management agencies the opportunity to make their own determinations of
endangered species jeopardy or adverse effects. Finally, NASF
appreciates that this discussion draft recognizes the need to solve the
wildfire suppression funding issue. We look forward to working with the
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands and Congressman
Bruce Westerman to ensure that a solution addresses both fire borrowing
and the erosion of the Forest Service's budget over-time due to
increasing wildfire suppression costs.
We recently provided comments on Federal land management reform to
the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations. One additional suggestion we made there and would
repeat here is to ``Require that National Forest Management Plans
specifically address how they support State Forest Action Plans. In
addition, encourage regular consultation with State Foresters by
National Forest System leadership to ensure their annual programs of
work are dovetailed where appropriate.''
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We would be happy to
answer any questions or provide any additional information that might
be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Bill Crapser, Wyoming State Forester,
President of the National Association of State Foresters
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Hanabusa Submissions
-- Letter dated June 14, 2017 to Chairman McClintock and
Ranking Member Hanabusa from the Alaska Wilderness
League; American Bird Conservancy; American Rivers;
Center for Biological Diversity; Earthjustice;
Environmental Protection Information Center;
Friends of the Inyo; Klamath Forest Alliance;
League of Conservation Voters; Los Padres
ForestWatch; National Parks Conservation
Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; New
Mexico Sportsmen; Sequoia ForestKeeper; Sierra
Club; Sierra Forest Legacy; Soda Mountain
Wilderness Council; Southern Environmental Law
Center; The Lands Council; Ventana Wilderness
Alliance; and Western Environmental Law Center.
-- Letter dated June 14, 2017 to Chairman McClintock and
Ranking Member Hanabusa from the Outdoor Alliance.
[all]