[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


    H.R. 200, ``FOREST INFORMATION REFORM (FIR) ACT''; H.R. 1473, 
 ``TARGETING AND OFFSETTING EXISTING ILLEGAL CONTAMINANTS ACT''; H.R. 
1567, ``ACCURATELY COUNTING RISK ELIMINATION SOLUTIONS (ACRES) ACT''; 
AND H.R. 1586, ``FOREST PROTECTION AND WILDLAND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY ACT 
                               OF 2023''

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                        Thursday, March 23, 2023
                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-9
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                    
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
51-679 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023  
      


                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA		     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA		         CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			     Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		     Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	     Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		     Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		     Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	     Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			     Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		     Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		     Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			     Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			     Ed Case, HI			
Jim Moylan, GU			     Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		     Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                                                                                                               
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, March 23, 2023.........................     1

Statement of Members:
    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2
    Kamlager-Dove, Hon. Sydney, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................     4
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5
    LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................    42
    Rosendale, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Montana...........................................    43
    Peters, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................    46
        Prepared statement of....................................    48

Statement of Witnesses:
    French, Chris, Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems, U.S. 
      Forest Service, Washington, DC.............................    49
        Prepared statement of....................................    51
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    55
    Bronson, Ryan, Director of Government Affairs, Rocky Mountain 
      Elk Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota........................    57
        Prepared statement of....................................    59
    Ellis, Steve, Chairman, Board of Directors, National 
      Association of Forest Service Retirees, Beaver Creek, 
      Oregon.....................................................    60
        Prepared statement of....................................    62
        Supplemental testimony...................................    64
    Brown, Susan Jane M., Senior Staff Attorney, Western 
      Environmental Law Center, Eugene, Oregon...................    66
        Prepared statement of....................................    68
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    73
    Wood, Jonathan, Vice President of Law and Policy, The 
      Property and Environmental Research Center, Bozeman, 
      Montana....................................................    78
        Prepared statement of....................................    80

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany

        National Association of Forest Service Retirees, Letter 
          to Secretary Vilsack on Fire Retardant Lawsuit dated 
          March 7, 2023..........................................   107
        Public Lands Foundation, Letter of support dated March 
          17, 2023...............................................   107
        33 Sportsmen Groups, Letter of support for a Bipartisan 
          ``Cottonwood Fix'' dated March 20, 2023................    45
        Western Governors Association, Letter with comments on 
          DOI-USDA ESA Consultation dated April 28, 2022.........   109
        38 Sportsmen Groups, Letter of support to Senators 
          Manchin and Barrasso for Cottonwood fix dated July 20, 
          2022...................................................   110
        33 Sportsmen Groups, Letter of support to Senators 
          Manchin and Barrasso for Cottonwood fix dated October 
          20, 2021...............................................   112
    Submissions for the Record by Representative LaMalfa

      Letters of Support for H.R. 1586
        Airspray Airtankers, Paul Lane...........................     9
        Placer County Board of Supervisors, Jim Holmes...........     9
        City of Oroville, David Pittman..........................    10
        Crane Mills, Drew Crane..................................    11
        International Wildfire Consulting Group, Dan Reese.......    11
        Federal Forest Resource Coalition........................    12
        Commercial Lumber and Pallet Company, Kathleen Dietrich..    14
        Registered Forester, Danielle Lindler....................    14
        Supporter, Arne Hultgren.................................    15
        Orange County Fire Authority, Brian Fennessy.............    16
        California Special Districts Association, Kyle Packham...    16
        Sierra County Board of Supervisors, Sharon Dryden........    17
        National Alliance of Forest Owners.......................    18
        City of Chico--Office of the Mayor, Andrew Coolidge......    18
        California Forestry Association (Calforests), Matt Dias..    19
        Tehama County Board of Supervisors, Bill Moule...........    19
        City of Redding, Michael Dacquisto.......................    20
        Jefferson Resource Company, Tina Stewart.................    21
        Supporter, Tim Seeley....................................    21
        Butte County Fire Safe Council, Darrel Wilson............    22
        Western Shasta Resource Conservation District, Maureen 
          Teubert................................................    23
        American Motorcyclists Association--District 36, Dan 
          Amador.................................................    23
        Forest Landowners Association, Scott Jones...............    24
        Overwatch Aero LLC, Jordan Hahn..........................    25
        National Wildfire Suppression Association, Deborah Miley.    25
        Lake Madrone Water District, Jess Vickery................    26
        City of Biggs, Josh Cook.................................    27
        City of Anderson, Mike Gallagher.........................    27
        Lassen County Board of Supervisors, Gary Bridges.........    28
        Shasta County Fire Safe Council, Pamela Bates............    29
        United Aerial Firefighters Association...................    29
        Analytical Moose, Rachael Brady..........................    30
        National Association of State Foresters, Kasey KC........    30
        National Association of Counties, Matthew Chase..........    31
        Yankee Hill Fire Safe Council, Brenda Rightmyer..........    32
        Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Dan Haverty.......    33
        California Farm Bureau, Jamie Johansson..................    34
        California Woman for Agriculture, Sharron Zoller.........    35
        American Agri-Women, Heather Hampton-Knodle..............    35
        Yuba Water Agency, Willie Whittlesey.....................    36
        International Association of Fire Chiefs & National 
          Special Districts Coalition, Donna Black and Neil 
          McCormick..............................................    37
        Berry Creek Fire Safe Council, Denise Bethune............    38
        City of Shasta Lake, Jessaca Lugo........................    38
        Placer County Water Agency, Anthony Firenzi..............    39
        Placer County District 4 Board of Supervisors, Suzanne 
          Jones..................................................    39
        Glenn County Board of Supervisors, Grant Carmon..........    40
        North State Planning & Development Collective, Jason 
          Schwenkler.............................................    41
        Butte County Board of Supervisors, Tod Kimmelshue........    41

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Rosendale

        Letter from Senator Steve Daines in support of H.R. 200..    96
    .............................................................


 
   LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 200, TO AMEND THE FOREST AND 
  RANGELAND RENEWABLE RESOURCES PLANNING ACT OF 1974 AND THE 
FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 TO PROVIDE THAT 
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 
     ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REINITIATE CONSULTATION ON A LAND 
 MANAGEMENT PLAN OR LAND USE PLAN UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, 
   AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FOREST INFORMATION REFORM (FIR) 
 ACT''; H.R. 1473, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROGRAM WITHIN THE FOREST 
    SERVICE TO DETECT, DOCUMENT, MONITOR, AND REMEDIATE THE 
    ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY TRESPASS CULTIVATION ON 
   NATIONAL FOREST LANDS, AND AMEND THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, 
 FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT TO INCLUDE CRIMINAL PENALTIES 
 FOR ILLEGAL PESTICIDE APPLICATION ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, AND 
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``TARGETING AND OFFSETTING EXISTING ILLEGAL 
CONTAMINANTS ACT''; H.R. 1567, TO REQUIRE THAT THE SECRETARY OF 
 AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SUBMIT ACCURATE 
REPORTS REGARDING HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION ACTIVITIES, AND FOR 
    OTHER PURPOSES, ``ACCURATELY COUNTING RISK ELIMINATION 
SOLUTIONS (ACRES) ACT''; AND H.R. 1586, TO ALLOW THE SECRETARY 
OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO USE A FIRE 
RETARDANT, CHEMICAL, OR WATER FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION, CONTROL, OR 
    PREVENTION ACTIVITIES, ``FOREST PROTECTION AND WILDLAND 
                FIREFIGHTER SAFETY ACT OF 2023''

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 23, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Bentz, 
Moylan, Westerman; Neguse, Porter, and Kamlager-Dove.
    Also present: Representatives LaMalfa, Rosendale; Hoyle, 
and Peters.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Committee on the Federal Lands will come 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider four forest 
health and wildfire prevention bills: H.R. 200, the Forest 
Information Reform Act, offered by Representative Rosendale; 
H.R. 1473, the Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal 
Contaminants Act, offered by Representative Peters; H.R. 1567, 
the Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act, offered 
by myself; and H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023, offered by Representative 
LaMalfa.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa; the gentleman from 
Montana, Mr. Rosendale; the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle; 
and the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. America desperately needs solutions to the 
catastrophic wildfire and forest health crisis decimating our 
Federal lands and forests year after year, which is why 
Republicans are dedicating our first Federal Lands Subcommittee 
legislative hearing to this critical issue.
    As I outlined in our inaugural hearing earlier this month, 
the Republican Majority is keeping our commitment to America by 
moving four forestry bills that would cut red tape, put an end 
to frivolous litigation, address the Biden border crisis by 
cutting off illegal marijuana cultivation by cartels on our 
Federal lands, and bringing greater transparency to government.
    I would first like to talk about the litigation 
hamstringing our Federal land management agencies. Today, marks 
the expiration of a temporary legislative fix first put into 
place by Congress in 2018 to address the 2015 Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service court case. 
That decision, which conflicted with other long-standing court 
precedents, has empowered extreme environmentalist litigants to 
weaponize the Endangered Species Act to delay or stop urgently-
needed forest management activities.
    The decision on Cottonwood has done nothing to improve 
species protection, but has instead only created new 
bureaucracy, red tape, and diverted precious agency resources 
away from actual management to endless planning and regulatory 
compliance.
    Since 2015, over 130 forest management projects--130 forest 
management projects, ranging from wildfire mitigation work to 
wildlife habitat restoration--have been held up in fire-prone 
Western states because of Cottonwood. Congressman Rosendale's 
Forest Information Reform Act offers an urgently-needed 
permanent fix to this misguided gift to activist litigants 
dedicated to shutting down responsible forest management by any 
means necessary.
    This should not be a partisan issue. Both the Obama and 
Trump administrations supported overturning the Cottonwood 
decision, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
reported similar legislation last year by a bipartisan vote 16 
to 4. That is why it is unfortunate that instead of taking the 
threat of litigation to forest health seriously, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have invited a serial litigant 
to testify here today.
    This stack of papers next to me are documents from the 
nearly 60 active and pending lawsuits this witness disclosed 
ahead of this hearing. Needless to say, we have very different 
ideas of what it means to support our forest products industry.
    But far-left environmentalists aren't content with just 
weaponizing Federal laws to stop active forest management 
projects. Now they are also endangering firefighters' lives and 
preventing them from extinguishing those catastrophic fires 
once they begin. A fringe environmental group that has been 
suing the Forest Service over its use of fire retardant for the 
past two decades is now trying to receive a nationwide 
injunction against the use of aerial fire retardant ahead of 
the upcoming fire season. Congressman LaMalfa's bipartisan 
Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act will 
ensure our land managers are able to continue to use fire 
retardant to save lives, protect communities, and contain 
wildfires.
    We will also consider two bills today that will hold the 
Biden administration accountable. The first bill, which I am 
honored to have introduced, is the ACRES Act. This bill will 
bring transparency to the misleading and inaccurate way 
hazardous fuel treatments are reported.
    We have long known the reported pace and scale of forest 
management has been insufficient to truly address our 
catastrophic wildfire crisis. According to troubling reports, 
this situation is even worse than we had been led to believe, 
as agencies have been overstating their treatments by over 20 
percent. Accurate reporting is necessary to broadly track the 
progress made on our larger wildfire mitigation targets, as 
well as individual projects. The ACRES Act is a simple solution 
to hold our Federal agencies accountable, to see the actual 
work they are doing will reduce the enormous risk of wildfire.
    The final bill before us today is the TOXIC Act, which is 
being led by Congressman Peters. This is a bipartisan effort 
that seeks to address the illegal cannabis sites in Federal 
forests that are causing significant environmental degradation, 
harm to wildlife, increased crime, and catastrophic wildfires.
    This is a growing crisis that is being fueled by the Biden 
administration's open border policies. The Mexican drug cartels 
operating these sites are causing enormous damage. At one site 
alone, cleanup crews donning hazmat suits removed 3,000 pounds 
of waste and trash, and over 1,100 pounds of fertilizer and 
banned pesticides. The chemicals they use are so dangerous, one 
teaspoon could kill a 600-pound black bear. H.R. 1473 would 
mitigate the environmental damage done by these sites and 
subject those illegally growing marijuana on Federal lands to 
stricter penalties.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look 
forward to today's discussion.
    With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Kamlager-
Dove for her opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Chair Tiffany. Unfortunately, 
Ranking Member Neguse cannot stay for today's hearing, so I 
will fill in for him this afternoon. And I appreciate my 
Republican colleagues for making this accommodation.
    Before diving into the details of the bills under 
consideration, I think it is important to note that under 
Democratic leadership for the last 4 years, this Committee 
helped advance historic investments in the future of our 
national forests and public lands. These investments support 
natural infrastructure, reduce wildfire risk, restore healthy 
ecosystems, and build safe, resilient communities. These 
investments are at the forefront of our effort to address the 
worst effects of the climate crisis, especially wildfire. It is 
encouraging to know that these investments are being put to 
work by the Biden administration this year.
    Today's bill list demonstrates the breadth and complexity 
of issues the Forest Service handles as they oversee our 
cherished national forests. The agency manages millions of 
acres of forest land that provide clean water for millions of 
Americans, critical habitat for threatened and endangered 
species, and the backdrop for a multi-billion dollar outdoor 
recreation economy.
    The Forest Service is also our nation's largest fire 
suppression agency and deals with critical challenges like the 
illegal production of marijuana and other illicit drugs.
    All of this taken together is an enormous task, and I 
appreciate the hard work of everyone at the Forest Service and 
other land management agencies.
    Now, I understand several of the bills we are reviewing 
today address perceived barriers to forest management that help 
restore ecological balance, mitigate risk, and keep 
communities. These are important and legitimate concerns. 
Wildfire risks should be taken seriously, and forest management 
decisions have real-world consequences.
    It is also critical that Congress and the American people 
receive accurate, transparent, and accessible data about how 
projects are being planned and implemented, which is why I 
support the intent of Chair Tiffany's ACRES Act. However, 
disagreement over metrics doesn't mean we should lose sight of 
the need for continued investment. It also doesn't mean we 
should scapegoat environmental protection supported by a broad 
majority of Americans.
    The FIR Act limits thoughtful planning when new endangered 
species are listed, critical habitat is designated, or new 
scientific information arises on Forest Service and BLM lands. 
This could be really problematic for newly-listed species and 
for adapting management plans as the impacts of climate change 
grow. The best available science should drive Endangered 
Species Act decisions, and agencies must ensure that their 
plans won't harm the recovery of endangered species. Instead of 
rolling back protections, we should provide our land management 
agencies with the resources they need to update plans and 
consult when necessary, not take tools away that could lead to 
better coordination and the preservation of threatened and 
endangered species.
    Later this afternoon, we will hear from a serial justice 
warrior, Susan Jane Brown, a senior attorney with the Western 
Environmental Law Center. Ms. Brown is an expert in forest law, 
who actively participates in collaborative management decisions 
that foster stakeholder-driven and science-backed restoration 
outcomes in her home state of Oregon. Her testimony makes it 
pretty clear that the Endangered Species Act is not the 
boogeyman some make it out to be. And I look forward to hearing 
from her and the rest of today's witnesses.
    And before I yield, I also want to take some time to note 
that this Committee must recognize that climate change is a 
major driver of wildfire. The fire season is now months longer, 
and in the coming decades wildfires are projected to continue 
to increase in number and size.
    In fact, earlier this week, the U.N. Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change issued its latest report. The panel's 
chair concluded by noting, ``We are walking when we should be 
sprinting. The climate crisis is a global problem that requires 
a global solution. We are on thin ice, and that ice is melting 
fast.''
    Unfortunately, that is not happening. The House Majority is 
doing precisely the opposite by pushing an oil-above-all 
agenda, by rushing the polluter over peoples act profits over 
people's act to the Floor next week. H.R. 1 is designed to 
prioritize Big Oil's wish list and takes every opportunity for 
the public to participate in decisions that will impact future 
generations away.
    Of course, natural climate solutions can help increase 
carbon sequestration potential, and well-designed projects can 
mitigate wildfire risk. These essential priorities are 
sidelined if we cannot find a way to lower overall emissions.
    With that, I look forward to today's discussion so we can 
consider various perspectives on the four bills.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. And now I would like to recognize 
the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Westerman.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking 
Member designee Kamlager-Dove, I guess, today, and thank you to 
our witnesses for being here.
    And it is refreshing to be in a hearing where we are 
actually going to talk about science, we are going to talk 
about the way the real world works, and we are going to talk 
about the problems with having healthy forests. I have always 
looked forward to these debates, because Republicans know that 
we are right on the science and we are right on the issues, 
especially when it comes to forest management, which these 
bills address today.
    It is past time that we let the children be in charge that 
are not managing our forests. It is time to have the adults in 
the room to do the things that need to happen. And it is time 
to put a stop to the environmental litigants who are profiting 
off of suing the Federal Government, who in no form or fashion, 
I think you could say, are actually doing something to help or 
protect the forests.
    And the record is in the data. Look at the number of fires 
we have had, and take the argument about climate change and 
more forest fires because of climate change. So, my question 
is, what are you going to do about it? Are you are going to 
keep suing and stopping forest management?
    If the land can't support as many trees as it used to, you 
need to thin the trees out. You need to reintroduce fire that 
will keep these fuel loads low. And we can't just keep doing 
the same thing over and over, or we are going to get the same 
results. And now those results are even happening in our giant 
sequoia groves. We sequestered fire from the sequoia groves for 
over 100 years, and we lost nearly 20 percent of the giant 
sequoias on the Earth because of mismanagement, because we let 
trees grow up in the understory that created the ladder fuel 
and got the fuel up in the canopy.
    It is time for the craziness to stop. And speaking of 
crazy, now we have people suing to not use fire retardant. So, 
not only are we not going to do the preventative work to keep 
the fires from happening or to keep the fires low, now we have 
people saying when the fires start, we are not going to put 
them out because we don't like fire retardant, which if you 
don't know, it is actually a fertilizer. It is some form of 
phosphorus fertilizer that is used for fire retardant.
    So, there are some common-sense bills here today to address 
issues on forest management. And there is also a bill here that 
deals with the Cottonwood issue, which is doing great harm to 
the endangered species. We claim we have these foundational 
environmental laws that are to protect our environment, to 
protect our wildlife, and these laws are being abused, and they 
are harming more wildlife than they are doing good.
    If we cared about wildlife, we would do the management on 
the forests to create the habitat so that wildlife could 
survive and so it could thrive. And we should be ashamed, 
totally ashamed, when we let our public lands grow up to where 
they are fire hazards, and where you can't even support 
wildlife because of such mismanagement on those lands.
    I have said before that the ESA has become like Hotel 
California: you check in, but you can't check out. And we have 
to make the ESA work. We have to make it work for endangered 
species, not for people who want to sue, not for people who 
want to create clickbait on the Internet, and not for people 
who want to fundraise in the name of the environment. We have 
to fix these issues so that we can actually help endangered 
species. And I hope that is what everybody on the Committee and 
our witnesses are wanting to do. I think that is what the 
American people want to do.
    Look, we all care about the environment, and there is no 
greater indicator of a healthy environment than a healthy 
forest. It gives us clean air, it gives us clean water, it 
gives us wildlife habitat, it gives us places to recreate. And 
we are blessed with abundant Federal lands in this country that 
have so much potential that is being so under-utilized. There 
are examples, great examples on Federal lands, where the right 
kind of management is taking place. We just need to empower the 
Federal land managers to do that all across the country.
    I look forward to the testimony, and I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and now I would like 
to recognize Representative LaMalfa to discuss the Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act.
    Representative LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity, and being able to sit in on the Committee today. 
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I am glad to be 
part of this.
    Across the West, we continue to face a wildfire crisis. In 
the past 5 years alone, we have seen some of the most 
destructive wildfires on record, especially in California. In 
my own district, we have seen catastrophic damage from the 2018 
Camp Fire in Paradise that leveled three-quarters of the town, 
known as the deadliest fire in California's history. In 2021, 
we saw the million-acre Dixie Fire, the largest single-source 
fire in California history. We don't like setting those kinds 
of records.
    Since 2000, we have averaged more than 70,000 wildfires per 
year and an average of 7 million acres burned annually. This 
acreage is more than double the average number during the 
1990s, more than double in just a decade.
    Since 2018, we have had four fire seasons that have 
exceeded 7 million acres, including 2020, when 10.1 million 
acres burned. In part to nearly a decade of forest 
mismanagement, our fires are getting bigger, hotter, and more 
aggressive than ever before.
    As a member on the House Committee on Natural Resources, 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and as part of 
the Ag Subcommittee on Forestry, I know and have seen these 
issues firsthand. Like you, we are reviewing current forestry 
policies, evaluating how we can increase the pace and scale of 
proper forest management so that we can conserve forest health 
while removing overgrowth that increases risk of devastating 
wildfires.
    Overhauling the current regulatory framework will not 
happen overnight. Removing brittle, decaying trees and dry 
overgrowth on tens of millions of acres of forest land will 
take years. Until then, until our forests are in a healthy 
state and a small, naturally-occurring blaze does not pose a 
risk of turning into another million-acre catastrophic blaze, 
it is essential that all wildland firefighting agencies 
continue to be able to utilize every single tool they can to 
protect forested land and nearby residents from these 
wildfires.
    Unfortunately, environmentalists have confused protecting 
forested lands with preventing intervention of any kind, even 
if it means life or death. In the case of the Forest Service 
Employees for Environmental Ethics v. the United States Forest 
Service, the impetus for my bill, the plaintiff has asked for 
an injunction on the use of fire retardant, as my colleague, 
Mr. Chairman, said, until the Forest Service receives a 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. It 
takes long just to say that name. Can you imagine how long it 
will be to get the permits? It will take years to obtain.
    If the injunction is granted and fire retardant is not 
available for this fire season, the Forest Service, all of our 
states, tribal agencies, and counties will have to sit by 
should another devastating fire come, which it will, as we who 
live in the West know, that unfortunately, fire season is year 
round, and it is inevitable.
    This can't wait. The 2023 fire season is already here. My 
state of California has already had dozens of wildfires. 
Thankfully, only about 64 acres have been counted as burned. It 
is the off season. But you look at Southern California, as dry 
as it usually is, we could have a catastrophe at any time. So, 
it is a year-round deal.
    Already there are zones on forested lands where the use of 
fire retardant is restricted. According to the Forest Service, 
``It is estimated that less than one-half of 1 percent of fire 
retardant drops may reach the 300-foot or larger buffer zone 
between the drops and a sensitive area,'' maybe a creek or a 
river, particular wildlife. So, indeed, these buffers are there 
for that reason, to be the buffer from where the drop would end 
and where the sensitive area would begin.
    So, when you have less than one-half percent of these drops 
reaching just into the buffer zone, and even more rarely 
getting into the actual waterway or whatever it may be, it 
shows that they work, the system works. Pilot planes guide the 
large aircraft where they need to go, and they are governed by 
the Forest Service. So, we know the process will work. Yet, it 
has gotten almost hysterical. And how we can take this tool 
away, especially if it is going to take years of review, we are 
just putting a lot of people, a lot of land, and a lot of 
wildlife in peril.
    So, how the plaintiff can claim to want to protect the 
environment when they actively allow another fire to harm 
residents and wildlife, destroy vast areas of forest land--you 
heard the numbers, hundreds of thousands--and property, pollute 
rivers with ash and debris, and choke vulnerable people up to 
hundreds of miles away, it is just a complete mystery to me.
    To every single Member of the Congress in this room, it is 
your constituents who will be put in danger if there is 
injunction of fire retardant. Yes, even on the East Coast, as 
the smoke plume from the million-acre Dixie Fire got up in the 
atmosphere and pushed across the country and affected large 
cities on the East Coast, where health alerts were put out 
because of fire in my district, 2,500 miles away.
    So, I want to thank many of the organizations that were 
helpful in submitting letters of support. Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to ask unanimous consent to submit those letters from 
forest landowners, California Farm Bureau, Federal Forest 
Resource, et cetera. So, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]
Letters of Support for H.R. 1586 Submitted by Rep. LaMalfa

                          AIRSPRAY AIRTANKERS

                           Chico, California

                                             March 16, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Member of Congress
CA District 1
120 Independence Circle Suite B
Chico, CA 95973

Re: H.R. 1586--the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety 
        Act of 2023

    Dear Mr. LaMalfa:

    We greatly appreciate that you have brought forward the above Bill 
to Congress. The matter is of pressing concern to the effective 
operation of wildland fire suppression in the United States.
    Retardant has proven to be a safe and effective tool in the 
protection of People, Property and the Environment for many years. To 
eliminate the use of retardant would endanger the lives of ground 
firefighters as well as worsen the impacts of fires.
    Please let us know if there is anything additional, we can do to 
support this very important Bill

            Sincerely,

                                              Paul J. Lane,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

                            COUNTY OF PLACER

                          BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                           Auburn, California

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Representative
House of Representatives, 1st District of California
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    On behalf of the Placer County Board of Supervisors, I am writing 
to express our support for H.R. 1586 Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    H.R. 1586 creates a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, 
local, and tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardant to fight 
wildfires. Fire retardant is an essential tool used to contain or slow 
the spread of wildfires. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    Currently the Forest Service and other agencies are operating under 
the assumption that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit is not required for the use of fire retardant because 
the regulations specifically state that fire control is a ``non-point 
source silvicultural activity'' and communications from the 
Environmental Protection Agency dating back to 1993 indicated a permit 
is not required. This bill would specifically state that a permit is 
not required for fire retardant to fight wildfires. If fire retardant 
is not available for use in the 2023 fire year, firefighters and 
individuals living in forested communities, including Placer County 
would be in greater danger, and millions of acres of forested land and 
billions of dollars of infrastructure would be at risk.
    For these reasons, we strongly support for H.R. 1586--Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. If you have any 
questions, please reach out to Joel Joyce, Legislative and Governmental 
Affairs Coordinator.

            Sincerely,

                                          Jim Holmes, Chair
                                                   COUNTY OF PLACER

                                 ______
                                 

                            CITY OF OROVILLE

                          Oroville, California

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Member of Congress
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Letter of Support for Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    As a retired Firefighter of 35 years and now Current Mayor of City 
in the foothills of wildfire threat zone. I write to your support for 
my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1586--the Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.
    H.R. 1586 creates a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, 
local, and tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardant to fight 
wildfires. As you know, fire retardant is an essential tool used to 
contain or slow the spread of wildfires. Currently the Forest Service 
and other agencies are operating under the assumption that a National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required 
for the use of fire retardant because the regulations specifically 
state that fire control is a ``non-point source silvicultural 
activity'' and communications from EPA dating back to 1993 indicated a 
permit is not required.
    This bill is needed because an environmentalist group is suing the 
Forest Service under the Clean Water Act to require a NPDES permit to 
use fire retardant and they have requested an injunction on the use of 
fire retardant until the Forest Service receives this permit, which 
could take years. If the injunction is granted and fire retardant is 
not available for use in the 2023 fire year, firefighters and 
individuals living in forested communities would be in greater danger, 
and millions of acres of forested land and billions of dollars of 
infrastructure would be at risk.
    I appreciate your consideration of this pressing concern. We must 
be able to fight wildfires with everything we have, and limiting 
firefighting agencies' ability to do so flies in the face of forest 
conservation and our mission to protect nearby residents. Congressman 
Doug LaMalfa has garnered bipartisan support throughout Congress. and 
was joined in introduction by the following Members of Congress: Jimmy 
Panetta (D-CA), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), John Duarte (R-CA), Russ Fulcher 
(R-ID), Tom McClintock (R-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Austin Scott (R-
GA), Amata Radewagen (R-AS), Troy Nehls (R-TX), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), 
Rick Crawford (R-AR), Young Kim (R-CA), Ryan Zinke (R-MT), Blake Moore 
(R-UT), Burgess Owens (R-UT), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Trent Kelly (R-MS), 
Ken Calvert (R-CA), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Mary 
Miller (R-IL), Kevin Kiley (R-CA), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Jim Costa (D-
CA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), and Harriet Hagerman (R-WY).

            Sincerely,

                                          David W. Pittman,
                                            Mayor, City of Oroville
                                 ______
                                 

                              CRANE MILLS

                          Corning, California

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Letter of Support for H.R. 1586

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I am pleased to announce Crane Mills' support for H.R. 1586, Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023, which would 
create a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, local, and 
tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardant to fight wildfires. 
I appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    We are currently in a period of unprecedented, catastrophic 
wildfires and it is imperative that fires are being fought with all 
available resources. Fire retardant is a vital tool that our 
firefighters need to have at their disposal. It has been proven to be 
an effective means to slow the spread of fire, protect homes, 
infrastructure, and communities. This act will ensure that our 
firefighting agencies can continue to use fire retardant, as needed, to 
protect the things that matter most: people, communities, 
infrastructure and natural resources.
    Regardless of how it is applied--be it dropped from a plane, 
sprayed from a tanker truck, or applied by hand--retardant is an 
effective tool that helps keep our communities safe and our natural 
resources from being destroyed from damaging wildfires.
    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                                Drew Crane,
                                                              CFO  

                                 ______
                                 

                INTERNATIONAL WILDFIRE CONSULTING GROUP

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce International Wildfire Consulting 
Group's support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    In October 2007, the USFS issued an environmental assessment and 
decision notice and finding of no significant impact, entitled ``Aerial 
Application of Fire Retardant.'' From 2007 to 2010 significant work and 
policies have been engaged Nationally to ensure the safe use of 
retardants.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by reducing fire 
intensity and creating anchor points to assist fire crews in 
controlling unwanted fire.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
safely, and effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do 
so slow fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species 
protection, historic sites and watershed preservation, and our mission 
to protect nearby residents and public health.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life. We support your 
efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                                  Dan Reese

                                 ______
                                 

                   FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION

                        Statement for the Record
                     Regarding Pending Legislation:
            H.R. 200; The FIR Act; H.R. 1567, the ACRES Act;
 and H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety 
                                  Act

    The following Statement is submitted on behalf of the Federal 
Forest Resource Coalition, which represents purchasers of Federal 
timber in 37 states, with over 650 member companies and affiliated 
associations, collectively representing over 390,000 employees. The 
legislation before today's hearing is of vital importance to the future 
of our National Forests and we urge the committee to move these bills 
quickly.

    H.R. 200: The Forest Information Reform Act would clarify 
Congress's intent regarding existing Forest Plans and the Endangered 
Species Act. As this committee is aware, a small environmental group 
called the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center filed a suit against the 
Forest Service, alleging that recently adopted critical habitat 
designations and species listings required the agency to engage in 
Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). 
This decision allowed environmental groups to seek injunctions against 
forest management projects, even when neither the Forest Service nor 
the FWS had any concerns regarding the specific projects. Instead of 
implementing needed management on the ground, forest managers were 
forced to go back and consult on the underlying forest plans, even if 
those plans were more than a quarter century old.
    The decision was so egregious that the Obama Administration 
appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court, which unfortunately 
refused to take the case. Since then, the results have been nothing 
short of disastrous. Courts have enjoined projects which would have 
treated thousands of acres for hazardous fuels reduction, canceled 
timber sales that would have provided badly needed fiber to markets, 
and possibly contributed to the severity of recent wildfires.
    In the Forest Service's Northern Region, litigation based on this 
awful precedent has caused injunctions against projects which would 
have produced over 200 million board feet of lumber; that's enough to 
frame over 26,000 houses. In New Mexico, environmental groups won a 13-
month injunction which delayed fuels treatments on the Santa Fe 
National Forest. This delay may have contributed to the fuel build up 
that led to the Hermit's Peak escaped prescribed fire, which went on to 
scorch over 341,000 acres, destroying homes, watersheds, wildlife 
habitat, and compromising the water supplies of numerous mountain 
communities.
    Once again, these delays do not produce conservation benefits: they 
merely force the land managers to sit down with FWS and discuss very 
old forest plans in light of ``new information'' like climate change. 
In the case of the injunction in New Mexico, every National Forest that 
has Mexican Spotted Owls was in the process of revising their forest 
plans when they were enjoined. Instead of instituting the fuels 
reduction project and pressing forward with the overdue plan revisions, 
Forest staff were forced to spend their limited time and resources 
discussing a plan that at the time was over 32 years old. Less than 36 
months after the injunction, the Forest formally adopted a new Forest 
Plan, demonstrating that the forced consultation was purely dilatory 
and not intended to change overall management direction on the Forest.
    In 2018, the Omnibus Spending bill for Fiscal Year 2019 provided 
that consultation was not required following the designation of new 
critical habitat. That legislation, which expires this month, only 
covered one of the ``prongs'' of the Cottonwood case: leaving the 
Forest Service exposed to charges of ``new information'' and other ESA 
technicalities. Environmental groups have continued to file suits 
against specific projects to force plan level consultation.
    The Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife Service have limited 
resources and staffing. Congress should make it clear that Forest Plans 
are not ``ongoing actions'' that require consultation following plan 
adoption. We urge you to pass H.R. 200 and work to see that it is 
enacted as quickly as possible.

    H.R. 1567: The ACRES Act: This legislation would require accurate 
reporting by Federal land managers regarding hazardous fuels treatments 
on Federal lands. It requires a yearly hazardous fuel reduction report 
based on the actual number of acres that the respective agencies 
treated over the past year.
    The ACRES Act requires Federal land management agencies at the 
Departments of Agriculture and Interior to provide Congress and the 
public with annual reports that detail the actual, accurate acreage 
where hazardous fuel reduction activities took place and the region or 
system unit in which the acres were located; distinguish between 
treatments that occurred within the wildland-urban interface; show the 
effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction work in reducing 
wildfire risk; convey what methods were used to reduce hazardous fuels 
and the cost per acre to do so; implement standardized procedures for 
tracking data for hazardous fuels reduction.
    This bill will give the American people a more accurate accounting 
of how much progress Federal land managers are making in addressing our 
wildfire crisis. Congress has given them unprecedented authorities and 
resources--and the public is entitled to know what these agencies are 
up to. If federal land managers actively use all of the expedited 
authorities Congress has given them, the number of treated acres should 
rise rapidly. We urge you to advance this bill as quickly as possible.

    H.R. 1586: The Forest Protection and Firefighter Safety Act: An 
obscure environmental group (Forest Service Employees for Environment 
Ethics or FSEEE) is not just suing the Forest Service over their use of 
aerially-applied fire retardant; they are actually asking a single 
Federal judge in Montana to issue a nation-wide injunction barring it's 
use until the Forest Service obtains a Clean Water Act permit, a 
process that could take years.
    FFRC recently joined a diverse coalition of groups seeking to 
intervene in this case. In addition to communities recently devastated 
by wildfires, the Intervenors also include trade associations of forest 
products companies that own lands adjacent to national forests, as well 
as companies holding timber contracts on National Forests. Significant 
human and economic losses experienced in recent fire seasons will 
compound exponentially if the Court bars the Forest Service from using 
retardant when necessary to protect human life, homes, private lands, 
and the environment. In our view, the Forest Service has taken the ill-
advised step of agreeing to seek a Clean Water Act permit for 
``discharges'' of fire retardant.
    While we are experiencing an unusually cold and damp winter in many 
areas, there are tens of millions of acres of National Forest in an 
unhealthy state. These overgrown, overstocked, and drought-weakened 
forests are tinderboxes, simply waiting for an ignition source. As the 
fire seasons of 2020 and 2021 demonstrated, fire managers must have 
access to every single tool available to contain fires once they start, 
and to protect communities from fires that escape initial attack.
    If the environmental groups succeed in winning an injunction 
against the use of fire retardant, it would remove a key tool used to 
safely fight wildfires and put wildland firefighters, communities, and 
natural resources at risk at a time where wildfire is increasing in 
scale and scope across the United States. It beggars the imagination 
that the Courts are even contemplating the request for an injunction. 
While we're hopeful this request will be rejected, Congress should not 
wait for the legal process to play itself out. Firefighters and land 
managers must be allowed to do their jobs of protecting life, property, 
and natural resources, and to be effective they must have access to 
every legal tool available. We urge you to advance this bill as quickly 
as possible.

                                 ______
                                 

               COMMERCIAL LUMBER AND PALLET COMPANY, INC.

                          Industry, California

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce Commercial Lumber and Pallet Companies 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.
    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                         Kathleen Dietrich,
                                                 Operations Manager

                                 ______
                                 

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I gladly support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. I appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.

    It is imperative that our agencies maintain their ability to fight 
wildfires effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.

    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    I support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                           Danielle Lindler
                                   Registered Professional Forester

                                 ______
                                 

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I am pleased to join in support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection 
and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. I appreciate your 
leadership on this critical issue and that the legislation has strong 
bi-partisan support.

    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.

    In view of the inferior stewardship of USFS lands, it is imperative 
that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires effectively. Limiting 
firefighting agencies' ability to slow fires, will harm forest 
conservation, endangered species protection, historic sites 
preservation, and our mission to protect nearby residents.

    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts to enact H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                              Arne Hultgren

                                 ______
                                 

                      ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY

                           Irvine, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I am pleased to let you know that the Orange County Fire Authority 
(OCFA) supports your bill H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. I appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and am grateful that the legislation has received strong 
bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire-
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
The use of retardant when deemed necessary by highly trained and 
experienced Incident Commanders is critical for the survival and safety 
of not only our firefighters, but also the very communities and 
residents they are sworn to protect. I have seen time and again that 
using retardant slows the spread of fire, protects homes, saves 
infrastructure, and keeps communities safe by creating a boundary line 
of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting our ability to do so will harm forest 
conservation, threaten endangered species, imperil historic site 
preservation, and impede our ability to protect residents. In short, we 
need this tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.
    I support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                            Brian Fennessy,
                                                         Fire Chief

                                 ______
                                 

                CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION

                         Sacramento, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    The California Special Districts Association (CSDA), representing 
more than 1,300 special districts and affiliate organizations is 
pleased to support your H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support. 
CSDA represents all types of districts, including fire protection 
districts defending our forests, lives, property, and economic 
prosperity.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that firefighters need to have 
at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents. Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, 
or hand applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps 
our communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from 
damaging catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we 
need this tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                              Kyle Packham,
                               Advocacy and Public Affairs Director

                                 ______
                                 

                   SIERRA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                        Downieville, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce Sierra County Board of Supervisor's 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents. Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, 
or hand applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps 
our communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from 
damaging catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we 
need this tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                             Sharon Dryden,
                                                              Chair

                                 ______
                                 

                   NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF FOREST OWNERS

                        Statement for the Record
                               H.R. 1586

    Washington, DC--The National Alliance of Forest Owners responded in 
a statement to the introduction of H.R. 1586, to allow the Secretary of 
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to use a fire retardant, 
chemical, or water for fire suppression, control, or prevention 
activities.

    ``We applaud the introduction of H.R. 1586, a bipartisan bill that 
will support our nation's wildland firefighters by ensuring they have 
the tools they need to protect our people, rural communities, and 
forested ecosystems from severe wildfire. The wildfire crisis is at an 
inflection point. Now is the time to improve and strengthen our 
wildfire suppression resources, not reduce or weaken them. Healthy 
forests support healthy communities, clean air and water, wildlife 
habitat, and good-paying jobs. Severe wildfires are increasingly 
putting these benefits at risk. The health and resilience of our 
nation's forests and the rural communities they support depend on 
immediate and comprehensive fire suppression during fire season. 
Maintaining that capability should be a top priority for everyone. We 
look forward to working with Chairman LaMalfa and the rest of the 
Committee to support our nation's firefighters as they protect the 
health and safety of our rural communities and the sustainability of 
our forests.

                                 ______
                                 

                             CITY OF CHICO

                          OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

                           Chico, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I am pleased to announce my support for H.R. 1586, Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. I appreciate 
your leadership on this critical issue and that the legislation has 
strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. I have 
seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, protects 
homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary line of 
attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so will harm 
forest conservation, endangered species protection, historic sites 
preservation, and our mission to protect nearby residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    I support your efforts on H.R. 1586!

            Sincerely,

                                           Andrew Coolidge,
                                               Mayor, City of Chico

                                 ______
                                 

                    CALIFORNIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

                              (Calforests)

                         Sacramento, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Congressman (CA-01)
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Calforests Support for H.R. 1586

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    On behalf of California Forestry Association (Calforests) I am 
writing to express strong support of H.R. 1586, which would allow the 
continued use of fire retardant by the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary Agriculture during fire protection activities.
    Calforests is the preeminent trade association and advocate for the 
state's forest industry. Collectively, our members--private forestland 
owners--manage nearly 3.5 million acres of forest land throughout the 
state and operate nearly the entirety of the state's forest products 
infrastructure, including sawmills, veneer mills, and biomass power 
plants. As the steward of a significant portion of the state's forest 
lands, Calforests members have a vested interest in ensuring that the 
fire protection system remains intact and as effective as possible.
    H.R. 1586 is a bipartisan effort to ensure that our wildland 
firefighters maintain all tactical advantages necessary during wildfire 
suppression activities to assure that protection of rural communities, 
rural economies and natural resources are protected. Even more so, H.R. 
1586 will protect those that dedicate their lives to serving the people 
of the United States as wildland firefighters. The associated risk of 
any retraction of available tools to support wildfire suppression 
efforts during this time of crisis in California and beyond is simply 
untenable.
    Again, Calforests expresses strong support and looks forward to 
continued work with you on this critical issue.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Matt Dias,
                                                  President and CEO

                                 ______
                                 

                            COUNTY OF TEHAMA

                          Board of Supervisors

                         Red Bluff, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce the Tehama County Board of Supervisors 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We, the Tehama County Board of Supervisors, support your efforts on 
H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                                Bill Moule,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                            CITY OF REDDING

                          Redding, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce the City of Redding's support for H.R. 
1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We 
appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bipartisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire-
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and the 
safety of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. 
We have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protect homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to slow fires will 
harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, historic site 
preservation, and our mission to protect nearby residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed by damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                      Michael P. Dacquisto,
                                                              Mayor

                                 ______
                                 

                       JEFFERSON RESOURCE COMPANY

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce Jefferson Resource Company's support for 
H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                               Tina Stewart

                                 ______
                                 

                               Tim Seeley

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I am pleased to hear about your diligent navigation of H.R. 1586. 
As a registered Democrat, I crossed the aisle and voted for you in the 
last election, because I believe you are an exceptional steward of our 
environment as a multi-generational, successful Rice Farmer in Butte 
County. I trust your judgment to keep our precious natural resources 
safe. That is why I'm writing . . . to support H.R. 1586.
    During this era of binary, all, or nothing legislation, I am 
hopeful all of us can recognize the need to battle wildfires more 
effectively. As a CAMP Fire victim of 2018, I know all too well how a 
small, localized fire can explode into an uncontrollable fire storm 
destroying everything in it's path.
    This is the wrong time to limit the use of Fire Retardants as a 
tool in combating these wildfires. While it is imperative, we correct 
our forest management failures, we cannot remove tools (retardants) 
from our firefighting toolbox at this time. If one compares incidental 
use of air dropped retardants to minimize a wildfire vs the calamity of 
thousands of buildings, vehicles, and toxic materials going up in 
smoke, there is no comparison with the potential environmental 
destruction.
    It is also encouraging to see private enterprise stepping up to 
mitigate past issues with the type of retardants used. Perhaps the 
``environmentalists'' trying to sue can instead assist in removing the 
overabundance of fuels in our forests instead of closing the door on 
forest management.
    Locking the door on our forests does not make wildfire risk go 
away.

            Best Regards,

                                                 Tim Seeley

                                 ______
                                 

                     BUTTE COUNTY FIRE SAFE COUNCIL

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce Butte County Fire Safe Council's support 
for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                             Darrel Wilson,
                                                     Board Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

             WESTERN SHASTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

                          Anderson, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce the Western Shasta Resource Conservation 
District's support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that wildland firefighters 
need to have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption 
so that federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can 
continue to use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool 
available. The catastrophic wildfires that our District has experienced 
over the past several years have severely impacted our forests and 
removing this critical fire suppression tool will put the remaining 
forests in extreme risk.
    Beyond the risk to our forests and watersheds, fire prone 
communities throughout the District are at risk every year from the 
threat of wildfire. It is critical for the survival of these 
communities and for the safety of fire crew members to utilize 
retardant when deemed necessary. We have seen time and again, using 
retardant slows the spread of fire, protects homes, infrastructure, and 
communities by creating a boundary line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to slow fires will 
harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, historic sites 
preservation, and our mission to protect nearby residents. Whether 
dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand applied by 
private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our communities safe 
and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging catastrophic 
wildfires. In the wildland--urban interface, we need this tool to 
protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                           Maureen Teubert,
                                                   District Manager

                                 ______
                                 

                   AMERICAN MOTORCYCLISTS ASSOCIATION

                              District 36

                         Cottonwood, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    On behalf of our 4,000 members who live, work, and recreate on 
public and private lands in Northern California, the American 
Motorcyclists Association District 36 is honored to announce our 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    As a core-team member for a forest health collaborative in the 
north state, I have seen lives and homes protected from being destroyed 
by wildfires because state and federal fire agencies were able to use 
retardant in a timely manner. Often those retardant air drops are 
danger-close and those homes are saved by heroic firefighters on the 
ground and pilots flying tankers.

    On a personal note, my home west of Cottonwood and other homes in 
my neighborhood were saved when CALFIRE air tankers made precision 
drops of retardant just a hundred yards from my home in the fall of 
2021.

    Thanks for your efforts on H.R. 1586 they are greatly appreciated.

            Best regards,

                                                Don Amador,
                                                           Director

                                 ______
                                 

                     FOREST LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION

                          Carrollton, Georgia

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    As the sole national representative for our country's family forest 
landowners, we are thrilled to announce our support for H.R. 1586, the 
Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.

    The largest threat to the domestic timber supply is the increasing 
number of natural disasters including hurricanes, wildfires, tornados 
and damaging thunderstorms. This bipartisan legislation would protect 
firefighters' ability to protect landowners by using a critical tool in 
their arsenal to combat wildfires. It is imperative that we enhance 
rather than hinder the resources to keep our private working forests 
operating so they can provide the clean air, pure water, and quality 
jobs that our nation depends on.

    Thank you for your commitment to our nation's forest landowners. We 
look forward to working with you on more commonsense pieces of 
legislation this Congress.

            Sincerely,

                                               Scott Jones,
                                                              CEO  

                                 ______
                                 

                          OVERWATCH AERO, LLC

                          Solvang, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce Overwatch Aero's support for H.R. 1586, 
Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. As a 
provider of Type 1 unmanned aerial system (UAS) services in support of 
wildfires, Overwatch Aero has witnessed first-hand the destruction of 
these large wildfires--and we are in support of providing the best 
tools possible to the firefighting crews working to stop these 
conflagrations. We appreciate your leadership on this critical issue 
and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Kind Regards,

                                               Jordan Hahn,
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                 ______
                                 

               NATIONAL WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION ASSOCIATION

                           Mill City, Oregon

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Jimmy Panetta, U.S. Representative
304 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representatives LaMalfa and Panetta:

    We are writing this letter of support to you regarding the Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.
    Our organization represents three hundred and twenty-six (326) 
member companies who supply ``boots on the ground'' resources to the 
agencies to assist with wildfire suppression efforts nationwide. That 
is a workforce of over sixteen thousand (16,000) available to help in 
this effort.
    Firefighter Safety is of utmost importance to our industry, and the 
ability for the agencies to be able to utilize retardant as another 
tool we believe that they should have access too.
    We would urge members of congress to support this legislation 
effective immediately as with wildfire season approaching, we need all 
the tools available to us. By doing so you will demonstrate your 
commitment to protecting lives, property, and our natural resources.
    If you would like any additional information on this important 
legislation, please let us know.

            Sincerely,

                                             Deborah Miley,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                      LAKE MADRONE WATER DISTRICT

                          Oroville, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce LMWD's support for H.R. 1586, Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate 
your leadership on this critical issue and that the legislation has 
strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                             Dr. Jess C. Vickery, Professor
                        Academic Senate President, Butte College;  
                President and Chairman, Lake Madrone Water District

                                 ______
                                 

                             CITY OF BIGGS

                           Biggs, California

                                             March 15, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    I write to express support for H.R. 1586--the Forest Protection and 
Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.
    Wildfires impact the City of Biggs in many ways. We have witnessed 
several fires originating on Federal Lands that have displaced people 
and destroyed property in the last 5 years. The Forest Service needs to 
do more to stop catastrophic wildfires in California.
    I wish to express support for H.R. 1586 to exempt firefighting from 
potential Clean Water Act regulations for federal, state, local, and 
tribal firefighting agencies.
    Fire retardant is an essential tool used to contain or slow the 
spread of wildfires. Currently the Forest Service and other agencies 
are operating under the assumption that a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for the use of fire 
retardant because the regulations specifically state that fire control 
is a ``non-point source silvicultural activity'' and communications 
from EPA dating back to 1993 indicate a permit is not required.

            Sincerely,

                                                  Josh Cook

                                 ______
                                 

                            CITY OF ANDERSON

                          Anderson, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce the City of Anderson's support for H.R. 
1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We 
appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

            Sincerely,

                                            Mike Gallagher,
                                                              Mayor

                                 ______
                                 

                             LASSEN COUNTY

                          Board of Supervisors

                         Susanville, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    On behalf of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors, I write in 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.

    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.

    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents. Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, 
or hand applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps 
our communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from 
damaging catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we 
need this tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                              Gary Bridges,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                    SHASTA COUNTY FIRE SAFE COUNCIL

                         Palo Cedro, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce Shasta County Fire Safe Council's 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents. Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, 
or hand applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps 
our communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from 
damaging catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we 
need this tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                              Pamela Bates,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                 UNITED AERIAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

                        Statement for the Record
                       on Fire Retardant Lawsuit

                           March 14, 2023    

    The following statement from United Aerial Firefighters Association 
(UAFA) President John Gould reflects the opinion of its board of 
directors with respect to the ongoing retardant lawsuit between Forest 
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) vs. United States 
Forest Service, as well as a call for Congressional action:

    ``UAFA notes with increasing concern the potential for a federal 
court to impose a restraining order against the use of aerially applied 
fire retardant as early as this coming fire season. Fire retardant is a 
proven, essential tool in assisting wildland firefighters in their 
fight to contain, control and defeat wildfire. As this lawsuit 
continues, with the potential to run into its second year, UAFA 
strongly supports Congressman LaMalafa's legislation, the Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023, which allows 
the federal, states, and tribal governments to continue the use of 
aerially applied fire retardants.''

                                 ______
                                 

                          THE ANALYTICAL MOOSE

                                             March 18, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce The Analytical Moose's support for H.R. 
1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We 
appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Thank you,

                                              Rachael Brady

                                 ______
                                 

                NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

                             Washington, DC

                                             March 22, 2023        

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chair
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:

    The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) writes to you 
today in support of the bipartisan effort led by Representatives 
LaMalfa (R-CA) and Panetta (D-CA) to introduce H.R. 1586, the Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.
    NASF represents the directors of the forestry agencies in all 50 
states, five U.S. territories, three nations in compacts of free 
association with the U.S., and the District of Columbia. State 
foresters deliver technical and financial assistance to private 
landowners, along with protection of forest health and water resources 
for more than two-thirds of the nation's forests, as well as promote 
the stewardship of urban and community forests of all sizes across the 
country. We also partner with federal land management agencies through 
cooperative agreements and Good Neighbor Authority to manage national 
forests and to deliver programs outlined in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act such as the recently 
announced Community Wildfire Defense Grants. While the duties of state 
agencies vary from state to state, all share common forest management 
and protection missions and most have statutory responsibilities to 
provide wildland fire protection on all lands, public and private.
    In 2022, roughly 70,000 wildland fires burned more than 7.5 million 
acres.\1\ State and local agencies respond to the majority of wildfires 
across the country; in 2022 state and local agencies were responsible 
for responding to 57,492 (83%) of the 69,988 reported wildfires across 
all jurisdictions.\2\ State forestry agencies contribute a significant 
portion of the overall wildland fire suppression effort nationally in 
terms of resources, personnel, capacity, and funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire 
Summaries, Last accessed March 14, 2023 at https://www.nifc.gov/fire-
information/statistics/wildfires
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Attacking wildfires when they are small is the key to reducing 
fatalities, injuries, loss of homes, and cutting federal, state and 
local fire-fighting costs. This national principle is extremely 
important to state foresters that are responsible for protecting over 
60% of the nations' forests. Often the use of fire retardants and/or 
foam is the only practical way to reduce wildfire intensities and rate 
of spread until units on the ground can safely take suppression action. 
Continuing the use of fire retardants and/or foam is essential for 
firefighter and public safety. In some instances, it is the only tool 
that will allow firefighters to accomplish the job safely.
    Eliminating this tool from the toolbox will severely reduce the 
efficacy of interagency suppression capabilities and will accelerate 
risk to the public. Adequate protection of communities, life and 
property, and critical infrastructure such as major communication and 
power line facilities through continued aerial application of fire 
retardant is a critical need that should continue to be recognized.
    State and federal agencies rely on aviation contracts for air 
tankers and helicopters that aerially deliver fire retardants and/or 
foam. If state and federal agencies are not able to utilize aerially 
delivered fire retardants and/or foam, interagency wildfire suppression 
efforts will be severely impacted by the loss of this valuable fire 
suppression tool which could significantly increase the threat and risk 
to life and property.
    State foresters believe continuing the use of fire retardants and/
or foam, in aerial fire suppression activities, is essential for 
firefighter and public safety.

            Sincerely,

                                                  Kacey KC,
                                                   NASF President  
                                              Nevada State Forester

                                 ______
                                 

                    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

                             Washington, DC

                                             March 22, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Jimmy Panetta, U.S. Representative
304 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representatives LaMalfa and Panetta:

    On behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo), the only 
organization representing the nation's 3,069 counties, parishes, and 
boroughs, I write to express support for H.R. 1586, the Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act. Thank you for your 
leadership in introducing legislation to protect forests and 
communities from catastrophic wildfire by creating a Clean Water Act 
(CWA) exemption for federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting 
agencies to use fire retardant to fight wildfires.
    Fire retardant is essential to contain and combat wildfires. Land 
management agencies have operated since 1993 under the assumption that 
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not 
required for the use of fire retardant because regulations specifically 
state that fire control is a ``non-point source silvicultural 
activity.''
    Unfortunately, a recent lawsuit against the Forest Service attempts 
to require a NPDES permit under the CWA to use fire retardant. The 
plaintiffs also request an injunction on the use of fire retardant 
until the Forest Service receives this permit, which could take years. 
If the injunction is granted and fire retardant is not available for 
use in 2023, the risk to the environment, economies and livelihoods of 
forested communities will be immense, as wildfires have been increasing 
in size, duration and destruction to communities, reaching crisis-level 
conditions. This would further jeopardize water supplies by requiring 
agencies to use limited, existing water sources to combat fires without 
the benefit of retardant drops, while also increasing the risk of fire 
spreading to the very watersheds supplying national forest counties.
    H.R. 1586 would prevent this catastrophic outcome by ensuring 
firefighting agencies are not subject to this unnecessary level of 
regulation, especially in emergency situations. Agency directives 
prohibit the direct delivery of fire retardant into waterbodies or 
surrounding buffer zones except to protect life and safety. Between 
2012 and 2019, out of 56,868 total retardant drops, only 376 (less than 
one percent) were directly into the water, due to either misapplication 
or to protect life and safety. This lawsuit is a solution in search of 
a problem. H.R. 1586 would stop this lawsuit from jeopardizing our 
environment and communities.
    NACo stands ready to work with you to reduce the risk of 
catastrophic wildfire and protect communities. Counties encourage swift 
passage of the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefight Safety Act.

            Sincerely,

                                          Matthew D. Chase,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                     YANKEE HILL FIRE SAFE COUNCIL

                        Yankee Hill, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    The Yankee Hill Fire Safe Council is writing to you in support of 
your bipartisan bill, H.R. 1586--the Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. We are a small nonprofit serving the 
community of Concow/Yankee Hill located in the Sierra Nevada foothills 
of Butte County, an area that has extensive history in experiencing 
wildland fires. Our community is surrounded and peppered by public 
lands and we understand how frequently they are litigated by 
environmental groups, when they are working to provide a necessary 
service for community protection. It is our mission to educate the 
community and increase awareness to fire risks; reduce wildfire fuel 
loading, conserve natural resources, participate in fire recovery 
efforts and prepare for other disasters.
    The Yankee Hill Fire Safe Council believes it is imperative for the 
Forest Service and other agencies to continue to operate under the 
assumption National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit is not required for the use of fire retardant for fire control 
purposes. It is our understanding that fire control is a ``non-point 
source silvicultural activity'' and communications dating back to 1993 
from EPA indicated a permit is not required. Therefore, we are in 
support of bill H.R. 1586 to allow the use of fire retardant under an 
emergency response to a threatening wildfire putting our firefighters, 
public, infrastructure at risk.

    We must be able to fight wildfires with all the resources available 
to lessen the impact of forested land and our communities.

            Thank you kindly,

                                          Brenda Rightmyer,
                                                  Managing Director

                                 ______
                                 

                 SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN FIRE DISTRICT

                           Mather, California

                                             March 22, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, Congressman
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: SUPPORT--H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    I write today in support of H.R. 1586 Forest Protection and 
Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. This important piece of 
legislation will help ensure that vital tools and tactics remain 
available for fire suppression across the State of California, and 
indeed our entire nation.

    At a time when nine out of the top ten largest California wildfires 
have occurred within the past decade,\1\ it is critical for the 
protection of life, the defense of property, and the safety of our 
first responders and the public alike that fire retardant remain 
available for use when facing these catastrophic flames. Without the 
availability of retardant, fire behavior can be drastically increased 
and many more acres become threatened or lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CAL FIRE: Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (10/24/2022)

    H.R. 1586--and the companion Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023 in the U.S. Senate--serves an essential 
role by clarifying that fire retardant remains a readily accessible and 
viable option for Federal, State, Local, and Tribal entities when used 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in connection for fire suppression, control, or prevention.

    For these reasons, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District supports 
H.R. 1586, and urges you and your colleagues to support this important 
piece of legislation.

            Thank you for your consideration,

                                               Dan Haverty,
                                                 Interim Fire Chief

                                 ______
                                 

                         CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

                         Sacramento, California

                                             March 22, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    The California Farm Bureau appreciates the opportunity to provide 
comments in support of H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and Wildland 
Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.

    California Farm Bureau is California's largest farm organization, 
representing approximately 28,000 agricultural, associate, and 
collegiate members in 56 counties. Farm Bureau strives to protect and 
improve the ability of farmers, ranchers, and foresters engaged in 
production agriculture to provide a reliable, safe, and affordable 
supply of food and fiber through responsible stewardship of our natural 
resources.

    Given the recent history of catastrophic wildfire across the 
western United States, California Farm Bureau strongly supports the 
retention of essential wildfire prevention, mitigation, and suppression 
tools. The Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
2023 provides a critical Clean Water Act exemption that would ensure 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting entities may continue 
the use of fire retardant during wildfire incidents.

    An essential suppression tool, fire retardant both slows the spread 
of wildfire and creates a boundary line of attack for fire crews. This 
helps provide protection for rural communities especially those in the 
wildland urban interface. Additionally, the use of retardant improves 
firefighter safety and helps safeguard the many important social and 
ecological values of our forests including timber resources, wildlife, 
historic sites, and watersheds.

    Currently, the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies are operating 
under the assumption that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System permit is not required for the use of fire retardant because 
regulations specifically state that fire control is a non-point source 
silvicultural activity. Historical communications between the Forest 
Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also indicate a 
permit is not required. The continued use of retardant in effective 
fire suppression is of great importance to California Farm Bureau 
members. Given the length of time it would take for the Forest Service 
to obtain such a permit, California Farm Bureau is currently 
participating in litigation to allow for the ongoing use of fire 
retardant.

    The provisions of the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023 are urgently important for the 2023 fire year. 
California Farm Bureau greatly appreciates your bipartisan approach and 
leadership on this critical issue.

            Sincerely,

                                           Jamie Johansson,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

                    CALIFORNIA WOMEN FOR AGRICULTURE

                         Sacramento, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    California Women for Agriculture supports passage the bipartisan 
bill, H.R. 1586--the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety 
Act of 2023.
    H.R. 1586 creates a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, 
local, and tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardants to fight 
wildfires. Fire retardant is essential to contain or slow the spread of 
wildfires. However, currently, the Forest Service and other agencies 
are operating under the assumption that a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for the use of fire 
retardant because the regulations specifically state that fire control 
is a ``non-point source silvicultural activity'' and communications 
from EPA dating back to 1993 indicated a permit is not required.
    Wildland fires have been devastating to California destroying 
forests, towns, and croplands. People have died in our state because of 
these fires. If not for the aerial use of fire retardants, these fires 
would have been even more deadly and destructive. This bill is needed 
because an environmentalist group is suing the Forest Service under the 
Clean Water Act to require an NPDES permit to use fire retardant. They 
have requested an injunction on using fire retardant until the Forest 
Service receives this permit, which could take years. If the injunction 
is granted and fire retardant is unavailable in the 2023 fire year, 
firefighters and individuals living in forested communities would be in 
greater danger, with millions of acres of forested land and billions of 
dollars of infrastructure would be at risk.
    We must be able to fight wildfires with everything we have. 
Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so flies in the face of 
forest conservation and our mission to protect residents.

                                            Sharron Zoller,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

                          AMERICAN AGRI-WOMEN

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    American Agri-Women supports the bipartisan bill, H.R. 1586--the 
Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.
    H.R. 1586 creates a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, 
local, and tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardants to fight 
wildfires. As you know, fire retardant is essential to contain or slow 
the spread of wildfires. However, currently, the Forest Service and 
other agencies are operating under the assumption that a National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required 
for the use of fire retardant because the regulations specifically 
state that fire control is a ``non-point source silvicultural 
activity'' and communications from EPA dating back to 1993 indicated a 
permit is not required.
    Wildland fires have devastated our Western States. They have 
destroyed forests, towns, croplands, wildlife, and most tragically, 
human lives. If not for the aerial use of fire retardants, these fires 
would have been even more deadly and destructive. This bill is needed 
because an environmentalist group is suing the Forest Service under the 
Clean Water Act to require an NPDES permit to use fire retardant. They 
have requested an injunction on using fire retardant until the Forest 
Service receives this permit, which could take years. If the injunction 
is granted and fire retardant is unavailable in the 2023 fire year, 
firefighters and individuals living in forested communities would be in 
greater danger. Millions of acres of forested land and billions of 
dollars of infrastructure would be at risk.
    We must be able to fight wildfires with everything we have. 
Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so contradicts forest 
conservation.

            Respectfully,

                                    Heather Hampton-Knodle,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

                           YUBA WATER AGENCY

                         Marysville, California

                                             March 22, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: SUPPORT--H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    On behalf of Yuba Water Agency (Yuba Water), I am writing to 
communicate our support for H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and 
Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. Yuba Water was established by 
the State of California in 1959 to develop and promote the beneficial 
use and regulation of the water resources of Yuba County. Our agency is 
rooted in California's headwaters, and the health of our watershed, the 
safety of the communities we serve, and the protection of our critical 
water management infrastructure are all directly linked to the forests 
that make up a significant portion of the Yuba River watershed.
    HR 1586 will provide a Clean Water Act exemption for fire 
retardants so that federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting 
agencies will continue to have this important tool available for their 
use. Our fire prone communities are at risk every year from the threat 
of wildfire. It is critical for our communities, watershed, and the 
safety of fire crew members that retardants are available for use when 
deemed necessary. The appropriate use of retardant can mitigate the 
risk of catastrophic wildfires and protect homes, infrastructure, and 
communities by creating a boundary line of attack for fire crews. 
Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that can help keep 
our communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed by 
catastrophic wildfires.
    We appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
fact that H.R. 1586 has strong bipartisan support.

            Sincerely,

                                         Willie Whittlesey,
                                                    General Manager

                                 ______
                                 

                INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS

                                  and

                  NATIONAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS COALITION

                                             March 22, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    On behalf of the approximately 11,000 members of the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and National Special Districts 
Coalition (NSDC) consisting of over 1,000 members providing fire 
protection services, we express our support for the Forest Protection 
and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act (H.R. 1586). The IAFC and NSDC 
support this legislation, because it will protect an important tool for 
fighting wildland fires and protecting communities from their 
destructive force.

    The nation continues to face a costly threat from wildland fires. 
In 2021, there were approximately 59,000 fires burning more than 7.1 
million acres, which resulted in approximately $4.4 billion in only 
federal wildland fire expenses. Besides the cost to federal, state, 
tribal, and local agencies, these fires destroy homes, devastate 
capacity for critical services, and threaten Americans' livelihoods.

    Fire retardants are important tools for fighting wildland fires. 
They can slow the spread of flames and reduce their intensity. By using 
fire retardants, federal, state, tribal, and local agencies can buy 
time to evacuate communities, protect structures, and send resources to 
fight a growing wildland fire. In order to protect the environment, the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) uses retardant avoidance areas to prevent 
pollution in waterways. When these avoidance areas were created, they 
resulted in approximately 30 percent of USFS lands becoming off-limits 
for fire retardant use.

    H.R. 1586 would protect the use of this critical tool. The bill 
would authorize the U.S. Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to 
``discharge a fire retardant, chemical, or water for fire suppression, 
control, or prevention activities.'' It also would waive the need of a 
permit for similar activities by the USFS, National Park Service, 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency; states, fire 
districts, and localities; and tribal governments.

    The IAFC and NSDC urge the House of Representatives to consider and 
pass H.R. 1586. The deployment of flame retardants is a critical tool 
in fighting wildland fires. Even though the nation currently pays a 
huge price in funding, lives, and property due to the growing wildland 
fire crises, the loss of the use of flame retardants would foster even 
larger fires and cause more devastation for the American people.

            Sincerely,

        Fire Chief Donna M. Black     Neil McCormick
        President and Board Chair     Chairman
        International Assoc. of 
        Fire Chiefs                   National Special Districts 
                                      Coalition


                                 ______
                                 

                     BERRY CREEK FIRE SAFE COUNCIL

                        Berry Creek, California

                                             March 22, 2023        

    Dear Madam or Sir:

    I, Denise Bethune, am writing this letter in support for 
Congressman Doug LaMalfa and H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and 
Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. I am a community leader in 
Berry Creek, a rural foothill area in Northern California. I have great 
concern for the safety of the area. This bill is important for 
firefighters to have the tools to fight these devastating wildfires.
    Berry Creek has experienced the devastation of the Northwest 
Complex Wildfire in 2020. The impact has left our community devastated 
in its path. Any future communities that are threatened by a wildfire 
need to have all resources available to firefighters. This is a 
necessity! The safety of life, wildlife, forest, and property must be 
the priority. I have personally experienced the loss and destruction of 
the Northwest Complex Fire. My home was destroyed. The toxins that are 
released from burnt dwellings are more of a threat to the watersheds. 
Limiting any resources that help fight wildfires will hinder those 
efforts. This could potentially be catastrophic.
    Please consider the importance of the bipartisan supported bill, 
H.R. 1586--the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
2023. Lives could be dependent on the resources firefighters have 
protecting these communities.

            Sincerely,

                                          Denise M Bethune,
                                                         Chairwoman
                                 ______
                                 

                          CITY OF SHASTA LAKE

                        Shasta Lake, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce the City of Shasta Lake's support for 
H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and that the 
legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    As a City located in a very high fire severity zone, it is 
imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires effectively. 
Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow fires will harm 
forest conservation, endangered species protection, historic sites 
preservation, and our mission to protect nearby residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.

            Very truly yours,

                                              Jessaca Lugo,
                                                       City Manager
                                 ______
                                 

                       PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY

                           Auburn, California

                                             March 15, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Congressman LaMalfa:

    The Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) writes in support of H.R. 
1586, the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023 
to create a Clean Water Act exemption for federal, state, local, and 
tribal firefighting agencies to use fire retardant to fight wildfires. 
This bi-partisan legislation will safeguard that aerial fire retardant 
remain a critical means in our firefighting toolbox for protecting our 
communities, forests, critical water and energy infrastructure.

    PCWA understands first-hand the ability for immediate application 
of aerial fire retardants, dropped from air tankers and helicopters, to 
halt the spread of life-threatening wildfires in a wildland-urban 
interface.

     In August 2021, the River Fire started at the Bear River 
            Campground west of Colfax, California, while the region was 
            under a Red Flag Warning due to weather and forest fuel 
            conditions that could result in extreme wildfire behavior. 
            Aggressive deployment of aerial attack assets (over 24 
            aircraft and helicopters) employing targeted retardant and 
            water drops was able to halt the spread of this destructive 
            wildfire and protect thousands of structures and lives.

     During September and October 2022, the Mosquito Fire 
            consumed over 76,000 acres in the American River watershed 
            and threatened to destroy the communities of Foresthill and 
            Georgetown and potentially spread into the Lake Tahoe 
            Basin. Utilizing of aviation assets for frequent water and 
            retardant drops protected at-risk communities and critical 
            water and energy facilities, including PCWA's Middle Fork 
            and Oxbow powerhouses.

    Again, PCWA strongly supports the passage of H.R. 1586 which 
recognizes the vital importance of retaining the ability to use fire 
retardant to fight wildfires.

            Sincerely,

                                     Anthony L. Firenzi, PE
                                      Director of Strategic Affairs

                                 ______
                                 

                            COUNTY OF PLACER

                          BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                           Auburn, California

                                             March 17, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    I am in full support of your proposed legislation H.R. 1586, Forest 
Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023. I and the 
Placer County residents I represent appreciate your leadership on this 
critical issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.
    I fully support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Very Truly Yours,

                                             Suzanne Jones,
                                              District 4 Supervisor

                                 ______
                                 

                   GLENN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                          Willows, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    We are pleased to announce the Glenn County Board of Supervisor's 
support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
Safety Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical 
issue and that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that our firefighters need to 
have at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain our ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.
    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Sincerely,

                                              Grant Carmon,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

             NORTH STATE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COLLECTIVE

                           Chico, California

                                             March 20, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    On behalf of the North State Planning and Development Collective, 
California State University, Chico, we are happy to provide this 
general letter of support related to forest protection and wildland 
firefighter safety issues.
    Northern California has been ravaged by wildfire over the last 
several years, and our fire-prone communities remain at risk year-
after-year. It is critical for the survival of our communities, 
forests, and safety of fire crew members to have the tools they need to 
slow the spread of fire as they protect homes, infrastructure, and 
communities. Tools such as retardant are critical to the firefighting 
effort as they help ensure residents' safety, help protect our 
workforce and infrastructure and ultimately preserve the economic 
vitality of our communities.
    We appreciate your ongoing efforts to support the needs of our 
firefighters as they protect our residents and communities. For any 
questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.

            Sincerely,

                                          Jason Schwenkler,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                   BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                          Oroville, California

                                             March 21, 2023        

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, U.S. Representative
408 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter 
        Safety Act of 2023

    Dear Representative LaMalfa:

    On behalf of the Butte County Board of Supervisors, I am pleased 
support H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety 
Act of 2023. We appreciate your leadership on this critical issue and 
that the legislation has strong bi-partisan support.
    The use of retardant is a vital tool that firefighters need to have 
at their disposal. Providing a Clean Water Act exemption so that 
federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies can continue to 
use fire retardant is necessary to keep this tool available. Our fire 
prone communities are at risk every year from the threat of wildfire. 
It is critical for the survival of our communities, forests, and safety 
of fire crew members to utilize retardant when deemed necessary. We 
have seen time and again, using retardant slows the spread of fire, 
protects homes, infrastructure, and communities by creating a boundary 
line of attack for fire crews.
    It is imperative that we maintain the ability to fight wildfires 
effectively. Limiting firefighting agencies' ability to do so slow 
fires will harm forest conservation, endangered species protection, 
historic sites preservation, and our mission to protect nearby 
residents.
    Whether dropped from a plane, sprayed from a tanker truck, or hand 
applied by private homeowners, retardant is a tool that keeps our 
communities safe and our watersheds from being destroyed from damaging 
catastrophic wildfires. In the wildland-urban interface, we need this 
tool to protect critical infrastructure and human life.
    We support your efforts on H.R. 1586.

            Respectfully,

                                            Tod Kimmelshue,
                                        Chair, Board of Supervisors

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. LaMalfa. I am looking forward to working with the 
Committee and other stakeholders on today's panel to protect 
the health and safety and be able to use this essential tool 
for fighting fire in the heat of fire season. I thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. LaMalfa follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California

H.R. 1586, the Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
                                  2023

    Good afternoon. Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, thank 
you for holding this important hearing and allowing me the opportunity 
to testify on behalf of my legislation, the Forest Protection and 
Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2023.
    Across the West, we continue to face a wildfire crisis. In the past 
five years alone, we've seen some of the most destructive wildfires on 
record, especially in California. In my district, we have seen 
catastrophic damage from the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, the deadliest 
fire in California's history. In 2021 we saw the million-acre Dixie 
Fire, the largest single source wildfire in California history.
    Since 2000, we have averaged more than 70,000 wildfires per year 
and an average of 7 million acres burned annually. This acreage is more 
than double the average number during the 1990s. Since 2018, we've had 
four fire seasons that have exceeded 7 million acres, including 2020 
when 10.1 million acres burned. In part to nearly a decade of forest 
mismanagement, our fires are getting bigger, hotter, and more 
aggressive than ever before.
    As a Member on the House Committee on Natural Resources, Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and as the Chairman of the 
Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, I know these issues firsthand. 
Like you, we are reviewing current forestry policies, evaluating how we 
can increase the pace and scale of proper forest management so that we 
can conserve forest health while removing overgrowth that increases 
risk of devastating wildfires. Overhauling our current regulatory 
framework will not happen overnight. Removing brittle, decaying trees 
and dry overgrowth on tens of millions of acres of forested land will 
take years. Until then; until our forests are in a healthy state and a 
small, naturally occurring blaze does not pose a risk of turning into 
another million-acre catastrophic blaze, it is essential that all 
wildland firefighting agencies continue to be able to utilize every 
tool they can to protect forested land and nearby residents from 
wildfires.
    Unfortunately, environmentalists have confused protecting forested 
lands with preventing intervention of any kind, even if it means life 
or death. In the case of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental 
Ethics v. the United States Forest Service--the impetus for my bill--
the plaintiff has asked for an injunction on the use of fire retardant 
until the Forest Service receives a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System permit, which will take years to obtain. If the 
injunction is granted and fire retardant is not available for use this 
fire season, the Forest Service, all States, Tribal agencies, and 
counties will have to sit by should another devastating fire come, and 
we who live in the West know that this in inevitable. This can't wait. 
The 2023 Fire Season is already here. In my state of California there 
has already been 264 wildfires and 64 acres burned.
    Already there are zones on forested lands where the use of fire 
retardant is restricted. According to the Forest Service, ``It is 
estimated that less than one-half of 1 percent of fire retardant drops 
may reach the 300-foot or larger buffer. Impacts due to the exceptions, 
or from misapplication of fire retardant into water, would be rare.''
    How the plaintiff can claim to want to protect the environment when 
they will actively allow another fire to harm residents and wildlife, 
destroy forested land and property, pollute rivers with debris, and 
choke vulnerable people up to hundreds of miles away is a mystery to 
me. To every single Member of Congress in this room, it is your 
constituents who will be put in danger if there is an injunction of 
fire retardant.
    Thank you to the United Aerial Firefighters Association, Federal 
Forest Resource Coalition, Forest Landowners Association, California 
Farm Bureau, and 42 other organizations who submitted letters of 
support for this common sense, bipartisan, essential legislation.
    Chairman Tiffany, I would like to ask for Unanimous Consent to 
enter these letters into the record.
    I am looking forward to working with the Committee and other 
stakeholders on today's panel to protect the health and safety of rural 
residents and wildlife on our Federal lands.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Congressman LaMalfa. I now 
recognize Representative Rosendale for 5 minutes on the Forest 
Information Reform Act.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MATT ROSENDALE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate 
you holding this hearing today. This hearing is particularly 
pertinent as the temporary fix provided in the Fiscal Year 2018 
Consolidated Appropriation Act expires today.
    My legislation, the Forest Information Reform Act, amends 
the Cottonwood requirements for re-consultation in Forest 
Service plans when new information is found. This legislation 
allows the Forest Service to incorporate new information into 
its current plan, rather than starting consultations with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from scratch.
    Specifically, my legislation amends the Forest and 
Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act and the Federal Land 
Policy Management Act to clarify that the Secretary shall not 
be required to re-initiate consultation under section 7 of the 
ESA on a land plan approved, amended, or revised when a species 
is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new information 
concerning a listed species or critical habitat becomes 
available.
    Legislation is needed to fix the disastrous Cottonwood 
decision. The decision, which went against a previous court 
decision from the 10th Circuit, has been weaponized by radical 
environmental groups to use the Endangered Species Act to 
prevent proper forest management. The decision makes it so that 
if any new species are listed under the ESA, a new critical 
habitat is designated, or more information becomes known about 
a species previously listed, the U.S. Forest Service must 
restart an already onerous consultation process with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service about how the information will impact 
both the forest plan and specific restoration projects.
    Moreover, the decision results in the Forest Service having 
to follow different procedures based on what part of the 
country they are completing restoration projects in, which adds 
confusion and difficulties for employees.
    It shouldn't be more difficult for the Forest Service to 
operate in Montana than in Wyoming. The people of Montana 
shouldn't face a higher burden to receive necessary forest 
restoration projects. This decision has created new 
administrative and legal hurdles that make it more difficult 
for the Forest Service to manage forests and reduce wildfires 
on Federal lands.
    Forest Service officials have previously testified that the 
decision negatively impacts their resources and their 
operations. Without a fix, re-consultation would be required on 
at least 36 national forests in the 9th Circuit, taking up to 
10 years and costing multiple millions of dollars each year--
valuable time and money that would be better spent restoring 
forests on the ground.
    In 2022, as my colleague said, there would be more than 
66,000 fires and more than 7 million acres burned across the 
country. In Montana alone, 125,000 acres burned in 2022. We 
need to be doing all we can to combat wildfires out West. My 
legislation is a key part of stopping the wildfire crisis.
    We currently have 28 timber sales and 30,000 acres of 
forest land that is under litigation in Montana. That is land 
which is ready to be harvested, and yet is also at high risk of 
losing all value due to wildfires. Advocates for the disastrous 
decision argue that it is necessary for the conservation of 
wildlife. However, as many of the witnesses will point out, the 
Cottonwood decision has made the construction projects needed 
to conserve wildlife more difficult.
    In my state of Montana, specifically, the Stonewall Project 
in the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest would have 
managed vegetation to benefit wildlife. But Cottonwood-inspired 
litigation delayed the project. As a result of the delays, 
wildfires burned over half of the proposed treatment area, 
destroying valuable wildlife habitat. The project went through 
years of consultation and was delayed further unnecessarily by 
a lawsuit.
    While the 2018 omnibus bill provided a partial temporary 
fix that expires today, there needs to be a permanent solution. 
My bill is a common-sense solution that would prevent the 
Forest Service from facing a perpetual cycle of litigation, and 
allow them to chart a new era of efficiency which will benefit 
Montanans and those across the nation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Congressman Rosendale.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this letter 
into the record. It is signed by 33 conservation organizations 
and professional organizations representing millions of natural 
resources professionals, sportsmen, and sportswomen, urging 
support for the fix to the Cottonwood issue. The letter 
cautions that, if we fail to act, this will have an adverse 
effect on our land managers' ability to manage our forests and 
make significant strides to improve forest health.
    Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
                                                 March 20, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chair
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Sportsman Support for a Bipartisan ``Cottonwood Fix''

    Dear Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    The undersigned conservation organizations and professional 
organizations, representing millions of natural resource professionals, 
sportsmen, and sportswomen are writing today to support a fix to the 
``Cottonwood'' issue. We appreciate Representative Rosendale's 
leadership on this issue and support his Forest Information Reform 
(FIR) Act (H.R. 200). We sincerely believe that this issue should be 
resolved in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion. We also support Senator 
Daines' ``Cottonwood'' bill (S. 2561) of the 117th Congress.
    Since the Ninth Circuit Court issued the 2015 Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service 
(``Cottonwood'') decision, the USFS and BLM have been required in 
numerous instances to reinitiate consultation at a forest or land 
management plan level with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration even though the ``new 
information'' was considered at a project level. This continues to 
block and slow many essential USFS forest management, wildlife habitat 
enhancement and wildfire fuel reduction projects.
    Congress recognized the critical need to address the ``Cottonwood'' 
decision when it included a provision in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2018 that adjusted consultation requirements for 
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), but 
with different instructions to each agency. When this provision sunsets 
this month (March 2023), all forests, potentially, could face frivolous 
litigation that halt all projects forest-wide until duplicative 
consultation takes place. The USFS made clear to Congress, in testimony 
before your Committee and the Senate Energy & Natural Resources 
Committee, the adverse impact this will have on their ability to manage 
our forests and make significant strides to improve forest health.
    The FIR Act would prevent the burdensome need to reinitiate 
consultation on a finalized land management plan based on new 
endangered species information. Senator Daines' bill (S. 2561) of the 
117th Congress would prohibit those same plans from being considered a 
continuing federal agency action or constituting a discretionary 
federal involvement, while also making some Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) consultation requirements inapplicable. We support both 
approaches and appreciate your committee's timely attention.
    On October 21, 2021, the USFS testified before the Committee that 
unless action is taken to resolve challenges stemming from the 2015 
``Cottonwood'' decision, the agency will have to go through re-
consultation, regardless of the merit, on over one-hundred forest plans 
that ``will take years and cost millions of dollars,'' threatening to 
undermine the Administration's 10 Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy.
    There is bipartisan and widespread support for a ``Cottonwood 
Fix.'' In May 2016 the Obama Administration petitioned the Supreme 
Court to review and overturn the case, and in January 2021 the Trump 
Administration initiated a rule to amend Section 7 of the ESA to 
address the issue. The Supreme Court rejected the original petition, 
and no final rule has been issued.
    Delays in forest management projects caused by ``Cottonwood'' 
litigation are costly and hinder critical forest management activities, 
including wildfire and climate mitigation. Species listed under ESA are 
already considered when assessing each land management project 
implemented by the USFS, which will not be altered by a ``Cottonwood'' 
fix. Agencies undergo review and consultation at the project level 
where the potential impacts can be best evaluated. Court rulings 
requiring re-consultation at the plan level are duplicative and 
unnecessary, and injunctions delay good projects from being implemented 
in a timely manner.

    Our organizations urge the Committee to favorably report a 
bipartisan ``Cottonwood fix.''

            Sincerely,

        American Woodcock Society     National Shooting Sports 
                                      Foundation

        Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife 
        Agencies                      National Wild Turkey Federation

        Archery Trade Association     North American Grouse Partnership

        Backcountry Hunters & 
        Anglers                       Orion: The Hunter's Institute

        Bear Trust International      Pope & Young Club

        Boone and Crockett Club       Public Lands Foundation

        Camp Fire Club of America     Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

        Congressional Sportsmen's 
        Foundation                    Ruffed Grouse Society

        Conservation Force            Safari Club International

        Dallas Safari Club            Sportsmen's Alliance

        Delta Waterfowl               Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
                                      Partnership

        Houston Safari Club           The Wildlife Society

        Mule Deer Foundation          Whitetails Unlimited

        National Assoc. of Forest 
        Service Retirees              Wildlife Management Institute

        National Bobwhite & 
        Grassland Initiative          Wildlife Mississippi

        National Deer Association     Wild Sheep Foundation

        National Rifle Association

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. I will now recognize Representative Peters for 
5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT PETERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
the Committee for allowing me a chance to address you about the 
TOXIC Act, and to discuss forest health, and for including my 
bill, the Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal 
Contaminants Act, or the TOXIC Act.
    In 2022, almost 1 million illegally grown, unregulated 
marijuana plants and 33 tons of cultivation equipment, 
including banned pesticides, were seized from illicit grow 
sites on public land across California. More than 80 percent of 
those grow sites were affiliated with criminal organizations, 
and these figures only account for the sites we were able to 
detect.
    Driven by the massive profit potential of selling 
unregulated marijuana, many of these grow sites are operated by 
drug cartels and other organized criminal groups. These groups 
often use illegal pesticides smuggled into the United States 
because they are cheaper and more readily available than legal, 
regulated pesticides. Upon release, however, these chemicals 
poison the soil, water, and the air. These pesticides can 
decimate endangered species populations like Pacific fishers 
and spotted owls, hospitalize Forest Service agents tasked with 
remediation, and severely sicken consumers.
    One illegal pesticide popular among trespass growers, 
methamidophos, is chemically similar to a nerve agent designed 
for chemical weapons. These illegal pesticides don't just 
destroy the environment, they also have the potential to poison 
human consumers. When cannabis plants are treated with illegal 
pesticides, the chemicals can be absorbed by the plant, and 
ultimately end up in the consumer product. Consuming cannabis 
that has been treated with illegal pesticides can trigger a 
range of negative health effects, from lingering nausea and 
respiratory problems to acute sickness. This is particularly 
concerning for medical cannabis users, who rely on the plant 
for relief from symptoms associated with various medical 
conditions, but may struggle to afford safe, market-grade 
cannabis at current price points.
    Clearly, the stakes are high for our environment and our 
health. But too often, those who manage illicit grow sites 
receive slaps on the wrist when they are caught. Frequently, 
offenders who are caught smuggling or releasing these chemicals 
on public land are sentenced to less than a year in prison, 
along with fines under $10,000. Offenders' business models are 
so profitable that, for large criminal syndicates, it is simply 
too easy to factor those insignificant penalties into the costs 
of doing business.
    So, I thank the Chair for including the TOXIC Act in 
today's hearing, as well as Mr. LaMalfa for partnering with me 
to introduce that bill. And I am glad that after nearly 20 
years of debate in Congress on trespass cultivation, we are 
finally moving toward a long-term solution.
    The TOXIC Act will help us restore the long-term health of 
our ecosystems, restrict the cross-border flow of toxic 
contaminants, protect public health and consumers, and support 
regulated cannabis businesses that comply with the law.
    The TOXIC Act does two things.
    First, the bill gives the Forest Service more resources and 
authority to investigate and restore illegal cultivation sites 
on public lands. The Forest Service is already doing this work, 
but my staff collaborated closely with the agency to ensure 
that this bill will provide more program integrity, staffing, 
technology, and money to meet the scale of the destruction we 
are seeing in forests across the United States.
    And second, the bill will help us take a hard look at how 
we prosecute those crimes. My bill with Mr. LaMalfa would 
establish parity between the penalties for smuggling illegal 
pesticides into the country and the penalties for deploying 
those pesticides on public lands. This change will trigger the 
U.S. Sentencing Commission to revisit its guidelines for these 
crimes, and ensure that we treat the use of illegal pesticides, 
particularly on public lands, with the severity it deserves.
    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and my 
esteemed colleagues on the Subcommittee for your time and 
consideration. I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Scott Peters, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California

 H.R. 1473, the Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal Contaminants 
                           Act, or TOXIC Act

    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, for 
convening this hearing today to discuss forest health and for including 
my bill, the Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal Contaminants 
Act, or TOXIC Act.
    In 2022, almost 1 million illegally grown, unregulated marijuana 
plants and 33 tons of cultivation equipment, including banned 
pesticides, were seized from illicit grow sites on public land across 
California.
    More than 80 percent of those grow sites were affiliated with 
criminal organizations, and these figures only account for the sites we 
were able to detect.
    Driven by the massive profit potential of selling unregulated 
marijuana, many of these grow sites are operated by drug cartels and 
other organized criminal groups.
    These groups often use illegal pesticides smuggled into the United 
States because they are cheaper and more readily available than legal, 
regulated pesticides.
    Upon release, however, these chemicals poison the soil, water, and 
air.
    These toxic pesticides can decimate endangered species populations 
like pacific fishers and spotted owls, hospitalize Forest Service 
agents tasked with remediation, and severely sicken consumers.
    One illegal pesticide popular among trespass growers, 
methamidophos, is chemically similar to a nerve agent designed for 
chemical weapons.
    These illegal pesticides don't just destroy the environment. They 
also have the potential to poison human consumers.
    When cannabis plants are treated with illegal pesticides, the 
chemicals can be absorbed by the plant and ultimately end up in the 
consumer product.
    Consuming cannabis that has been treated with illegal pesticides 
can trigger a range of negative health effects, from lingering nausea 
and respiratory problems to acute sickness.
    This is particularly concerning for medical cannabis users, who 
rely on the plant for relief from symptoms associated with various 
medical conditions, but may struggle to afford safe, market-grade 
cannabis at current price points.
    Clearly the stakes are high for our environment and our health. But 
too often, those who manage illicit grow sites receive slaps on the 
wrist when they're caught.
    Frequently, offenders who are caught smuggling or releasing these 
chemicals on public lands are sentenced to less than 1 year in prison 
along with fines under $10,000.
    Offenders' business models are so profitable that for large 
criminal syndicates, it's simply too easy to factor those insignificant 
penalties into the cost of doing business.
    I thank the Chair for including the TOXIC Act in today's hearing, 
as well as Mr. LaMalfa for partnering with me to introduce the bill.
    I'm glad that after nearly 20 years of debate in Congress on 
trespass cultivation, we're finally moving toward a long-term solution.
    The TOXIC Act will help us restore the long-term health of our 
ecosystems, restrict the cross-border flow of toxic contaminants, 
protect public health and consumers, and support regulated cannabis 
businesses that comply with the law.

    The TOXIC Act does two things.

    First, the bill gives the Forest Service more resources and 
authority to investigate and restore illegal cultivation sites on 
public lands.

    The Forest Service is already doing this work, but my staff 
collaborated closely with the agency to ensure that this bill will 
provide more program integrity, staffing, technology, and money to meet 
the scale of the destruction we're seeing in forests across the United 
States.

    And second, the bill will help us take a hard look at how we 
prosecute these crimes.

    My bill with Mr. LaMalfa would establish parity between the 
penalties for smuggling illegal pesticides into the country and the 
penalties for deploying those pesticides on public lands.
    This change will trigger the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revisit 
its guidelines for these crimes and ensure that we treat the use of 
illegal pesticides, particularly on public lands, with the severity it 
deserves.
    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and my esteemed 
colleagues on the Subcommittee for your time and consideration.
    I yield back.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Congressman Peters.
    We will now move on to our second panel. Let me remind the 
witnesses that, under Committee Rules, they must limit their 
oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will 
appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button. We 
use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. 
At the end of 5 minutes the light will turn red, and I will ask 
you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I would like now to introduce Mr. Chris French, who is the 
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System for the U.S. Forest 
Service. Deputy Chief French is responsible for policy 
oversight and direction for natural resource and public service 
delivery programs across the 193 million acres of national 
forests and grasslands in the 44 states and territories that 
make up the National Forest System.
    Deputy Chief French, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR NATIONAL FOREST 
          SYSTEMS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. French. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, 
Ranking Member, and members of the Committee.
    I am Chris French, Deputy Chief of the National Forest 
System at the U.S. Forest Service. I have been with the agency 
for more than 30 years. I was trained as an endangered species 
biologist and worked in fire and natural resource management my 
entire career. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the 
perspective of the USDA on the four public land bills that are 
under consideration today.
    The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of public 
national forests and grasslands that provide a wide range of 
benefits: jobs, drinking water, food, wood and fiber, and 
extensive recreational opportunities. They are also the 
ancestral homelands of Indigenous peoples represented by nearly 
574 federally recognized tribes.
    They are also in crisis. Wildfire poses a growing threat to 
these many benefits and to forest-based communities. USDA 
supports the intent of H.R. 1473 and H.R. 1567, and would like 
to work with the bill's sponsors and this Subcommittee on 
technical changes. The USDA has concerns with H.R. 200 and H.R. 
1586, as drafted, and would like to work with the Subcommittee 
and bill sponsors to resolve those issues.
    H.R. 200 addresses the long-standing, duplicative ESA re-
consultation requirement on land management plans that have 
been approved, revised, or amended. Interpretation of these 
governing laws and regulations have created a split set of 
rulings between Federal courts, resulting in a confusing and 
often redundant pathway for the agency to comply with the 
Endangered Species Act.
    In addition, other land management agencies, such as the 
BLM, are not required to re-consult on their resource 
management plans, further creating an uneven regulatory 
environment. H.R. 200 addresses that confusion. We would like 
to work with the bill's sponsors on specific pieces to provide 
clarification.
    The Forest Service is committed to protecting species and 
consulting on every project to conform to the Endangered 
Species Act. We routinely re-initiate project consultation when 
a new species or critical habitat is listed. However, requiring 
the Forest Service to re-initiate forest plan ESA consultation, 
which the Supreme Court has determined are completed Federal 
actions, diverts resources from the critical ongoing project-
by-project consultations that provide current and specific 
protections to endangered species.
    It appears that the intent of the bill would allow us to 
continue focusing on updating our land management plans while 
ensuring that habitat conservation and protection of endangered 
species continues through project-by-project consultation.
    H.R. 1473 would help the Forest Service address the 
remediation of contaminated sites resulting from the illegal 
cultivation of cannabis on National Forest System lands. 
Illegal cannabis cultivation affects public safety and the 
environment with pesticides poisoning wildlife, soil, and 
water. Since 2017, we have fully reclaimed nearly 330 grow 
sites, removing over 300 pounds of trash, and more than 350 
miles of irrigation pipes, and thousands of containers of 
illegal pesticides. This represents about a tenth of the total 
grow sites that we think that are out there. The support this 
bill gives to our remediation efforts is very appreciated.
    H.R. 1567 requires the Departments of Agriculture and 
Interior to implement standardized procedures for tracking data 
related to hazardous fuels reduction activities. The USDA 
agrees that the thoughtful tracking and reporting of hazardous 
fuels treatments and reducing wildland fire risk to communities 
is important for accountability to the public, and can help 
provide a comprehensive understanding of wildland fire risk 
reduction.
    It is also important that we are accurate and transparent 
in how we do our work. We would like to work with the bill's 
sponsors on some elements that don't address current fiscal 
accountability reporting requirements and limit the agency's 
ability to accurately reflect the breadth of the work we do to 
protect communities.
    Finally, H.R. 1586 provides the Secretary of Agriculture 
and Secretary of the Interior the ability to discharge fire 
retardant for fire suppression, control, or prevention 
activities without a Clean Water Act permit. The use of fire 
retardant is a critical wildfire suppression tool that we will 
continue to use appropriately and widely to protect communities 
from the threats of wildfire.
    We are incredibly careful and precise in our use of fire 
retardant. As a result, more than 99 percent of our aerial 
retardant drops do not affect America's waterways. We use low 
toxicity retardant formulas, equipment inspections, and 
training to achieve this.
    As a possible outcome of ongoing legal action, our current 
use of fire retardant may now require permitting at a Federal 
and state level. The Forest Service is working with EPA. 
However, this process takes time, as permitting processes to 
address this type of situation do not currently exist. It looks 
as if it will require years of work with the EPA and multiple 
states to establish those permits, but we have created a 
pathway. We are diligently working for an administrative 
pathway to resolve this unexpected issue, and will continue to 
use retardant as a key suppression tool unless ordered not to. 
Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Chris French, Deputy Chief, U.S. Department of 
                      Agriculture--Forest Service
            on H.R. 200, H.R. 1473, H.R. 1567, and H.R. 1586

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on several bills under the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service).
H.R. 200--Forest Information Reform Act

    The Forest Service takes seriously its responsibility to comply 
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations, and the health and 
vitality of listed species. The Forest Service's mission requires us to 
integrate the need to protect listed species with our obligation to 
carry out management actions to promote healthy and resilient 
ecosystems, protect our communities, support a diversity of species, 
and deliver many other benefits that the American people enjoy and 
depend on.
    As you are aware, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires 
federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) when their 
discretionary actions might affect either ESA species or designated 
critical habitat. This consultation ensures that actions of federal 
agencies do not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify their 
critical habitat. Even after a biological opinion has been rendered by 
the Services, there are circumstances that might alter the Services' 
original conclusions of the action's impact on species or critical 
habitat which can trigger a requirement to reinitiate of consultation.
    A pair of Ninth Circuit court decisions, commonly referred to as 
Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) and Cottonwood, which held that a new ESA 
listing of a species or critical habitat designation required the 
Forest Service to reinitiate consultation on approved land management 
plans because either the plan was an ``ongoing action'' (PRC) or 
because the agency retains discretion to authorize site-specific 
projects governed by the land management plan (LMP) (Cottonwood), have 
no basis in the ESA or its implementing regulations. LMPs provide 
general management direction for an entire national forest or 
grassland. This direction is then integrated into projects, which 
normally requires a second decision and ESA consultation to dictate 
what on-the-ground actions can be taken. A Tenth Circuit decision 
(commonly known as Forsgren) reached a different conclusion than the 
Ninth Circuit's conclusions in Cottonwood, and instead held that the 
Forest Service did not need to reinitiate consultation on an approved 
plan with the Services because LMPs are neither ongoing nor self-
executing actions for purposes of the ESA.
    Congress enacted legislation in the FY 2018 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act (CAA) so that the Secretary of Agriculture did not 
need to reinitiate consultation on land management plan decisions when 
a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated in areas 
covered by land management plans less than 15 years old. The CAA also 
provided an exemption, or ``safe harbor,'' for reinitiation of 
consultation for five years from the enactment of the bill or when a 
species is listed or critical habitat is designated regardless of when 
a land management plan had been adopted. Project level consultation on 
every federal action was not affected by the CAA and continued.
    H.R. 200 exempts the Forest Service from reinitiating consultation 
with the Services on plans that have already been subject to 
consultation at the time they were approved, revised, or amended when a 
species is subsequently listed, critical habitat is designated, or new 
information concerning a listed species or critical habitat becomes 
available. It eliminates the time limits on the statutory exemption 
enacted in the 2018 CAA, making all land management plans exempt 
regardless of their age or when new ESA listings and new critical 
habitat designations were made. This bill would also eliminate any 
requirement that the Forest Service reinitiate consultation on LMPs 
when new information becomes available. Under Forest Service 
guidelines, new information is considered in project-level documents 
when it could influence the decision and subsequent actions that could 
affect a species listed under the ESA.
    With the safe harbor provision in the 2018 CAA expiring today, 
March 23rd, about eighty-seven land management plans across the nation 
could now be subject to litigation. Since enactment of the CAA, the 
Forest Service has maintained its responsibilities in consulting with 
the Services on projects. Every agency action must comply with the ESA. 
The requirement to reinitiate consultation on LMPs that affect ESA 
listed species as redundant to the project-level consultations that are 
required. Furthermore, the Forest Service believes that concerns with 
new information and newly listed species and their critical habitat are 
adequately addressed through consultation at the project level. H.R. 
200 directs that the agency is not required to reinitiate consultation 
on land management plans when there is new information, a new species 
listing, or a new critical habitat designation.
    The USDA and the Department of the Interior (DOI) realizes ESA 
consultation is an issue with a number of equities that need to be 
addressed. We are committed to continuing to work together toward a 
legislative solution that allows for timely decision making, while 
maintaining the important wildlife protections afforded by the 
Endangered Species Act. As drafted, the Administration has concerns and 
looks forward to working with the Committee and the bill sponsor to 
address concerns with the bill. We want to ensure clarity on how 
consultation for specific actions or projects can provide the American 
public with confidence that the agency is upholding its 
responsibilities to protect listed species and their habitat while 
providing the many benefits we gain by managing our forests.
H.R. 1473--Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal Contaminants Act

    H.R. 1473 establishes an environmental restoration program under 
the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service, consistent with the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(42 U.S.C. 9601). The goal of this bill is to identify, investigate, 
research, and develop solutions to and remediation of contamination 
resulting from the cultivation of cannabis on National Forest System 
(NFS) lands. The bill additionally amends the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136l(b)(2)) to amend criminal 
penalties identified in that Act both independently and in connection 
with other federal offenses.
    The Forest Service faces significant challenges related to illegal 
cannabis cultivation on NFS lands. More than 4,000 illegal grow sites 
have been identified on NFS lands. These sites pose problems for Forest 
Service law enforcement, public safety, and the environment with 
pesticides poisoning wildlife, soil, and water. In 2022, Forest Service 
staff and partners addressed 56 cultivation sites on 10 national 
forests, removing 49,318 pounds of trash, 68.7 miles of plastic 
irrigation line, and 169 containers of banned and illegal pesticides at 
a cost of over $2.3 million. The Forest Service was able to restore 
over 307 million gallons of surface water diversions associated with 
these 56 sites.
    The Forest Service appreciates the bill sponsors' intent to 
significantly enhance the Forest Service's ability to address trespass 
cultivation, including cannabis cultivation. The USDA supports the 
enhancements The USDA would like to work with the bill sponsors and 
Subcommittee on technical changes to better define the Forest Service's 
enforcement authority and the appropriate remediation activities to be 
undertaken. The ultimate outcome of this work is remediation of the 
damaged ecosystems and enhanced public safety.
    The USDA supports the intent of the Targeting and Offsetting 
Existing Illegal Contaminants Act and looks forward to working with the 
bill sponsors and Subcommittee on technical changes to further support 
the Forest Service's ability to address trespass cultivation and the 
associated negative impacts. The Department of the Interior advises 
similar authority for management of DOI lands could be beneficial.
H.R. 1567--Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act

    H.R. 1567 requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 
Department of Interior (DOI) to include a publicly available report on 
hazardous fuels reduction activity acres in the yearly President's 
Budget. This report must account for each acre only once regardless of 
whether multiple hazardous fuels reduction activities were carried out 
on that acre during the year. In addition, the report must identify the 
following: the location of the acres and if they are in the wildland-
urban interface; the level of wildfire risk on the first and last day 
of the reporting period; the types of hazardous fuels activities 
completed; the cost per acre by treatment type; and the effectiveness 
of the hazardous fuels reduction activities on reducing wildfire risk.
    The bill requires the USDA and DOI to implement standardized 
procedures for tracking data related to hazardous fuels reduction 
activities. These procedures must include standardized data reviews of 
the accuracy and timely input of data used to track hazardous fuels 
reduction activities; verification methods that validate the data; an 
analysis of the effectiveness of the hazardous fuels reduction 
activities on reducing the risk of wildfire; and methods to distinguish 
which acres are located within and outside of the wildland-urban 
interface.
    Further, The USDA and DOI are required to provide a report within 
two weeks after implementing the standardized procedures required 
describing the procedures and program and policy recommendations to 
address any limitations in tracking data related to hazardous fuels 
reduction activities. Not later than two years after the date of 
enactment, the Government Accountability Office shall conduct a study 
on the implementation of this Act, including any limitations with 
respect to reporting hazardous fuels reduction activities or tracking 
data related to hazardous fuels reduction activities.
    The USDA agrees that accurately tracking hazardous fuels treatments 
and the reduction of wildfire risk to communities is important for 
accountability to the American public and will help provide a 
comprehensive understanding of wildfire risk reduction. Tracking each 
dollar spent can improve our understanding of the funding needed to 
achieve the desired risk reduction to communities and better maintain 
our landscapes. However, a report accounting for each acre only once 
would limit the ability of decisionmakers and the public to understand 
the connection between risk reduction and financial accountability. For 
example, often the same acre requires multiple treatments (3 treatments 
on average) in a short period of time, such as mechanical thinning 
first and then prescribed fire to achieve the desired risk reduction. 
Once this phase is complete, those acres can be moved to a maintenance 
strategy (the point at which low-cost thinning or burning treatments 
are conducted at the appropriate fire-return intervals for a given 
landscape, on average every 10 to 15 years). Only accounting for one 
phase of a multi-phased treatment would only provide a partial window 
to the true cost of risk reduction and resilience.
    The USDA supports the reporting of treatment locations, type of 
treatment, and cost of treatment across the landscape annually. The 
timing outlined in the bill on the first and last day of the reporting 
cycle will require continued development of metrics. Currently, the 
Forest Service has metrics to evaluate fire risk to communities, 
however these metrics continue to evolve with continued scientific 
analysis. The sensitivity of these metrics to detect change in 
vegetative conditions at fine scale is continuing to be evaluated. Fine 
scale detection is critical to ensure all treatments are evaluated to 
determine effectiveness with reducing fire risk to communities. We 
expect that these metrics within an annual report will evolve and 
change over time. Development of the standard structure and procedures 
will take time and coordination both internally and with DOI.
    Finally, excluding acres improved or maintained by wildfire is 
achievable, however, we make note that the maintenance of acres by 
wildfire will be critical to the long-term success of fire risk 
reduction to communities. As more acres are treated to reduce fire 
risk, they must be maintained, and one critical means for doing so is 
through naturally occurring fire. We want to ensure that reporting 
requirements will have the desired effect of both improving fiscal 
accountability and serving as a tool that can improve the health and 
resilience of our forests and communities to the threat of wildfire.
    The USDA appreciates the intent of the bill and would like to work 
with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors to address our concerns.
H.R. 1586--Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act

    H.R. 1586 amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also 
known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to provide the Secretary of 
Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior the authority to discharge 
fire retardant and other chemicals for fire suppression, control, or 
prevention activities. The bill exempts the Forest Service and certain 
other agencies from needing a permit under section 402 of the CWA.
    In the western U.S., National Forests supply drinking water to 
almost 90 percent of the people served by public water systems. The 
Administration is committed to providing firefighters with the 
investments and tools they need to protect communities, our forests and 
sources of drinking water while at the same time maintaining the 
integrity of the Clean Water Act. The Administration does not, however, 
believe that an amendment to the Clean Water Act is necessary in light 
of the administrative steps that are being taken.
    The CWA requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits for any discharge of a pollutant from a point source to 
navigable waters of the United States. The Forest Service's position 
has been that an NPDES permit was not required for fire control 
activities based upon guidance received from EPA in 2003. On February 
16, 2023, the USDA Forest Service and EPA entered into a Federal 
Facility Compliance Agreement to address the Forest Service's discharge 
of pollutants during aerial fire-retardant applications and to require 
the Forest Service to obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges to 
waters.
    Currently, there is no NPDES permit established for aerial 
application of fire retardant, however the Administration is working 
diligently to come into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Forest 
Service is working collaboratively with EPA on a general permit for 
aerially delivered retardant. EPA estimates it will take between two to 
three years to develop and issue an EPA permit as well as coverage in 
47 states, which issue their own permits, a process that would take 
about another year depending on the states' own permit timelines.
    Current direction in the nationwide Aerial Application of Fire 
Retardant on National Forest System Land Record of Decision (Decision) 
from 2011 has demonstrated it is very effective at reducing retardant 
drops into water. The 2011 Decision prohibits delivery of fire 
retardant directly into waterbodies, or into buffers surrounding 
waterbodies, with an allowed exception to protect life and safety. Over 
the last 10 years, less than one percent of retardant drops impacted 
American waterways.
    Aerially delivered long-term fire retardant is part of an 
integrated firefighting strategy and is an essential tool the Forest 
Service and the interagency community uses in support of ground-based 
firefighting resources. Long-term retardants alter the way wildfire 
burns, decreases fire intensity, and slows the advance of fire, even 
after the water they originally contained has evaporated. If the Forest 
Service is only able to use water from airtankers, our ability to 
successfully suppress fires would be significantly impacted. In 
addition to the impact on our wildfire response, we must consider the 
implications for our wildland firefighter workforce. Ensuring that we 
are allowed to continue using wildfire retardant to protect homes and 
communities is the highest priority of the administration. We believe 
retardant can be (and has been) delivered without compromising public 
health and the environment.
    The USDA is committed to CWA compliance and protection of water 
quality and keeping our communities and wildland firefighters safe. The 
nation is experiencing hotter, drier and longer wildfire seasons. 
Wildfires are growing, both in size and severity, due in part to fuels 
buildup, fire exclusion, development in fire-prone areas and climate 
change. The dedication, bravery, and professional integrity of our 
wildland firefighters and support personnel is second to none. We must 
protect approximately 11,300 Forest Service wildland firefighters and 
the communities they defend, using every tool available, including fire 
retardant. As we work with our many partners to assist communities 
impacted by wildfires, we are committed, through shared stewardship, to 
change this trend in the coming years. While we agree with the 
Sponsors' view that the application of fire retardant is an essential 
tool for protecting communities, forests, and our firefighters, we 
believe we can protect this long-standing practice without amending the 
CWA, which is essential to protecting public health and our drinking 
water supplies. While the Administration cannot support this bill, we 
look forward to working with the bill sponsors and Subcommittee on 
efforts that ensure the integrity of the CWA while continuing to allow 
aerial retardant as part of the interagency suppression response. 
Nonetheless, we are reviewing a technical assistance request and look 
forward to working with the bill sponsors and Subcommittee on efforts 
that ensure the integrity of the CWA while continuing to allow aerial 
retardant as part of the interagency suppression response.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these bills, and 
I welcome any questions.

                                 ______
                                 
 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief, 
              National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service

Mr. French did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. How will the Cottonwood decision effect the Forest 
Service's ability to execute the 10 year ``Confronting the Wildfire 
Crisis'' Strategy? How does litigation generally impact the ability of 
the Forest Service to execute this strategy?

    Question 2. Why aren't BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) subject 
to the same re-initiation of consultation requirements as forest plans?

    Question 3. In your written testimony, you explained that in the 
wake of the expiration of the 2018 partial Cottonwood fix, 87 forest 
plans across the nation could now potentially be subject to litigation.

    3a) How long will this re-consultation process take, on average for 
an individual plan and cumulatively for all plans?

    3b) How much money will this cost the Forest Service, on average 
for an individual plan and cumulatively for all plans?

    Question 4. Does the Forest Service typically have to revise forest 
plans as a result ofre-consultation triggered by Cottonwood-related 
lawsuits or challenges?

    Question 5. Please provide the following information, broken down 
by Forest Service region:

    5a) The number of active lawsuits or notices of intent to file a 
lawsuit currently pending against the Forest Service.

    5b) The number of active lawsuits or notices of intent to file a 
lawsuit currently pending against the Forest Service against forest 
management projects.

    5c) The number oflawsuits filed against the Forest Service annually 
from 2002-2022.

    5d) The number of lawsuits filed against the Forest Service 
challenging forest management projects annually from 2002-2022.

    5e) The number of active lawsuits or notices of intent to file a 
lawsuit related to Cottonwood currently pending against the Forest 
Service.

    5f) The number of forest management projects being challenged by 
Cottonwood-related lawsuits or notices of intent to sue.

    5g) The amount of board feet of timber being challenged by active 
lawsuits or notices of intent to sue.

    5h) The amount of board feet of timber being challenged by 
Cottonwood-related lawsuits or notices of intent to sue.

    5i) The amount of acres being challenged by active lawsuits or 
notices of intent to sue.

    5j) The number of acres of designated critical habitat areas that 
have burned in wildfires since 2015.

    5k) The number of acres of Canada Lynx critical habitat that have 
burned since 2015.

    5l) The number of acres that have burned as a result of wildlife 
within the Ninth Circuit since 2015.

    5m) The number of acres that have burned as a result of wildfire 
within the Tenth Circuit since 2015.

    Question 6. On average, what is the percentage of court cases does 
the Forest Service prevail in or move forward with substantially 
similar actions?

    Question 7. Of the forest management projects litigated under 
Cottonwood, how many did the Forest Service prevail in or move forward 
with substantially the same actions following required consultation?

    Question 8. How many forest management projects have been litigated 
or had a notice of intent to sue filed on NFS land in the Ninth Circuit 
since the Cottonwood decision in 2015?

    Question 9. How many forest management projects have been litigated 
or had a notice of intent to sue filed on NFS land in the Tenth Circuit 
since the Cottonwood decision in 2015?

    Question 10. In your testimony you explain that land management 
plans provide general management direction for an entire national 
forest or grassland. These guidelines are then integrated into 
projects, which you emphasize ``normally requires a second decision and 
ESA consultation to dictate what on-the-ground actions can be taken.'' 
Can you share all the different types of on-the-ground projects that 
normally require ESA consultation?

    Question 11. In response to questions submitted for the record from 
an October 21, 2021 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
hearing, you stated that: ``In response to the Cottonwood ruling, the 
Forest Service reconsulted on critical habitat for the Canada Lynx. 
Forest Service personnel spent an estimated 400 person days valued at 
approximately $250,000 over 12 months to complete this 
reconsultation.''

    11a) Can you provide an estimate of the total cost and number of 
person days that are being used by the Forest Service every year to 
complete all of the required ESA consultation across the agency? Of 
those consultations, how many are related to the Cottonwood decision?

    11b) How much money and person days are being spent by the Forest 
Service annually on NEPA compliance?

    Question 12. In response to questions submitted for the record from 
an October 21, 2021 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
hear ing, you stated that: ``The Forest Service has analyzed various 
approaches to address the upcoming potential consultation workload 
cifier March 23, 2023. Our initial analysis estimates that the workload 
may,take 5-10 years to accomplish and will require multiple millions of 
dollars per year. For example, for forests just in the Ninth Circuit, 
the initial required consultation would occur on 187 taxa across 36 
national forests.''

    12a) Since your response on October 21, 2021, has the Forest 
Service completed an updated assessment on the taxa and number of 
national forests where new consultation would be required after March 
23, 2023?

    12b) Approximately how many taxa covering what number of national 
forests would require new consultation after March 23, 2023?

                         Questions on H.R. 1473

    Question 1. Has the Forest Service conducted an estimate of how 
much money Mexican drug cartels are making annually as a result of 
illegal cannabis growth on federal forest lands?

    Question 2. What is the effect of illegal marijuana cultivation on 
threatened and endangered species and critical habitat?

    Question 3. In your testimony, you stated there have been 4,000 
illegal grow sites of marijuana identified on NFS lands. Does the 
Forest Service have an estimate of how many new sites are established 
each year? Approximately how many sites are going undetected annually?

    Question 4. Please provide the following information for illegal 
cultivation sites addressed by the Forest Service staff and partners 
each year over the 2000-2022 period:

    4a) The number of illegal cultivation sites identified.

    4b) The national forests where illegal cultivation sites were 
identified.

    4c) The states where illegal cultivation sites were identified in 
national forests.

    4d) The pounds of trash removed.

    4e) The miles of plastic irrigation line removed.

    4f) The number of containers of banned and illegal pesticides 
removed.

    4g) The gallons of water diverted as a result of illegal 
cultivation sites.

    4h) The value of illegal marijuana seized from illegal cultivation 
sites.

    4i) The number of illegal cannabis plants removed.

    4j) The total amount of money spent addressing illegal cultivation 
sites.

    4k) The number of arrests made in connection with illegal marijuana 
cultivation on NFS lands.

                         Questions on H.R. 1586

    Question 1. If the use of fire retardant had not been available in 
the 2022, 2021, and 2020 fire seasons, what does the Forest Service 
estimate the difference would have been in each of those years in the 
following categories:

    1a) Lives lost (including those engaged in wildfire suppression and 
members of the public).

    1b) Acreage burned (both federal and non-federal).

    1c) Structures destroyed and damaged.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. French. Now I would like to 
recognize Mr. Ryan Bronson, who is the Director of Government 
Affairs for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
    You have 5 minutes, Mr. Bronson.

  STATEMENT OF RYAN BRONSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 
       ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

    Mr. Bronson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
Committee. I am Ryan Bronson, Director of Government Affairs 
for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
    The Elk Foundation is a 225,000-member non-profit 
conservation organization with a mission to ensure the future 
of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting 
heritage. We are headquartered in Missoula, Montana. Since our 
founding in 1984, we have helped conserve and enhance more than 
8.6 million acres, and have improved access to 1.5 million 
acres. Most of these projects have occurred in the forests and 
sage lands of the Western United States. Our 500 chapters raise 
money in communities across the country to help us accomplish 
this mission, and work on the public multi-use lands that are 
impacted by the legislation you are discussing today.
    Elk benefit from diverse and actively managed forests, as 
do most wildlife. Overgrown forests with closed canopies where 
sunlight cannot reach the forbs and grasses on the forest floor 
do not provide the food and cover that many species need. 
Actively managed forests provide diverse age structure of trees 
and diverse habitat that provides for the various life cycle 
stages of many species.
    In addition, managed forests are more resilient to weather, 
insect outbreaks, and catastrophic wildfire.
    This position is not unique to hunting conservation groups 
like mine. In August 2021, a coalition of California 
environmental groups and land trusts sent an urgent letter 
outlining the history of forest management that led to forests 
that are, in their words, unnaturally dense, overstocked, and 
choked with surface and ladder fuels. Their plea for a 
significantly increased level of ecologically-based forest 
restoration treatments in order to turn the corner to get 
Federal forests back to a more resilient condition.
    Unfortunately, litigious special interests have weaponized 
the Endangered Species Act to stop many wildfire prevention and 
habitat management projects. The 9th Circuit Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service decision has 
already delayed hundreds of projects, leading to catastrophic 
wildfires that have destroyed lives, property, homes, and 
important wildlife habitat.
    There is an increased urgency today, as the temporary and 
partial fix that Congress provided in 2018 expires, placing 
more projects at risk of delay.
    In April of last year, the Hermits Peak Fire in New Mexico 
began as a prescribed fire that got out of control. The Forest 
Service's wildfire review report provided several important 
lessons, but it was noteworthy to us that treatment was delayed 
from September 2019 to October 2020 by a Cottonwood-related 
injunction and by COVID staffing issues following that. A 
thinning project area would have had lower wildfire risk. The 
subsequent 341,000-acre fire has not been good for threatened 
Mexican spotted owls, elk, other wildlife, or people.
    Fixing the Cottonwood decision has bipartisan support since 
the ruling came down. The Obama administration appealed the 
decision in 2016. The Trump administration addressed it with a 
rule that was never finalized. And in the 117th Congress, a 
bipartisan 16 to 4 vote in the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee provided us hope that a solution was in 
reach.
    H.R. 200, the Forest Information Reform Act, would close 
the open loop that the Cottonwood decision created, and prevent 
redundant and costly delays for re-consultation under the 
Endangered Species Act. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 
strongly supports this legislation.
    Forest management for habitat improvement and for hazardous 
fuel reduction are often very similar. Every acre treated 
through thinning, prescribed burning, and other treatments help 
achieve the resiliency laid out in the Forest Service's 10-Year 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy. H.R. 1567, the ACRES Act, will help 
Congress and the public gain a better understanding of the 
state of America's forest lands and the progress or 
deterioration that is occurring while land agencies attempt to 
accelerate mitigation efforts with the new resources recently 
provided by Congress.
    As increased funding flows to wildfire mitigation and 
forest management, we fear that the level of on-the-ground 
projects that Congress envisions will be stymied by litigation, 
frustrating everyone.
    The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation thanks the Committee for 
the opportunity to participate today. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bronson follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Ryan Bronson, Director of Government Affairs, 
                     Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
                       on H.R. 200 and H.R. 1567

    Chairman Tiffany and Members of the Committee. I am Ryan Bronson, 
Director of Government Affairs for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 
The Elk Foundation is a 225,000-member non-profit conservation 
organization with a mission to ensure the future of elk, other 
wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage. We are headquartered 
in Missoula, Montana.
    Since our founding in 1984 we have helped conserve and enhance more 
than 8.6 million acres (about half the area of South Carolina), and 
improved access to 1.5 million acres. Most of these projects have 
occurred in the forests and sage lands of the western US. Our 500 
chapters raise money in communities across the country to help us 
accomplish this mission and work on the public multi-use lands that are 
impacted by the legislation you are discussing today.
    Elk benefit from diverse and actively managed forests, as do most 
wildlife. Overgrown forests with closed canopies, where sunlight cannot 
reach the forbs and grasses on the forest floor, do not provide the 
food and cover that so many species need.
    Actively managed forests provide diverse age structures of trees, 
and diverse habitat that provides for the various life cycle stages of 
many species. In addition, managed forests are more resilient to 
weather, insect outbreaks and catastrophic wildfire.
    This position is not unique to hunting conservation organizations 
like mine. In August 2021, a coalition of California environmental 
groups and land trusts sent an urgent letter outlining a history of 
forest management that led to forests that are ``unnaturally dense, 
overstocked, and choked with surface and ladder fuels''. Their plea was 
for ``a significantly increased level of ecologically based forest 
restoration treatments in order to turn the corner to get federal 
forests back to a more resilient condition.''
    Unfortunately, litigious special interests have weaponized the 
Endangered Species Act to prevent many wildfire-prevention and habitat 
management projects. The 9th Circuit Cottonwood Environmental Law 
Center v. US Forest Service decision (aka. Cottonwood) has already 
delayed hundreds of projects, leading to catastrophic wildfires that 
have destroyed lives, property, homes, and important wildlife habitat. 
There is increased urgency today as the temporary and partial fix that 
Congress provided in 2018 expires, placing more projects at risk of 
delay.
    We have specific examples. The Stonewall project in Montana's 
Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest was a proposed vegetative management 
project that would have benefited elk and other wildlife, but it was 
delayed by Cottonwood litigation. In 2017 the Park Creek and Arrastra 
wildfires burned over half of the proposed treatment area with 
intensities that damaged some of the soils in the area. This was 
economically and ecologically costly.
    In April 2022, the Hermit's Peak Fire in New Mexico began as a 
prescribed fire that got out of control. The Forest Service's Wildfire 
Review Report provided several important lessons, but it was noteworthy 
to us that treatment was delayed from September 2019 to October 2020 by 
a Cottonwood-related injunction, and by Covid staffing issues following 
that. A thinned project area would have had lower wildfire risk. The 
subsequent 341,000-acre fire has not been good for threatened Mexican 
Spotted Owls, elk, other wildlife, or people.
    Fixing the Cottonwood Decision has had bipartisan support since the 
ruling came down. The Obama administration appealed the decision in 
2016, the Trump administration addressed it with a Rule that was never 
finalized, and in the 117th Congress a bipartisan 16-4 vote in the 
Senate Energy & Natural Committee provided hope that a solution was in 
reach.
    HR 200, the Forest Information Reform Act would close the open loop 
that the Cottonwood decision created and prevent redundant and costly 
delays for re-consultation under the Endangered Species Act. The Rocky 
Mountain Elk Foundation strongly supports this legislation.
    Forest management for habitat improvement and for hazardous fuel 
reduction are often very similar, every acre treated through thinning, 
prescribed burning and other treatments help achieve the resiliency 
laid out in the Forest Service 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy. 
However, reporting only the acres treated may convey that more progress 
is being achieved than what is truly happening on the ground, and a 
single high risk acre may be counted multiple times as subsequent 
treatments occur.
    HR 1567, the ACRES Act, will help Congress and the public gain a 
better understanding of the state of America's forest lands, and the 
progress or deterioration that is occurring while the land agencies 
attempt to accelerate mitigation efforts with the new resources 
recently provided by Congress.
    As increased funding flows to wildfire mitigation and forest 
management we fear that the level of on-the-ground projects that 
Congress envisions will be stymied by litigation, frustrating everyone.
    The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation thanks the Committee for the 
opportunity to participate today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Bronson. I would now like to 
recognize Mr. Steve Ellis, who is the Chairman of the National 
Association of Forest Service Retirees.
    Prior to this role, Mr. Ellis served for 38 years with both 
the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Ellis 
has extensive experience fighting wildfires, and was once a 
type 3 incident commander. Mr. Ellis' daughter was also a 
wildland firefighter, and she was killed in action serving her 
country in Iraq.
    Mr. Ellis, I would like to thank you for your service and 
your daughter's service to our nation, and you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF STEVE ELLIS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES, BEAVER CREEK, 
                             OREGON

    Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member, and 
members of the Committee. I appreciate the chance to testify 
this afternoon on H.R. 1586, a crucial and timely bill to allow 
for the continued use of fire retardant by our nation's 
wildland firefighters. I am Steve Ellis, retired after 38 years 
of Federal service with both the Forest Service and BLM. I am 
currently Chair of the National Association of Forest Service 
Retirees.
    Our organization is pleased that Congress has chosen to 
engage in the matter of fire retardant use. There are a few key 
points that I would like you to know about this issue.
    First of all, we as agency retirees know a lot about fire 
suppression, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use. Fire 
management can be complex and requires the use of many 
important tools. Fire retardant is one of the most crucial.
    As fire season has already begun this year, removing such 
an important tool from the tool kit is a threat to firefighter 
and public safety, it is a threat to watersheds, wildlife, and 
human health in the form of smoke.
    Requiring a national permit for the use of fire retardant 
is not the way to go. It would take years to complete at 
substantial cost. Even if EPA were to develop a national 
permit, states would not be required to adopt it, could modify 
it, create their own, and that would put an additional burden 
on Federal and State agencies developing these state permits, 
and it would further complicate firefighting across state 
lines.
    Retardant is already regulated with numerous implementation 
and monitoring requirements that guide safe and successful use 
of retardant by Federal and state agencies. Given all this, we 
believe Congress needs to step in to maintain the status quo 
and codify the 30-year exemption for the use of fire retardant. 
That is why we support H.R. 1586.
    Now, there is a camp out there that has been attempting 
since about 2003 to restrict or even prohibit the use of fire 
retardant by the Forest Service. I recall several years ago, 
when the agency was ordered to take a tougher look at the 
possibility that routinely dropping fire retardant on wildfires 
from aircraft would kill fish and plants. Many positives 
actually came out of this.
    I remember the agency taking a hard and thoughtful look at 
retardant, and some solid protocols were the result. Those 
protocols focused on protecting waterways, aquatic habitat, 
firefighters, and communities. The protocols also included 
monitoring, which I view as a positive. The monitoring found 
that less than 1 percent of the drops between 2012 and 2019 
went directly into water. Yet, here we are again.
    There isn't enough time this afternoon for me to detail to 
you all the instances I experienced, I am aware of where 
single-engine airtankers with retardant likely saved many 
thousand acres of critical sage grouse habitat from burning up 
following a lightning outbreak. There might not be enough seats 
back here in this hearing room to hold the number of retired 
Forest Service and BLM colleagues of mine who could describe 
instances where retardant drops were key to protecting 
property, people's lives, a community, key watersheds, 
transmission line corridors, and also keeping new starts from 
becoming big project fires. We call that initial attack.
    There are some out there who oppose this legislation who 
have never been on the fire line, nor have they had to stand up 
at a community center or a gymnasium full of members of the 
community that are scared, concerned citizens to explain their 
actions when a wildfire is threatening a community. They simply 
have never had accountability for the consequences of these 
risky and consequential decisions. Many of my colleagues and I 
have been in those situations many times.
    As Members of Congress know, especially those of you that 
are from the West, when a wildfire is threatening your 
constituents' community, they become panicked, they are scared, 
and your phone starts to ring. And then your staff calls the 
Forest Service or whichever agency has jurisdiction. I received 
many such calls during my career, and in most of these calls I 
was routinely asked by your staff, ``Where are the airtankers? 
Are you using airtankers?''
    We all know that fire seasons are getting longer, the fires 
are getting bigger. There is not enough time today for me to 
get into the details of why I think that is so. But what I can 
say is this is not the time to take the air delivery of fire 
retardant out of the fire practitioner's toolbox.
    Thank you for engaging in this important issue to protect 
our natural resources, our communities, our firefighters' 
lives. I welcome any questions the Committee might have. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Steve Ellis, Chair, National Association of 
                        Forest Service Retirees
                              on H.R. 1586

H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
        2023

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and Members of the 
Committee, I appreciate the chance to testify today on H.R. 1586, a 
crucial and timely bill, to allow for the continued use of fire 
retardant by our Nation's wildland firefighters. I'm Steve Ellis, 
retired after 38 years of federal service with both the Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management. I have a lot of fire management 
experience with both agencies. I am Chair of the National Association 
of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR). We are an organization dedicated to 
sustaining the Forest Service mission and adapting to todays and 
tomorrow's challenges. Our principal beliefs and values include 
protecting and managing diverse lands and valued resources while 
providing a wide array of uses and services to the public. This 
includes providing for clean water and quality aquatic and terrestrial 
habitat. Our values also include responding professionally and 
responsibly in support of the agency's efforts to protect public 
interest and ensure public safety.

  1.  We know a lot about fire suppression, prescribed fire, and 
            wildland fire use.

  2.  Management of fire requires the use of many important tools; fire 
            retardant is one of the most crucial.

  3.  As fire season has already begun this year, removing such an 
            important tool from the toolkit is an existential threat to 
            firefighters and the public safety, as well as watersheds, 
            wildlife, and smoke as a health hazard.

  4.  Requiring a national permit for the use of retardant would take 
            years to complete at a substantial cost, and would create a 
            bad precedent, putting other agricultural and silvicultural 
            exemptions at risk.

  5.  Even if EPA were to develop a national permit, states would not 
            be required to adopt it, but could modify or create their 
            own, putting an additional burden on federal and state 
            agencies for the development of individual state permits. 
            This would further complicate firefighting across state 
            lines.

  6.  Retardant is already regulated with numerous implementation and 
            monitoring requirements that guide the safe and successful 
            use of retardant by Federal and State agencies.

  7.  Given all this, we believe Congress needs to step in to maintain 
            the status quo and codify the 30-year exemption for the use 
            of retardant. That's why we support H.R. 1586.

    This past fall, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics 
(FSEEE) filed a lawsuit in Montana District Court under the ``citizen 
suit'' provision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) alleging violations of 
the CWA for past discharges of aerial fire retardant into navigable 
waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit. The 2011 Aerial Application of Fire Retardant EIS 
delineated more than 30% of USFS land area as retardant avoidance areas 
and developed a tracking process to monitor inadvertent drops into 
water. The 2011 decision prohibits delivery of fire retardant directly 
into waterbodies, or into buffers surrounding waterbodies, with an 
allowed exception to protect life and safety.
    In the draft 2022 Aerial Fire Retardant SEIS, the Forest Service 
disclosed that 376 out of 56,868 total fire retardant drops (less than 
one percent) made between 2012 and 2019 were directly into water, 
because of unintended encroachments on waterbodies, or the exception 
allowed to protect life and safety. FSEEE is alleging these direct 
drops into waterbodies violate the CWA because the Forest Service did 
not have a NPDES permit. The CWA requires NPDES permits for any 
addition of a pollutant from a point source to navigable waters/waters 
of the United States, which essentially means any waterway with 
permanent water. The Forest Service has been operating under the 
assumption that a NPDES permit was not required because the regulations 
for administering the NPDES system (40 CFR 122) specifically state that 
fire control is a ``non-point source silvicultural activity'' (40 CFR 
122.27) and communications from EPA dating back to 1993 indicated a 
permit was not required.
    Currently there is no NPDES permit established for aerial 
application of fire retardant. We understand that a rulemaking to 
establish a general permit would take 2-3 years at extensive cost. Even 
if EPA develops a national permit, states are not required to adopt it, 
but can modify or create their own. As a result, additional time would 
be required for the agency to obtain individual state permits. This 
would further complicate firefighting across state lines and 
potentially create unnecessary chaos in an already complex and risk 
laden environment. A NPDES permit would add a large administrative 
burden to Forest Service wildfire operations and likely not change 
aerial application requirements, nor actual resource effects on the 
ground.
    FSEEE is requesting the Forest Service not to use fire retardant 
until the permit is secured. This could result in fire retardant not 
being available for use starting this 2023 fire year and would 
needlessly put billions of dollars of infrastructure/assets/natural 
resources and millions of people at risk. More importantly, it would 
remove a key tool used to safely fight wildfires and put at risk local, 
county, state, and federal firefighters at a time where wildfire is 
increasing in scale and scope across the western United States. Any 
court ruling has the potential to be nation-wide and affect the 
Department of the Interior (DOI), state fire agencies, and the 
Department of Defense (DOD), essentially all those who fight wildfires 
on federal, state and private lands. In our view, Congress will need to 
pass legislation, either to give agencies time to develop a national 
permit or to codify the existing firefighting exemption.
    At a minimum, a potential solution would be to pursue a legislative 
fix that would allow the agency time to work through the permitting 
process while continuing to use fire retardant. A much better and 
permanent solution would be to legislate that a permit not be required, 
nor should any State require a permit for application of fire retardant 
from aircraft in connection with fire suppression activities. We 
support the latter. Many members of NAFSR are former wildland 
firefighters and understand the need and use of fire retardant as a 
critical tool, as well as the need to ensure its careful use. We feel 
that not having the option of using fire retardant in fire suppression 
would have huge consequences. Congress may also find it unacceptable to 
stand by in the middle of this summer as a wildfire threatens life, 
property, and valuable natural resources without the use of fire 
retardant.
    NAFSR sees fire retardant is a necessary tool in the fire manager's 
toolkit. Given that the rare instances of ``retardant into waterways'' 
are either accidents or to protect property or human life, it's not 
clear to us what improvement could be made by the EPA. Do they disagree 
with the judgment calls of on the scene fire practitioners on the 
exceptions? Will a NPDES permit stop accidents or change implementation 
of the agency priority of firefighter and public safety? Since 1995, 
Federal Fire Policy has had human life as the #1 value. This has 
essentially been the doctrine for almost 30 years. Nobody wants to harm 
aquatic life. In fact, the aftermath of large wildfires can be an even 
greater threat. If using retardant is the difference between saving 
some of our colleagues in the green pants and yellow shirts who are in 
a bad spot, or say, hitting a waterway . . . our priority would be 
human life. I have talked to several colleagues who have either 
experienced or known of instances where retardant drops at the right 
time and place made all the difference in life and/or property 
protection outcomes. The bottom line is that the Forest Service has 
been diligent in efforts to use retardant wisely to minimize negative 
environmental effects and statistics show those efforts have been 
effective.
    If there are ecological or other concerns with the use of 
retardant, then maybe those concerns should be specifically identified 
and addressed in some kind of public forum. In the meantime, we do not 
believe any tools should be removed from the agency's fire management 
toolkit.
    NAFSR also supports H.R. 200, the Forest Information Reform (FIR) 
Act. We feel that unless actions are taken to resolve challenges 
stemming from the 2015 ``Cottonwood'' decision, the Forest Service 
could have to go through re-consultation, regardless of the merit, on 
dozens of forest plans that would take years and potentially cost 
millions of dollars that could better be spent elsewhere.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing today. 
Also included in my testimony is an addendum that includes some 
important background information. I welcome any questions that 
subcommittee members might have.

                                 ______
                                 
                         Supplemental Testimony
            National Association of Forest Service Retirees
  H.R. 1586, Forest Protection and Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 
                                  2023

     All long-term Retardants used in airtankers are evaluated 
            through the US Forest Service National Technology and 
            Development Center, Wildland Fire Chemical Systems (WFCS). 
            Evaluations are based on a number of factors including 
            fire-retarding effectiveness, physical parameters, aquatic 
            toxicity and human health and ecological assessments. WFCS 
            must first evaluate and approve long-term fire retardants 
            before their use on Federal lands. Only those fire 
            chemicals that have been evaluated and tested by WFCS are 
            allowed to be used in wildland firefighting.

     Long-term retardants contain retardant salts--typically 
            agricultural fertilizers--that alter the way the fire 
            burns, decreases the fire intensity, and slows the advance 
            of the fire, even after the water they originally contained 
            has evaporated. Studies conducted by the U.S. Forest 
            Service Wildland Fire Chemical Systems Program, located at 
            the National Technology and Development Center in Montana, 
            show that long-term retardants retain much of their 
            effectiveness in reducing fire intensity and spread after 
            the water they contain has evaporated. The amount of time 
            that long-term retardants are effective in reducing fire 
            intensity and spread after the water they contain has 
            evaporated varies from several days to up to one week or 
            more depending on vegetation type, coverage levels, 
            precipitation, and other factors.

     In 2011 the US Forest Service completed the Aerial 
            Application of Fire Retardant Environmental Impact 
            Statement (EIS) which delineated more than 30% of USFS 
            administered as retardant avoidance areas and developed a 
            tracking process to monitor inadvertent drops into water. 
            The 2011 decision prohibits delivery of fire retardant 
            directly into waterbodies, or into buffers surrounding 
            waterbodies, with an allowed exception to protect life and 
            safety.

     In researching aerial operation records for the draft 2022 
            Aerial Fire Retardant SEIS, the Forest Service found that 
            376 out of 56,868 total airtanker drops (less than one 
            percent) made between 2012 and 2019 were directly into 
            water, because of intrusions or the exception allowed to 
            protect life and safety.

     The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires National Pollution 
            Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for any 
            addition of a pollutant from a point source to navigable 
            waters/waters of the United States. The Forest Service has 
            been operating under the assumption that a NPDES permit was 
            not required because the regulations for administering the 
            NPDES system (40 CFR 122) specifically state that fire 
            control is a ``non-point source silvicultural activity'' 
            (40 CFR 122.27) and communications from EPA dating back to 
            1993 indicated a permit was not required.

     There is no NPDES permit established for aerial 
            application of fire retardant. A rulemaking to establish a 
            general permit will take 2-3 years for a General Permit 
            with an additional 1+ years to obtain 47 individual state 
            permits. Because the EPA has already delegated permitting 
            authority to most States, the EPA's general permit is 
            geographically very limited. Each of the upwards of 40 
            individual regulatory agencies that have NPDES authority 
            would need to go through a rulemaking to establish their 
            own general permit using EPA's general permit as a model. 
            Each regulatory agency would have the opportunity to apply 
            their own specific conditions, making the use of airtankers 
            across the nation very difficult.

     There are many technical reasons that a new permit would 
            be burdensome. The bottom line is that the Forest Service 
            has been diligent in efforts to use retardant wisely to 
            minimize negative environmental effects and statistics show 
            those efforts have been effective. Further restrictions on 
            the use of retardants are not only unnecessary but would 
            likely increase the negative environmental effects that 
            occur from wildfire, including negative effects on streams, 
            watersheds and other important resources.

     Should the Forest Service not be able to defend liability 
            in case brought by FSEEE, this could result in fire 
            retardant not being available for use in the 2023 fire year 
            and would put billions of dollars of infrastructure/assets 
            and millions of people at risk. More importantly, it would 
            remove a key tool used to safely fight wildfires and put at 
            risk local, county, state and federal firefighters at a 
            time where wildfire is increasing in scale and scope across 
            the western United States. Any court ruling has the 
            potential to be nation-wide and affect the Department of 
            the Interior (DOI), state fire agencies, and the Department 
            of Defense (DOD).

     The Forest Service has been using fire retardants for over 
            70 years. There are many examples of the effectiveness of 
            fire retardant in stopping wildfire spread. One example was 
            the 2020 Grizzley Creek Fire that started in Glenwood 
            Canyon, CO and rapidly spread west out of the I-70 canyon 
            corridor and into the eastern edge of Glenwood Springs, CO. 
            The fire was caught by airtankers on the very northeast 
            corner where the White River National Forest and City of 
            Glenwood Springs lands meet. The Incident Management Team 
            in charge then placed a portable retardant plant on the 
            west bound lanes of I-70 for use by Type 1 helicopters 
            doing bucket support with retardant for ground crews 
            working their way up the canyon. An effective use of 
            aviation assets and retardant in firefighting.
                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 
                                 ------                                


    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Mr. Ellis. I now recognize 
Representative Hoyle for 30 seconds to introduce our fourth 
witness.

    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. It 
is an honor to introduce Susan Jane Brown, an Oregonian, to the 
Subcommittee this afternoon. Ms. Brown is a senior staff 
attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. Her primary 
focus of litigation is Federal public land forest management, 
but her practice includes cases involving Endangered Species 
Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest 
Management Act, and other land management statutes.
    She teaches forest law and policy at Lewis and Clark Law 
School in Oregon, a former co-chair of the National Advisory 
Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land 
Management Planning Rule, serves on the Federal Advisory 
Committee for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program, and is heavily engaged in a collaborative forest 
restoration in the Upper John Day Basin in Eastern Oregon.
    This is the kind of collaborative approach that we need to 
do to bring together environmentalists, the timber industry, 
those of us who live in rural communities, and the wildland-
urban interface who are at the forefront of seeing the effects 
of climate change through drier weather and extreme, intense, 
and long fire seasons. She is an expert in her field, and has 
been an invaluable resource to me, my staff, as well as former 
Congressman Peter DeFazio, as the 4th District is 85 percent 
forest land, 70 percent timber land, with a mix of Forest 
Service, BLM, tribal-managed lands, and private timber land. I 
am glad the Subcommittee will get to hear from her today as we 
discuss forest management. Thank you.

    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Brown, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF SUSAN JANE M. BROWN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, 
        WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, EUGENE, OREGON

    Ms. Brown. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member designate, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
join you today to discuss H.R. 200, the Forest Information 
Reform Act, and H.R. 1567, the Accurately Counting Risk 
Elimination Solutions Act.
    Thank you, Congresswoman Hoyle, for the kind introduction. 
I appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the 
Representative of Oregon's 4th Congressional District to 
steward our lands and waters for future generations of 
Oregonians and all Americans.
    Thank you also to Congressman Bentz, my Congressman 
representing the 2nd Congressional District, for the 
opportunity to appear before your Committee today.
    My name is Susan Jane Brown, and I am a Senior Staff 
Attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, or WELC. We 
are based in Eugene, Oregon, with offices in Portland, Bend, 
and Lostine, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Taos and Santa Fe, 
New Mexico; Buena Vista, Colorado; and Helena, Montana.
    WELC uses the power of the law to defend and protect the 
American West, treasured landscapes, iconic wildlife, and rural 
communities. We combine our legal skills with sound 
conservation biology and environmental science to address major 
environmental issues in the West in the most strategic and 
effective manner. WELC works at the national, regional, state, 
and local levels, and in all three branches of the government. 
WELC is also deeply engaged in collaborative forest 
conservation in Oregon, working closely with the Blue Mountains 
Forest Partners and Harney County Forest Restoration 
Collaborative on the Malheur National Forest, the Deschutes 
Collaborative Forest Project on the Deschutes National Forest, 
and the Northern Blues Forest Collaborative on the Umatilla and 
Wallowa Whitman National Forest, all located in eastern and 
central Oregon in Congressman Bentz's district.
    Although I would prefer to discuss WELC's collaborative 
conservation efforts in Oregon, today I am wearing my proud 
environmental litigator hat in defense of the Endangered 
Species Act, our nation's premier wildlife conservation law. As 
a nation of laws, their enforcement is central to our 
democracy.
    Citizen enforcement of congressional intent embodied in 
Federal environmental laws stems from the constitutional right 
of all Americans to petition their government for redress, and 
is part of a long and powerful history of social change. 
Hindering access to the courts for forest management issues 
should be met with criticism for the precedent that it would 
represent and the controversy that it would create.
    The Cottonwood decision is not the demon that its 
detractors in the Forest Service make it out to be. Indeed, the 
premise of that decision, that forest plans are ongoing agency 
actions over which the agency retains exclusive control, are 
subject to reinitiation of consultation has been the law of the 
land in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 
Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, covering 
123 million acres across 128 units of the National Forest 
System since 1994.
    This holding has been affirmed numerous times by the 9th 
Circuit, and yet the Forest Service has been able to actively 
manage our national forests here, despite this fact. The sky 
will not fall today simply because the 2018 fix expires. 
Indeed, when new species are listed, new critical habitat 
designated, or new information comes to light affecting 
decisions made in the underlying forest plan, the Forest 
Service nearly always does the right thing and follows the law 
by re-initiating consultation to address these changed 
circumstances. Only rarely is litigation required to compel 
compliance with the law, and then most re-initiations are 
completed expeditiously.
    The real problem that should enjoy widespread bipartisan 
support in solving is the fact that most of our forest plans 
are woefully out of date. Congress should therefore eliminate 
the annual Interior appropriations rider that exempts the 
Forest Service from the National Forest Management Act 
requirement to revise its forest plans not more than every 15 
years. Eliminating this exemption could increase the urgency 
and rate at which the Forest Service revises its plans.
    The Forest Service's Federal Advisory Committee on the 
agency's 2012 planning rule, on which I served for 6 years, 
including 2 years as its co-chair, provided Secretary Vilsack 
with 66 consensus recommendations on how to improve and 
expedite the planning process. Yet, few of those 
recommendations have been implemented. There are lessons 
learned here that just are waiting to be adopted.
    Moreover, Congress recently invested more than $8 billion 
in new money in Forest Service land management through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, including for forest planning and ESA 
consultation. The agency now has a substantial influx of 
funding to accomplish foundational land management planning and 
species consultation, which should make the need for H.R. 200 
obsolete. Congress should wait and see how the Forest Service 
utilizes this new investment before intervening in the re-
initiation process.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look 
forward to our conversation and answering any questions you may 
have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Susan Jane M. Brown, Western Environmental Law 
                                 Center
                       on H.R. 200 and H.R. 1567

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to join you today to 
discuss H.R. 200, the Forest Information Reform Act, and H.R. 1567, the 
Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act.
    My name is Susan Jane M. Brown, and I am a Senior Staff Attorney 
with the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC). We are based in 
Eugene, Oregon, with offices in Portland, Bend, and Lostine, Oregon; 
Seattle, Washington; Taos and Santa Fe, New Mexico; Buena Vista, 
Colorado; and Helena, Montana. WELC uses the power of the law to defend 
and protect the West's treasured landscapes, iconic wildlife, and rural 
communities. We combine our legal skills with sound conservation 
biology and environmental science to address major environmental issues 
in the West in the most strategic and effective manner. WELC works at 
the national, regional, state, and local levels and in all three 
branches of government. We integrate national policies and regional 
perspective with the local knowledge of our 150+ partner groups to 
implement smart and appropriate place-based solutions.
    WELC is also deeply engaged in collaborative forest conservation in 
Oregon, working closely with the Blue Mountains Forest Partners and 
Harney County Forest Restoration Collaborative on the Malheur National 
Forest, the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project on the Deschutes 
National Forest, and the Northern Blues Forest Collaborative on the 
Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, all located in eastern 
and central Oregon.
    I am a proud environmental litigator. My primary focus of 
litigation is federal public lands forest management, and my practice 
includes cases involving the Endangered Species Act, National 
Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, Oregon and 
California Lands Act, and other land management statutes. I am an 
Adjunct Professor of Law at Lewis and Clark Law School, where I have 
taught Forest Law & Policy to upper division law students for the past 
14 years. Both my litigation and pedagogy have been heavily influenced 
by not only my collaborative experience, but also my tenure as Natural 
Resources Counsel for Congressman DeFazio, a former Member of this 
Committee.
    Today I am testifying on H.R. 200, the Forest Information Reform 
Act, and H.R. 1567, the Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions 
Act.
H.R. 200, the Forest Information Reform Act

    H.R. 200, the Forest Information Reform Act, would exempt the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from reinitiating 
consultation on applicable land management plans (forest plans) in 
three circumstances: 1) when a new species is listed under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA); 2) when new critical habitat is designed 
under the ESA; or 3) when new information about a listed species or its 
critical habitat becomes available. The legislation is a false solution 
in search of a nonexistent ``problem'' and should not advance out of 
the Subcommittee.
    Intentionally ignoring the dangers of climate change is reckless 
and myopic at best, and yet disregarding new information about climate 
change effects on listed species and their critical habitat is exactly 
what H.R. 200 does. Climate change is dramatically affecting our 
forests, whether manifested as increased droughts, insects, disease, 
floods, wildfire, species range shifts, or other effects.\1\ Most 
forest plans are woefully out of date \2\ and do not address how 
climate change could affect national forest resources and provide 
direction to lessen the impacts to wildlife and human communities. 
Ignoring these obvious ecological changes by failing to reinitiate 
consultation on forest plans to ensure that native biodiversity is 
conserved for future generations is akin to burying one's head in the 
sand and hoping for the best. But this is not what the National Forest 
Management Act (or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act) require 
of our federal land managers: instead, the Forest Service and BLM must 
use the best available science to inform land management,\3\ and 
sometimes that best available science indicates that land management 
plans require reevaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC), Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Summary 
for Policymakers, available at https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/
IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf (March 20, 2023).
    \2\ Erin H. Ward, Katie Hoover, and Pervaze A. Sheikh, 
Congressional Research Service, Legal and Practical Implications of the 
Ninth Circuit's Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest 
Service Decision Under the Endangered Species Act, CRS Report R47201 
(Aug. 2, 2022) (hereinafter ``CRS''), 3.
    \3\ See, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1604; 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, H.R. 200's purported reliance on project-level 
consultation rather than plan-level consultation will not create 
efficiencies or conduct sufficient analysis as required by the ESA in 
two ways.
    One, many types of forest management do not require or do not 
receive project-level authorization and therefore will not be subject 
to project-level consultation. For example, both winter and summer 
recreational off-road vehicle use is not subject to project-level 
authorization and yet often has significant adverse effects on listed 
species and their critical habitat. Likewise, domestic livestock 
grazing authorization, while subject to project-level (or, allotment-
level) analysis and consultation, is woefully behind schedule and many 
western allotments either have no environmental analysis at all, or 
analysis that is decades-old. This use of the national forests also can 
have substantial adverse effects on listed species and critical 
habitats, and yet would generally escape ESA review under H.R. 200.
    Two, project-level consultation intentionally looks only at the 
project decision under consultation and often fails to consider the 
cumulative effects on listed species and critical habitat of many 
different uses of a national forest on either that project's geography 
or across the entire national forest: this broadscale look only happens 
at the forest plan level. Consequently, a project-level consultation on 
a timber sale (for example) only looks at how that timber sale affects 
the listed species and critical habitat within that timber sale area, 
and not how climate change, increased wildfire occurrence and severity, 
and reduced water flows affect that species and its habitat that exists 
across the national forest. This piecemeal approach fails to capture 
important ecological effects at the appropriate scale.\4\ While 
project-level consultation is essential, it is not, alone, sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Indeed, this approach essentially asks each project-level 
consultation to do the work of plan-level consultation. Because under 
H.R. 200 there would be no requirement to reinitiate consultation on a 
forest plan in most cases, each project-level consultation would 
require more analysis in the first instance, rather than personnel 
being able to incorporate the more comprehensive and current forest 
plan-level analysis into project-level consultation, and would require 
personnel to reanalyze plan-level effects in each project-level 
analysis. This is not an efficient process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to being bad policy, the justification for H.R. 200 
rests on false premise. As the Subcommittee well knows, responding to 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' affirmation of Pacific Rivers 
Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) (Pacific Rivers) in 
Cottonwood Law Center v. United States Forest Service, 789 F.3d 1075 
(9th Cir. 2015) (Cottonwood) has been of high interest to those in 
Congress who believe that Cottonwood hinders forest management within 
the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit (i.e., Alaska, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, 
and the Northern Mariana Islands). In response to this interest, the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report in August 2022 
that sought to bring clarity to these claims, Legal and Practical 
Implications of the Ninth Circuit's Cottonwood Environmental Law Center 
v. U.S. Forest Service Decision Under the Endangered Species Act. Two 
important facts emerged from CRS' review.

    First, CRS concluded that ``Estimating or analyzing the effects of 
the Cottonwood decision (and the subsequent omnibus legislative fix) on 
[Forest Service, FS] operations and resources is challenging, primarily 
due to data constraints.'' \5\ Although the Forest Service has alleged 
in congressional testimony and elsewhere that Cottonwood precludes 
expeditious implementation of forest management activities and that 
``reinitiating consultation `` `takes numerous resources away from 
getting work done on the ground,' '' \6\ CRS found that in fact
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ CRS, 16.
    \6\ CRS, 16 FN 111 (quoting former Forest Service Chief Vicki 
Christensen).

        The FS has provided limited data to support or refute these 
        claims. Similar to many other federal agencies, the FS does not 
        routinely track or report the cost or personnel time associated 
        with the development of forest plans or project-level 
        decisions, engaging in consultation, or responding to 
        administrative or judicial challenges to those decisions. For 
        project-level planning, the FS does not routinely track the 
        time between the publication of a decision document and the on-
        the-ground implementation of that project. Because of these 
        limitations, there is insufficient baseline data with which to 
        authoritatively identify and compare the effect specific 
        factors may have on staffing or project development and 
        implementation timelines. These data constraints also limit 
        resource allocation comparisons between those national forests 
        bound by the different circuit court decisions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ CRS, 16; see also id. at FN 112 (explaining that time and 
expense data that was verifiable lacked context to evaluate its 
significance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is alarming that--based on no objective data whatsoever--the 
Forest Service would allege that an appellate court decision that 
merely affirms what has been black letter law in the largest Court of 
Appeals for more than thirty years precludes mission critical work. As 
an agency that is statutorily bound to make land management decisions 
based on interdisciplinary scientific information,\8\ the Forest 
Service's policy position is disappointing to say the least.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1604.
    \9\ That the agency has steadfastly held this position in the Biden 
administration is perplexing, given the Administration's purported 
emphasis on the use of science in decisionmaking and the need to 
address the biodiversity and climate crises by conserving important 
landscapes. See, Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific 
Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking, 86 Fed. Reg. 8,845 (Jan. 27, 
2021); Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, ``CRS examined FS timber harvest data from FY2015 (the year 
Cottonwood was decided) through FY2021 and was unable to identify any 
noticeable difference in the overall volume of timber sold or harvested 
across the entire NFS and between the NFS units covered by the Ninth 
Circuit relative to other NFS units.'' \10\ The lack of a causal 
relationship between Cottonwood and timber sold or harvested between 
the Ninth and Tenth Circuits further indicates that Cottonwood is not 
the demon its detractors suggest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ CRS, 17.
    \11\ Indeed, since Cottonwood merely affirms what has been the law 
in the Ninth Circuit since 1994 when Pacific Rivers was decided, and 
yet the national forests within the Ninth Circuit have consistently 
been the highest timber volume producing forests since 1994, it is a 
truism that neither Cottonwood nor Pacific Rivers have had any 
meaningfully adverse effect on timber production. See, United States 
Forest Service, Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National Forests 
and Grasslands, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/
products/cut-sold/index.shtml (last visited March 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information received from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
request to the Forest Service seeking data on the instances when the 
agency was compelled to reinitiate consultation between 2017-2020 shows 
that reinitiation of consultation happens rarely and can be concluded 
quickly. Across the 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands 
that comprise the National Forest System, the agency reinitiated 
consultation on only 7 plans per year on average,\12\ most frequently 
(12 instances) due to the Forest Service voluntarily amending or 
modifying its forest plan, a situation that does not implicate 
Cottonwood or its fixes including H.R. 200.\13\ Four plans in the 
southwest required amendment due to a court order finding that the 
Forest Service failed to address the recovery of Mexican spotted owls, 
another situation not implicated by Cottonwood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ The FOIA request and responsive documents are available upon 
request.
    \13\ CRS, 3, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Four plans required reinitiation based on changed conditions, and 
two plans required reinitiation based on new information, situations 
where H.R. 200 would apply. In three situations new critical habitat 
designations compelled reinitiation and only in one situation was 
reinitiation required due to the listing of a new species under the 
ESA. Thus, less than half of the forest plan reinitiations (i.e., 10 
instances) were due to situations implicated by Cottonwood. In 
addition, the FOIA response indicated that in many of these situations 
the agency was able to initiate and complete consultation in days or 
weeks without lengthy environmental documentation. The ``problem'' 
allegedly posed by Cottonwood is, in fact, much ado about very little 
and does not warrant congressional intervention involving the nation's 
premier wildlife conservation law.
    Although the need for H.R. 200 is neither supported by the facts 
nor is good policy, there are two solutions that should enjoy 
bipartisan support.
    First, Congress should eliminate the annual Interior Department 
appropriations rider that exempts the Forest Service from the National 
Forest Management Act requirement to revise its forest plans not more 
than every 15 years.\14\ Although the Forest Service's 2012 National 
Forest Management Act planning rule envisions revising plans within 3-4 
years, it is questionable at best whether the agency is in fact making 
diligent progress toward revising the more than 100 forest plans that 
require updating.\15\ Eliminating this exemption could increase the 
urgency and rate at which the Forest Service revises its plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See, Pub. L. 117-103, div. G, title IV, Sec. 407, Mar. 15, 
2022, 136 Stat. 410.
    \15\ The 21-member Federal Advisory Committee chartered to advise 
the Forest Service on implementation of the 2012 planning rule, on 
which I served for 6 years including 2 years as co-chair, provided 66 
consensus recommendations to Secretary Vilsack in 2018 regarding how 
the Forest Service might improve and expedite its forest planning and 
amendment process. United States Forest Service, Planning Rule FACA 
Committee, FACA Committee Recommendations (available at https://
www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd-575909.pdf) (Feb. 3, 
2018). Few of those consensus recommendations have been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Congress recently invested more than $8 billion in new 
money in Forest Service land management through the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, including for 
forest planning and ESA consultation. The agency now has a substantial 
influx of funding to accomplish foundational land management planning 
and species consultation, which should make the need for H.R. 200 
obsolete. Congress should wait and see how the Forest Service utilizes 
this new investment before intervening in the reinitiation process.
H.R. 1567, the Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act

    As a policy matter, although WELC understands the utility and ease 
of ``counting acres,'' we instead believe that land managers, the 
public, and decision makers should be focused on measuring the outcomes 
of land management. Until Congress directs the agencies to measure and 
report on outcome-based indicators of performance rather than outputs, 
however, WELC generally supports the premise of H.R. 1567 with two 
small alterations based on our direct experience with the purpose of 
the legislation in the context of collaborative forest management.
    By way of background, as my opening statement notes, WELC is a 
member of several forest restoration collaborative groups in eastern 
Oregon. I am a founding member of the Blue Mountains Forest Partners 
(BMFP), which works with diverse stakeholders on the Malheur National 
Forest to restore large landscapes to reduce wildfire risk, conserve 
wildlife habitat, and contribute to economic development of rural 
communities dependent on national forest management. In 2012, the 
Malheur was designated as a Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Act (CFLRA) project, which brought 10 years of additional funding to 
the Forest Service for the collaborative implementation and monitoring 
of large landscape restoration projects on the Forest.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) 
is incredibly successful in building social license around forest 
restoration and enjoys rare bipartisan support. WELC strongly supports 
this program and urges Congress to support its reauthorization and an 
expanded funding appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BMFP takes our applied science, monitoring, and adaptive management 
very seriously. Based on the experience and knowledge of our 
restoration contractors and forest products industry partners, BMFP 
became concerned that we were not ``finishing treatments,'' meaning 
that while the commercial timber harvest always occurred, other 
restoration actions--prescribed burning, meadow restoration, 
precommercial thinning, etc.--often lagged far behind or did not occur 
at all: when multiple restoration actions were proposed for the same 
acres (i.e., precommercial thin + commercial thin + fuels treatment + 
wildlife enhancement + prescribed fire on the same acre), only some of 
the actions were actually timely completed. And yet, the Forest Service 
always reported substantial ``acres treated'' in annual budgetary and 
congressional reports, which did not square with BMFP's on-the-ground 
experience.
    With a few years of implementation of our Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) project under our belts, in 2018 
we asked our partners at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to provide BMFP 
with an overview of the extent of our restoration work across the 
Forest and whether we were treating sufficient acres to reduce wildfire 
risk and restore ecological integrity across the landscape. Dr. Kerry 
Kemp, a forest ecologist with TNC and now with the Forest Service, 
spent months working with the Forest Service and agency databases to 
get a complete picture of what acres we had touched with what 
restoration action(s) and what action(s) remained in order to 
``finish'' the necessary restoration BMFP and our partners believed 
needed to occur.
    Unfortunately, we were unable to complete our review. However, we 
did learn that it was clear that the Forest Service's understanding of 
what restoration actions had and had not occurred was completely 
different than the experience of contractors who were doing the actual 
work on the ground (and being paid by the federal government to 
complete that work). Whether an issue of the lack of standardized 
training of agency staff who use the database (employees have different 
ways of viewing the data based on their area of expertise), agency 
turnover and the lack of new staff familiarity with the Forest's 
program of work, lack of a standardized definition of ``complete,'' or 
political pressure to show ``acres treated'' and ``board feet 
harvested,'' it was apparent that the Forest Service was double- and 
triple-counting acres and yet still not finishing the job in the woods.
    This is not an issue of sloppy or misleading contractors either. 
BMFP's restoration contractors and logger partners keep detailed 
records of their work in the woods and know exactly what work should 
occur on what acres because they are under contract to complete that 
work; but they also know when they aren't able to operate on those 
acres due to weather, timing, or other constraints.\17\ Consequently, 
our restoration contractors and logger partners have long lists of 
acres that still require restoration activities, some of which have 
been outstanding for years if not decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Another issue that BMFP has identified is that the acres 
analyzed for restoration activities in approved National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) documents are often much greater than the acres that 
the Forest Service advertises to contractors for either commercial or 
non-commercial treatment. Thus, acres are ``left on the table'' that 
could and should receive restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not an isolated incident. BMFP participates in numerous 
coalitions of forest collaborative groups across the west, and nearly 
all of them report similar issues and frustrations. Investigative 
journalists have also identified this problem.\18\ H.R. 1567, the 
Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions Act, would address a 
substantial portion of this problem by bringing transparency to the 
``counting acres'' issue. WELC suggests two modest alterations to the 
legislative proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Adiel Kaplan and Monica Hersher, NBC News, The Forest Service 
is overstating its wildfire prevention progress to Congress despite 
decades of warnings not to (available at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/
investigations/forest-service-overstating-wildfire-prevention-progress-
congress-decad-rcna41576) (Aug. 9, 2022).

    First, Section 2(d)(1)(B)(i) defines ``hazardous fuels reduction 
activity'' to exclude ``a wildland fire managed for resource 
benefits,'' but this exclusion should be reconsidered before the bill 
advances out of the Subcommittee. The use of beneficial fire (whether 
prescribed or a natural ignition) for resource benefit is a significant 
tool in the forest restoration toolbox \19\ and must be encouraged if 
we are to successfully address the Wildfire Crisis.\20\ The Forest 
Service should be able to ``count'' these beneficial fire acres, 
provided the fire in fact had positive resource benefits as most 
wildland fires do.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Hessburg et al., Climate, Environment, and Disturbance History 
Govern Resilience of Western North American Forests, 7 FRONT. ECOL. 
EVOL. 239 (2019). doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00239
    \20\ United States Forest Service, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: 
A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in 
America's Forests (available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/
wildfire-crisis) (Jan. 2022).
    \21\ Merschel et al., An ecological perspective on living with fire 
in ponderosa pine forests of Oregon and Washington: Resistance, gone 
but not forgotten, TREES, FORESTS AND PEOPLE 4 (2021) available at 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719321000133?via 
%3Dihub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, after consultation with Tribes and cultural fire 
practitioners, the Subcommittee should consider including ``cultural 
burning'' within the scope of the legislation and consider including 
the following definitions in Section 2: \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Oregon State Legislature Representative Pam Marsh has proposed 
these definitions as an amendment to Oregon House Bill 2985, which 
would create a Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program in the State. In 
turn, these definitions were borrowed from California's Senate Bill 
926, enacted into law in 2022, that created a Prescribed Fire Liability 
Pilot Program in that state.

        `Cultural burn' means the intentional application of fire to 
        land by an Indian tribe or cultural fire practitioner to 
        achieve cultural goals or objectives identified by a tribal 
        ordinance, traditional tribal custom or law of an Indian tribe, 
        such as subsistence, ceremonial activities, biodiversity or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        other benefits.

        `Cultural fire practitioner' means a person associated with an 
        Indian tribe with experience in burning to meet cultural goals 
        or objectives, including subsistence, ceremonial activities, 
        biodiversity or other benefits.

        `Indian tribe' means a federally recognized Indian tribe.

    Although it no longer occurs at the rate or extent as it did prior 
to European colonialization, cultural burning is an important tool to 
restore forest ecological integrity, as well as a manifestation of 
Indigenous sovereignty. Indigenous burning played a critical role in 
establishing forest ecosystems and continues to play a necessary 
stewardship role today. Tribes and Indigenous people across the country 
have used fire for thousands of years, and cultural burning practices 
are essential to the stewardship of plants and animals for food, fiber, 
and sustenance, the provision of community safety, and Tribal 
ceremonial, spiritual and religious practices. Thus, cultural burning 
should be ``counted'' by the Forest Service as a legitimate forest 
restoration action.
    WELC would be pleased to work with the Subcommittee to make these 
alterations to H.R. 1567.
Conclusion

    I look forward to discussing H.R. 200 and H.R. 1567 with the 
Subcommittee and answering any questions that the Subcommittee may 
have. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and 
experiences with you.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Susan Jane M. Brown, Senior Staff 
               Attorney, Western Environmental Law Center
            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Please list any payments the Western Environmental Law 
Center received under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in the 
past 10 years. Please disclose as applicable the case name, the court, 
subject matter of the litigation, the type of judgment (i.e. court 
settlement, court decision, agency settlement, etc.), the payment date, 
the payment amount, and the hourly rate charged.

    Answer.

      Western Environmental Law Center Federal Litigation Matters

              Fee Award History for the years 2013 to 2023

    The following list summarizes case-specific fee and cost awards to 
parties represented by the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) and 
paid to WELC in litigation with the federal government from 2013-2023. 
We have provided information regarding all payments made pursuant to 
all fee-shifting statutes, inclusive of the Equal Access to Justice 
Act.
    While we provide the case name, venue, and basic subject of the 
case, we are unable to provide specific information regarding the fee 
award mechanism (out of court settlement, court-approved settlement, or 
court award); what percentage, in whole or in part, of the award was 
made pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act versus other fee-
shifting statutes; and specific hourly rates, which change with case 
and context. Even with further review, it may not be possible to 
provide that information given how settlement agreements are 
negotiated. For example, fee and cost settlements typically involve, in 
the interest of settlement, an aggregate amount and do not involve 
specific hourly rates.

    Case filings and court orders and entries for each of the cases 
below can be accessed via publicly-available electronic court records 
by reference to the case number.

Saint John's Organic Farm & Peter Dill v. Gem County Mosquito Abatement 
District and Gem County, No. 1:04-CV-00087-BLW (D. Id.): Gem County 
Abatement. Payment Date: February 22, 2013, for $20,000.

Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Services, Civ. No. 2:10-cv-01477-GEB-CMK (D.E. Ca.); 12-16493 (9th 
Cir.): Silver King Creek. Payment Date: March 5, 2013, for $8,000.

Community Assoc. v. Smith Brothers Dairy (purchased by Nelson Faria 
Dairy Inc), No. 2:04-cv-03060 (D.E. Wa.): CAFO. Payment Date: May 9, 
2013, for $74,880.

Wilderness Watch v. Wamoto and U.S. Forest Service, No. 2:10-cv-01797-
JCC (D.W. Wa.): Glacier Peak. Payment Date: June 12, 2013, for $70,000.

Citizens for a Healthy Community v. U.S. Department of Interior and 
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Civ, No. 1-12-cv-01661-RPM (D. Co.): 
North Fork FOIA. Payment Date: September 11, 2013, for $100,107.

Pacific Rivers Council et al. v. Shepherd, Civ. No. 3:11-cv-442-HU (D. 
Or.); 12-35570 (9th Cir.): WOPR, Pacific Rivers. Payment Date: December 
28, 2013, for $5,039.

Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Center for Biological Diversity, 
and Forest Issues Group v. Ramiro Villalvazo U.S. Forest Service, No. 
2:09-cv-02523-LKK-JFM (D.E. Ca.): Eldorado Travel Management Plan. 
Payment Date: February 19, 2014, for $26,846.

Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 6:12-cv-00804 (D. Or.): 
Goose Timber Sale. Payment Date: May 27, 2014, for $59,787.

Cascadia Wildlands, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 6:12-
cv-00095-AA (D. Or.): North Fork Overlook. Payment Date: June 16, 2014, 
for $31,727.

Animal Welfare Institute v. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
No. 1:14-cv-00554-RCL (D. DC): Jaguar FOIA. Payment Date: August 20, 
2014, for $12,670.

Montana Wilderness Association v. Connell, Kornze, U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, U.S. Dept of Interior, and Kania, No. 4:09-cv-00095-SHE (D. 
Mt.); 11-35818 (9th Cir.): WSRA: Missouri. Payment Date: September 11, 
2014, for $129,194.

Environmental Protection Information Center v. Lehr et al., No. 3:13-
cv-02293-MMC (D.N. Ca.): Trinity Hatchery. Payment Date: September 24, 
2014, for $140,492.

The Wilderness Society v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 4:08-cv-00363 (D. 
Id.): Sawtooth. Payment Date: September 30, 2014, for $115,111.

McClelland v. National Parks Service, No. 1:14-cv-01171-RBW (D. D.C.): 
GNP Roost FOIA. Payment Date: November 5, 2014, for $15,033.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 4:12-cv-00384 
(D. Id.): Winchell-Dugway. Payment Date: December 17, 2014, for 
$30,190.

Citizens for a Healthy Community and High Country Conservation 
Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, Fitzwilliams, O'Byrne, Broyles and SG 
Interests I, LTD, SG Interests VII, LTD., No. 1:14-cv-00284-JLK (D. 
Co.): Forest Service SUPO. Payment Date: February 6, 2015, for $22,515.

Friends of the Wild Swan v. Ashe, No. 9:13-cv-00057 (D. Mt.): Lynx. 
Payment Date: May 13, 2015, for $104,060.

Native Fish Society v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 3:12-cv-
00431 (D. Or.): Sandy River Hatchery. Payment Date: May 14, 2015, for 
$49,399.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Civ. No. 14-1828 
(RMC) (D. D.C.): Lynx FOIA. Payment Date: August 12, 2015, for $6,500.

Environmental Protection Information Center v. Ayer et al., No. 3:13-
cv-00656-MMC (D.N. Ca.): Mad River. Payment Date: August 31, 2015, for 
$59,156.

Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 3:15-cv-00860-PK (D. 
Or.): Wolf FOIA. Payment Date: December 11, 2015, for $4,413.

Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
No. 1:15-cv-00695-RBW (D. D.C.): Buffalo RMP FOIA. Payment Date: 
December 31, 2015, for $8,411.

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and 
Klamath Forest Alliance v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, No. 3:13-cv-03717-NC (D.N. Ca.): FGS HCP. Payment 
Date: January 14, 2016, for $200,637.

The National Trust Historic Preservation, et al. v. Raymond Suazo, et 
al., No. 2:13-cv-01973-DGC (D. Az.): Sonoran Desert. Payment Date: 
February 12, 2016, for $182,352.

Powder River Basin Resource Council, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, No. 1:15-cv-01684-KBJ; Civ. No. 15-0695 (D. D.C.): NTL-4a 
FOIA. Payment Date: September 23, 2016, for $12,305.

McKenzie Flyfishers, Steamboaters v. McIntosh, Patterson, Aguilar, No. 
6:13-cv-02125-TC (D. Or.): McKenzie Chinook. Payment Date: October 31, 
2016, for $210,927.

Cascadia Wildlands, et al. v. Woodruff, et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-05132-
RJB (D.W. Wa.): WA Wildlife Services. Payment Date: November 17, 2016, 
for $69,699.

Montana Environmental Information Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, No. 4:11-cv-00015-SHE (D. Mt.): MT BLM Climate. Payment 
Date: February 22, 2017, for $18,451.

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, et al. v. Macwhorter and Waldo 
Mining District, No. 1:12-cv-01900-PA (D. Or.): Suction Dredge. Payment 
Date: February 22, 2017, for $34,812.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 16-01983 CKK 
(D. D.C.): Sonoran Desert Tortoise FOIA. Payment Date: March 15, 2017, 
for $12,000.

Friends of Toppenish Creek v. Department of Health & Human Services and 
The Indian Health Service, No. 1:16-cv-03013-SAB (D. Wa.): IHS FOIA. 
Payment Date: March 15, 2017, for $4,441.

WildEarth Guardians v. Kraayenbrink, et al., No. 4:14-cv-00488-REB (D. 
Id.): Idaho Predator. Payment Date: April 19, 2017, for $7,641.

Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, et al. v. U.S. Forest Service, 
No. 9:16-cv-00110-DLC (D. Mt.): Divide Elk Security. Payment Date: May 
24, 2017, for $25,244.

Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, Kurth, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, 
Wyoming Farm Bureau, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Washington Farm 
Bureau, Idaho State Snowmobile Association, Colorado Snowmobile 
Association, Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, American Petroleum 
Institute, Montana Petroleum Association, Western Energy Alliance, No. 
9:14-cv-00246-DLC (D. Mt.): Wolverine Listing. Payment Date: June 16, 
2017, for $200,879.

WildEarth Guardians, Conservation Northwest, Oregon Wild, Cascadia 
Wildlands, and Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Department of Interior, 
Zinke, Kurth, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 9:14-cv-00270-DLC 
(D. Mt.): Lynx Critical Habitat. Payment Date: June 16, 2017, for 
$94,216.

Dine CARE v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 
No. 12-cv-1275-JLK (D. Co.): Navajo Mine. Payment Date: August 25, 
2017, for $220,000.

Sierra Club Inc. v. BNSF Railway Co, No. 2:13-cv-00967-JCC (D.W. Wa.): 
Washington Coal Train. Payment Date: September 22, 2017, for $227,266.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, No. 1:17-cv-01151-JEB (D. D.C.): SO3349 FOIA OSM. Payment 
Date: November 1, 2017, for $4,500.

Friends of the Wild Swan, et al., v. Vermillion v. Montana Trappers 
Association, et al., No. 9:13-cv-00066-DLC (D. Mt.): Lynx Trapping. 
Payment Date: February 15, 2018, for $144,031.

Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild v. Carlton and American Forest 
Resource Council, No. 6:16-cv-01095-JR (D. Or.): Loafer Timber. Payment 
Date: March 8, 2018, for $76,034.

WildEarth Guardians and Kootenai Environmental Alliance v. Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, No. 1:17-cv-1153-KBJ; CDV 12-1075 (D. 
D.C.): Wildlife Services FOIA. Payment Date: April 12, 2018, for 
$10,000.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, No. 1:17-cv-00758-APM (D. D.C.): Spring Creek FOIA. 
Payment Date: April 12, 2018, for $5,650.

Montana Environmental Information Center v. U.S. Office of Surface 
Mining reclamation and Enforcement, No. 9:15-cv-00106-DWM (D. Mt.): 
Signal Peak NEPA. Payment Date: April 12, 2018, for $121,500.

Sierra Club, et al., v. Zinke, No. 3:17-cv-3804-EDL (D. Ca.): BLM 
Methane 705 Stay. Payment Date: October 31, 2018, for $37,788.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:17-cv-
01149 (D. D.C.): SO3349 FOIA BLM. Payment Date: December 10, 2018, for 
$9,000.

WildEarth Guardians v U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:18-cv-0551-
TNM (D. D.C.): FOIA. Payment Date: May 31, 2019, for $3,299.

Dine Citizens v. USEPA, No. 18-71481 (9th Cir.): Four Corners Power 
Plant NPDES. Payment Date: June 28, 2019, for $19,806.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:18-cv-
00121-RCL (D. D.C.): FOIA. Payment Date: June 30, 2019, for $1,369.

Western Organization of Resource Councils, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of 
Land Management, et al. and Cloud Peak Energy, et al., No. 4:16-CV-
00021-BMM (D. Mt.): Powder River Basin RMP. Payment Date: June 30, 
2019, for $230,227.

San Juan Citizens Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
No. 1:16-cv-00376-JOB-JHR (D. NM.): Santa Fe National Forest lease 
sale. Payment Date: July 8, 2019, for $62,248.

Sierra Club, et al., v. Bernhardt, No. 3:17-cv-7186-WHO (D. Ca.): BLM 
Methane Suspension Rules. Payment Date: July 24, 2019, for $73,780.

WildEarth Guardians v. Scruggs and Montana Trappers Association, et 
al., No. 9:16-cv-00065-DWM (D. Mt.): Lynx CITES. Payment Date: 
September 24, 2019, for $144,477.

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Zinke, et al. & Safari Club 
International, et al. v. Zinke, et al., No. 4:15-cv-00019-JGZ (D. Az.): 
Mexican Wolf. Payment Date: December 18, 2019, for $193,799.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:18-cv-
0890-APM (D. D.C): FOIA. Payment Date: December 30, 2019, for $737.

Willamette Riverkeeper and Conservation Angler v. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Aaron Dorf, No. 6:17-cv-00801-MC (D. Or.): Santiam 
Hatchery. Payment Date: December 31, 2019, for $130,000.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:17-cv-
01849 (D. D.C.): BLM online oil and gas leasing FOIA. Payment Date: 
December 31, 2019, for $13,000.

WildEarth Guardians, Oregon Wild, The Sierra Club, and Great Old Broads 
for Wilderness v. Jeffries, No. 2:17-cv-1004-SU (D. Or.): Ochoco Summit 
Trail. Payment Date: December 31, 2019, for $145,000.

Dine CARE v. Bernhardt, No. 1:15-cv-00209-JB-LF (D. NM.): Mancos APD. 
Payment Date: February 19, 2020, for $107,854.

Wilderness Workshop, Western Colorado Congress, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Sierra Club v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., 
No. 1:16-cv-01822 (D. Co.): Colorado River RMP. Payment Date: June 5, 
2020, for $118,421.

Montana Environmental Information Center v. U.S. Office of Surface 
Mining reclamation and Enforcement, No. 19-2977 (D. D.C.): OSM Rosebud 
FOIA. Payment Date: July 31, 2020, for $2,500.

Montana Environmental Information Center and Sierra Club v. U.S. Office 
of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Civ. No. 19-3019 (D. 
D.C.): OSM Bull Mountains FOIA. Payment Date: September 23, 2020, for 
$2,064.

WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, No. 4:19-cv-00441-CKJ (D. Az.): 
Sonoran Desert Tortoise ESA. Payment Date: December 30, 2020, for 
$23,524.

Citizens for a Healthy Community; High Country Conservation Advocates; 
Center for Biological Diversity; WildEarth Guardians; and Wilderness 
Workshop; v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, David Bernhardt, Dana M. 
Wilson, U.S. Forest Service, Sonny Perdue, Chad Steward, and SG 
Interests I, LTD.; and SG Interests VII, LTD., No. 1:17-cv-02519 (D. 
Co.): Bull Mountain MPD. Payment Date: December 31, 2020, for $61,248.

WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., 
No. 4:18-cv-0073-BMM (D. Mt.): Montana leasing. Payment Date: December 
31, 2020, for $90,440.

Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, et al. and Alliance for the 
Wild Rockies, et al., v. Leanne Marten, et al., and Stae of Montana and 
Montana Bicycle Guild, Inc., No. 19-cv-0047-DLC (D. Mt.): Challenge to 
Forest Service's decision to use of areas inside two Inventoried 
Roadless Areas in the Helena National Forest, as part of the Tenmile-
South Helena project. Payment Date: April 30, 2021, for $199,000.

Wilderness Workshop, Center for Biological Diversity, Living Rivers 
Colorado Riverkeeper, Sierra Club v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
No. 1:18-cv-00987 (D. Co.): Challenge to Piceance lease sales. Payment 
Date: December 11, 2021, for $20,670.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 1:18-cv-
00233 (D. D.C.): FOIA. Payment Date: December 31, 2021, for $3,697.

WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Civ. No. 18-
1020-CRC (D. D.C.): FOIA. Payment Date: February 4, 2022, for $2,950.

Crow Indian Tribe v. U.S.A., No. 17-cv-89 (D. Mt.): Restoring 
endangered species protections for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 
population of grizzly bears. Payment Date: February 24, 2022, for 
$432,426.

Friends of the Wild Swan, et al., v. Haaland, No. 9:20-cv-00173-DWM (D. 
Mt.): Challenge to Fed decision not to prepare lynx recovery plan, 
following earlier order from the court. Payment Date: April 20, 2022, 
for $101,012.

American Whitewater v. Electron Hydro, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00047-JCC (D. 
Wa.): Challenge to hydroelectric project on Puyallup River in 
Washington that takes ESA-listed Chinook and steelhead and bull trout. 
Payment Date: May 18, 2022, for $223,903.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Haaland, No. 2:16-cv-
05008-PHX-MHB (D. Az.): Challenge to BLM decision to allow target 
shooting in Sonoran Desert National Monument. Payment Date: July 31, 
2022, for $110,000.

Friends of the Clearwater v. Probert, No. 3:21-cv-00056-BLW (D. Id.): 
Griffin Half Moon timber sale. Payment Date: July 31, 2022, for 
$46,000.

WildEarth Guardians and Montana Environmental Information Center v. 
Haaland and Spring Creek Coal, LLC, No. CV 17-80-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mt.): 
Spring Creek Coal NEPA. Payment Date: September 8, 2022, for $103,500.

WildEarth Guardians v U.S. Dept of Interior et al., Civ. No. 19-2974 
(D. D.C.): Carlsbad Resource Management Plan FOIA. Payment Date: 
September 9, 2022, for $19,000.

Cascadia Wildlands, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Oregon Wild, 
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, and Willamette Riverkeeper v. US 
Bureau of Land Management and B&G Logging and Construction, LLC, No. 
6:21-cv-01313-AA (D. Or.): BLM salvage CX rulemaking. Payment Date: 
October 15, 2022, for $30,000.

Citizens for a Healthy Community v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
Civ. No. 1:20-cv-2484 (D. Co.): Uncompahgre Resource Management Plan. 
Payment Date: December 20, 2022, for $75,607.

WildEarth Guardians v. Williams, No. 9:20-cv-00097-DLC (D. Mt.): 
Challenge to Fed decision not to list wolverine. Payment Date: December 
21, 2022, for $61,499.

Dine CARE v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 1:20-CV-00673-KG-JHR (D. NM.): 
Challenge against BLM oil and gas leasing decisions under NEPA. Payment 
Date: March 9, 2023, for $142,043.

WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland, Nos. 9:20-cv-00181-DWM; 9:20-cv-00183-
DWM (D. Mt.): Challenge to Fed decision not to list wolverine. Payment 
Date: March 20, 2023, for $147,868.

    Question 2. Please list any current or pending litigation against 
the Federal Government to which you or your organization is a party 
filed between the period starting with March 23, 2023 and ending on the 
date in which you submit a response to this question. Please disclose 
as applicable case name, docket number, the court, and subject matter 
of the litigation.

    Answer. None.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Brown. I would like to 
introduce Mr. Jonathan Wood, who is the Vice President of Law 
and Policy for the Property and Environment Research Center, 
PERC. Mr. Wood is an experienced attorney specializing in 
environmental and constitutional law. PERC is an independent 
non-profit dedicated to the advancing of conservation through 
markets, incentives, property rights, and partnerships.
    Mr. Wood, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAW AND POLICY, 
   THE PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, BOZEMAN, 
                            MONTANA

    Mr. Wood. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, 
and thank you to Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove and the other 
members of the Committee for the invitation to participate in 
this discussion on needed reforms to restore our nation's 
forests, to protect wildlife habitat, and to tackle the 
wildfire crisis.
    The one thing left out of that description of PERC is that 
we are based in Bozeman, Montana, and I want to mention that 
and stress that in the intro because Montana really has been 
ground zero for Cottonwood and litigation against forest 
restoration generally.
    We did a study a couple of years ago looking at where 
litigation is filed in challenging forest restoration projects. 
And the most popular district for these cases to be filed is in 
the district of Montana. In fact, there are only two districts 
alone, the Eastern District of California and in Montana, that 
are responsible for more than half of the cases challenging 
forest restoration.
    One of the targets of the Cottonwood case was the Bozeman 
Municipal Watershed Project on the outskirts of town. The 
project is designed to protect from wildfire the main source of 
Bozeman's drinking water, and it would also protect really 
valued recreational areas where I and my neighbors take our 
kids to learn how to hike, to appreciate nature, and to enjoy 
the outdoors.
    In Cottonwood, the 9th Circuit held, as you have heard from 
the other witnesses--and, I will note, contrary to the ESA's 
text, Supreme Court precedent, and 10th Circuit precedent--that 
the Forest Service must perpetually re-consult with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service on its existing forest plans every time a 
new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or its 
ambiguous term--new information is discovered.
    The case contributed substantially to a 15-year delay in 
the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project. It unnecessarily kept 
my town at risk that a catastrophic wildfire would mar 
viewshed, scorch wildlife habitat and recreation areas, and 
leave the city with a mere 3 days of drinking water. That delay 
produced no benefit for any listed species. Today, the project 
is finally being implemented, precisely the way it had been 
proposed more than a decade earlier.
    Congress quickly responded to Cottonwood by enacting a 
temporary fix, saving other communities from this fate. Today, 
however, that fix expires. Unless Congress acts promptly to fix 
Cottonwood, as Congressman Rosendale's FIR Act proposes, the 
Forest Service will immediately have to re-consult over dozens 
of national forest plans. It estimates that work will take 5 to 
10 years and cost several million dollars, time and money the 
agency simply doesn't have during today's wildfire crisis.
    The temporary fix's expiration could not happen at a worse 
time. The Forest Service faces an 80-million-acre forest 
restoration backlog, affecting 40 percent of the land managed 
by the agency. This backlog leaves our forests with excess 
fuels, more vulnerable to insects and disease, and less 
resilient to climate change and drought. The backlog fuels 
catastrophic wildfires that are more likely to threaten old-
growth trees, wipe out wildlife habitat, and cause erosion that 
degrades watersheds and fisheries.
    Even mighty giant sequoias that have withstood life in 
California's rugged Sierra Nevada mountains for thousands of 
years are at risk. The National Park Service estimates as many 
as 1 in 5 of the world's remaining sequoias have been killed by 
wildfires since 2020.
    Wildfire emissions are also a major climate concern, with a 
single year's fire able to wipe out decades of hard-won 
emissions reductions. The Forest Service has not been able to 
implement forest restoration projects at the scale needed to 
shrink this backlog. Recently, it has treated an average of 
about 4 million acres per year. And the agency's non-intuitive 
way of tracking and reporting that progress can exaggerate 
their progress in closing this restoration backlog.
    Chairman Tiffany's ACRES Act would fix this problem by 
requiring the agency to report its forest restoration efforts 
in a way that would be more accessible to the public, and 
easier to track accountability.
    The Biden administration has set ambitious goals to 
increase forest restoration work over the next decade. Meeting 
these lofty but critical targets will require greater 
efficiency in the often years-long process of developing, 
approving, and implementing forest restoration projects. 
Cottonwood would add new obstacles to forest restoration. It 
will also slow or stop projects essential to protecting 
wildlife habitat, including for endangered and threatened 
species.
    On the other hand, the re-consultation required by 
Cottonwood would not help recover species. As the 10th Circuit 
explained to Forest Guardians, forest plans are not self-
implementing. They are, the court explained, ``more akin to 
roadmaps, creating a vision'' for future forest management. 
These plans can only affect listed species to individual 
projects, and those already go through consultation and re-
consultation to address impacts to native-listed species, 
designated critical habitat, or discovered information.
    And I will close by reminding the panel of the Obama 
administration's assessment of Cottonwood, a case which it 
fought in the 9th Circuit and tried to have a return in the 
Supreme Court. That assessment was correct, and it was that 
Cottonwood threatens to ``cripple the Forest Service and BLM's 
land management functions,'' and distract from on-the-ground 
species recovery efforts.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you, and I 
look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law and Policy, 
            Property and Environment Research Center (PERC)
                       on H.R. 200 and H.R. 1567

Main Points

     Closing the Forest Service's 80-million-acre forest-
            restoration backlog is essential to conserve forests, 
            maintain wildlife habitat, and tackle the wildfire crisis.

     The Forest Service cannot shrink the backlog if it remains 
            bogged down by bureaucracy and litigation.

     In Cottonwood, the Ninth Circuit invented an unnecessary 
            bureaucratic obstacle to forest restoration and encouraged 
            litigation to upend this work, while producing no benefits 
            for listed species.

     Numerous conservation organizations and three presidential 
            administrations have supported fixing Cottonwood to 
            streamline needed forest restoration.

Introduction

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the invitation to participate in this 
important discussion on forest conservation and, especially, how the 
Ninth Circuit's controversial Cottonwood decision \1\ interferes with 
the Forest Service's ability to restore forests, protect wildlife 
habitat, and tackle the wildfire crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Forest Service, 789 F.3d 
1075 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My name is Jonathan Wood and I'm the vice president of law and 
policy at the Property and Environment Research Center. PERC is the 
national leader in market solutions for conservation, with over 40 
years of research and a network of respected scholars and 
practitioners. Through research, law and policy, and innovative applied 
conservation programs, PERC explores how aligning incentives for 
environmental stewardship produces sustainable outcomes for land, 
water, and wildlife. Forest health has been a primary focus of PERC's 
research and policy efforts including major reports on policies that 
discourage collaborative forest restoration and prescribed burning.\2\ 
Founded in 1980, PERC is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and proudly based in 
Bozeman, Montana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Holly Fretwell & Jonathan Wood, Fix America's Forests: 
Reforms to Restore National Forests and Tackle the Wildfire Crisis, 
PERC Public Lands Report (2021); Jonathan Wood & Morgan Varner, Burn 
Back Better: How Western States Can Encourage Prescribed Fire on 
Private Lands, PERC Policy Report (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bozeman has been ground-zero for Cottonwood and for litigation 
challenging forest restoration generally. In fact, one of the targets 
of the Cottonwood case was the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project in 
PERC's backyard.\3\ The project area is the main source of Bozeman's 
water. It's also where I (like countless other Bozeman residents) teach 
my kids to hike, appreciate nature, and enjoy the outdoors. The 
Cottonwood case, brought by self-described ``radical 
environmentalists,'' \4\ contributed substantially to a 15-year-delay 
in the project and kept Bozeman exposed to the risk that a catastrophic 
wildfire would mar our viewshed, scorch wildlife habitat and cherished 
recreation areas, and leave the city with a mere 3 days of drinking 
water.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Cottonwood, 789 F.3d at 1080. See also Forest Service, 
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project Record of Decision (2010).
    \4\ See John Meyer, Sen. Steve Daines ought to take a hike in our 
forests, Bozeman Daily Chronicle (June 21, 2022).
    \5\ See BMWP Record of Decision, supra n. 3 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our national forests face an 80-million-acre backlog in needed 
restoration--a backlog that leaves our forests with excess fuels, more 
vulnerable to insects and disease, and less resilient to climate change 
and drought.\6\ The Forest Service has struggled to treat more than a 
few millions of those acres per year.\7\ And as reflected in Chairman 
Tiffany's ACRES Act (H.R. 1567), the Forest Service's method of 
tracking and reporting these acres has historically overstated the 
agency's progress toward clearing the backlog.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See Forest Service, Forest Products Modernization (last visited 
Mar. 17, 2023). See also Fix America's Forests, supra n. 2 at 4-16.
    \7\ See Forest Service, USDA Forest Service Celebrates Historic 
Investments in 2022 (Feb. 6, 2023) (reporting that the Service treated 
3.2 million acres in 2022); Fix America's Forests, supra n. 2 at 4.
    \8\ See Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions (ACRES) Act, 
H.R. 1567. See also GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions 
Required to Better Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels 
Reduction (2003); GAO, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is 
Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To tackle the wildfire crisis fueled by this backlog, the Biden 
administration has developed an ambitious strategy to significantly 
increase its forest restoration work over the next decade, including 
treating an additional 20 million acres of national forest above the 
business-as-usual rate.\9\ Meeting that lofty but critical target will 
require greater efficiency in the years-long process of developing, 
approving, and implementing forest restoration projects.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Forest Service, Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy 
for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America's 
Forests (2022).
    \10\ See Eric Edwards & Sara Sutherland, Does Environmental Review 
Worsen the Wildfire Crisis?, PERC Policy Brief (2022). See also 
Confronting the Wildfire Crisis, supra n. 9 at 30 (predicting that 
existing ``shovel ready'' projects could be completed in years 1 and 2 
of the plan); Forest Service, National Prescribed Fire Program Review 
App. A 21 (2022) (identifying the need to ``streamline required 
environmental analysis and consultations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allowing the temporary Cottonwood fix to expire and the Ninth 
Circuit's decision to go into full effect would be a significant and 
unnecessary setback for forest conservation.\11\ That's why the Obama, 
Trump, and Biden administrations have expressed concern about 
Cottonwood,\12\ why PERC and other conservation groups have supported a 
fix,\13\ and why legislative proposals to reverse it, like 
Representative Rosendale's FIR Act (H.R. 200), have consistently 
received bipartisan support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See Congressional Research Service, Legal and Practical 
Implications of the Ninth Circuit's Cottonwood Environmental Law Center 
v. U.S. Forest Service Decision Under the Endangered Species Act (2022) 
(discussing the temporary Cottonwood fix Congress enacted in 2018).
    \12\ See Pet. for Cert., U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cottonwood, No. 15-
1387 (filed June 10, 2016); Fish & Wildlife Serv., Proposed Rule to 
Amend Consultation Requirements, 86 Fed. Reg. 2373 (January, 12, 2021); 
Deputy Chief Christopher French, Forest Service, Response to Questions 
for the Record, Senate Comm. on Energy and Natural Res. Hearing on S. 
2561 (October 21, 2021) (hereinafter Deputy Chief French QFR). For ease 
of access, this document is appended to this testimony.
    \13\ See Letter from PERC and Other Conservation Organizations to 
Senators Schumer, Carper, Manchin, Capito, and Barasso (Sept. 20, 
2022); News Release, Daines, Tester, Simpson, Peterson Introduce 
Legislation to Reverse Disastrous Court Ruling (Mar. 9, 2017) (noting 
support from the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Boone 
and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Wildlife 
Management Institute, and other conservation groups).
    \14\ See Letter from Senators Daines, Risch, Tester, Crapo, and 
King to the President (Jan. 31, 2023) (urging the President to support 
a permanent Cottonwood fix); Congressional Sportsmen's Found., Two CSF 
Conservation Priorities Pass Senate Committee with Strong Bipartisan 
Support (July 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Restoration Backlog Fueling the Wildfire Crisis

    According to the Forest Service, forty percent of the acres in the 
national forest system need restoration to address excess fuels, 
invasive species, disease and insect infestations, and other 
conservation challenges.\15\ When the Department of the Interior's 54-
million-acre restoration backlog is added in,\16\ the total area 
needing urgent help is larger than the state of California. The 
wildfire crisis is the most visible symptom of this problem but it is 
not the only one. Due to the backlog, many western forests are stocked 
full with overly dense, unhealthy, and dying stands that provide lower 
quality habitat, are more vulnerable to insects and disease, and are 
less resilient to climate change and drought.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n. 2 at 4.
    \16\ GAO, Wildland Fire: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Reduce 
Wildland Fuels and Lower Risk to Communities and Ecosystems (2019).
    \17\ See Fix America's Forests n. 2 at 8-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with any complex phenomenon, no single factor fully explains 
declining forest health or thewildfire crisis. A changing climate has 
increased the risk of drought and extended the west's ``wildfire 
season.'' \18\ A massive jump in the number of people living near or 
recreating in forests has increased opportunities for human-caused 
ignitions.\19\ But the largest factor, according to a study by Forest 
Service scientists, is excessive forest density and the buildup of 
fuels due to decades of failed fire suppression policies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 2 at 4.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See Sean A. Parks et al., High-Severity Fire: Evaluating Its 
Key Drivers and Mapping Its Probability Across Western US Forests, 
Environmental Research Letters (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fire is nothing new to western forests, which are adapted to flames 
due to climate, terrain, and Indigenous tribes' use of controlled fire 
for millennia.\21\ However, recent catastrophic wildfires are far more 
destructive than historical fire regimes. They are more likely to 
threaten old-growth trees, wipe out habitat for wildlife, and cause 
erosion that degrades watersheds and fish habitat.\22\ Even mighty 
giant sequoias--some of which have withstood life in California's 
rugged Sierra Nevada mountains for thousands of years--are at risk. The 
National Park Service estimates that 10-20% of the world's remaining 
members of this species have been killed by wildfires since 2020.\23\ 
Wildfire emissions are also a major climate concern. California's 
record wildfire year in 2020, for example, released twice the amount of 
emissions that the state cut between 2003 and 2019.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 2 at 4.
    \22\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n. 2 at 8-10.
    \23\ See Dr. Kristen Shive, et al., 2021 Fire Season Impacts to 
Giant Sequoias (last visited Mar. 19, 2023).
    \24\ Michael Jerrett, Amir S. Jina, Miriam E. Marlier, Up in smoke: 
California's greenhouse gas reductions could be wiped out by 2020 
wildfires, 300 Env'tl Pollution 119888 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2005, the United States has three times eclipsed 10 million 
acres burned by wildfires in a year--an unfathomable total just a few 
decades ago--with the vast majority of that acreage concentrated in the 
West.\25\ And due to growing populations near forests, modern fires 
also threaten communities and property in ways not seen before.\26\ 
Nearly 100,000 structures have burned in wildfires since 2005, with 
two-thirds of that destruction occurring since 2017.\27\ California's 
Camp Fire in 2018 was the deadliest and most destructive in that 
state's history, killing 85 people and destroying most of the town of 
Paradise, CA in less than 24 hours.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n. 2 at 10-11.
    \26\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 2 at 4.
    \27\ Headwaters Economics, Wildfires Destroy Thousands of 
Structures Each Year (2022).
    \28\ National Institute of Standards & Technology, New Timeline of 
Deadliest California Wildfire Could Guide Lifesaving Research and 
Action (Feb. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forest restoration efforts, including mechanical thinning and 
prescribed fire, are urgently needed to reduce wildfire damage and 
promote forest resilience. The effectiveness of these tools was 
demonstrated in 2021 during Oregon's Bootleg Fire, which ultimately 
burned more than 400,000 acres.\29\ Firefighters reported that where 
both treatments had been applied, fire intensity was reduced, the 
crowns of trees were left intact, and the blaze became a more 
manageable ground fire. Reports also indicated that an area where 
scheduled prescribed burns had been delayed suffered more damage than 
areas where treatments had been completed.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ See Burn Back Better, supra n. 2 at 5.
    \30\ See Sara Sutherland & Eric Edwards, How Environmental Red Tape 
Inflames Wildfire Risk, PERC Reports (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Forest Service has simply not been able to keep up with forest 
restoration needs. From 2009 to 2018, it averaged restoration 
treatments on less than 4 million acres per year.\31\ But this does not 
mean that the Service would catch up in 20 years, as dividing an 80-
million-acre backlog by 4 million acres per year would suggest. The 
Forest Service tracks acres treated in a non-intuitive way that 
precludes such easy comparison. If a Forest Service projects calls for 
treating 1,000 acres with commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, 
piling and burning, and broadcast burning over 4 years, it may count 
this project as 4,000 acres treated: 1,000 commercially thinned in year 
1; 1,000 non-commercially thinned in year 2; 1,000 pile-burned in year 
3; and 1,000 prescribed burned in year 4. For more than two decades, 
the GAO has criticized the Forest Service's approach as creating 
perverse incentives and generating misleading data.\32\ Requiring 
accurate reporting on treated acres, Chairman Tiffany's proposed ACRES 
Act (H.R. 1567) would help address this problem and better ensure 
responsible management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ See Federal Agencies' Efforts to Reduce Wildlife Fuels, supra 
n. 16.
    \32\ See Wildland Fire Management, supra n. 8; Western National 
Forests, supra n. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project and the Cottonwood Decision

    In 2004, the Custer-Gallatin National Forest and the city of 
Bozeman, Montana determined that wildfire risks threatened 80% of the 
city's water supply, along with valuable wildlife habitat, recreational 
areas, and homes and infrastructure. The Forest Service and the city 
began work on a plan to fix the problem by restoring a forested area on 
the outskirts of town.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See BMWP Record of Decision, supra n. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Carrying that plan out, however, would prove much more difficult. 
It took three years to prepare a draft NEPA analysis.\34\ While the 
Forest Service was working on finalizing it, a federal court reversed 
the delisting of the local grizzly bear population, triggering 
additional Endangered Species Act analysis and delaying a final 
decision.\35\ When that analysis was completed, several organizations 
objected to it. The Forest Service resolved those objections in 2011 
and formally approved the project, 7 years after the process began. At 
that point several especially litigious organizations filed lawsuits 
challenging the project.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See Salix v. Forest Service, 944 F. Supp. 2d 984 (D. Mont. 
2013); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Krueger, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1196 
(D. Mont. 2013). Between 2007 and 2017, more litigation challenging 
forest restoration projects was filed in the District of Montana than 
anywhere else in the country. See Fix America's Forests, supra n. X at 
38 (reporting that Montana had 50% more of this litigation than the 
second-place district, the Eastern District of California). A handful 
of especially litigious groups are responsible for this concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Cottonwood, an environmental litigation group challenged the 
Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project and two other projects under the 
Endangered Species Act. In 2009, while the projects were being 
developed, the Fish and Wildlife Service designated nearly 10,000 
square miles within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as critical 
habitat for the Canada lynx.\37\ In analyzing the project, the Forest 
Service thoroughly considered this development and concluded that the 
project would have no impact on the critical habitat.\38\ Nonetheless, 
the plaintiffs demanded the project be stopped because the Forest 
Service had not re-initiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service over a forest plan that had been completed years before the 
critical habitat designation was made.\39\ A federal court issued an 
injunction blocking the project while the litigation played out.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ See Susan Gallagher, Protected land for lynx expands, Seattle 
Times (Feb. 25, 2009).
    \38\ See BMWP Record of Decision, supra n. 3 at 26.
    \39\ See Salix, 944 F. Supp. 2d 984.
    \40\ Id.; Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies 
to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (or, for aquatic species, 
the National Marine Fisheries Service) whenever any ``action'' it 
authorizes, funds, or carries out is likely to jeopardize a listed 
species or adversely modify its critical habitat.\41\ The statute 
suggests consultation is a one-time event that must be completed within 
90 or 180 days of when the federal agency requests the Fish and 
Wildlife Service's opinion.\42\ However, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
has, by regulation, defined it as a continuing obligation. Under that 
regulation, the agency must re-consult for at least some actions 
whenever a new species is listed, new critical habitat is designated, 
or ``new information'' is discovered.\43\ Thus, agencies routinely 
reconsult over ongoing projects, including forest restoration projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536(a).
    \42\ Id. Sec. 1536(a)(3) (referring to ``prospective agency 
action''); id. Sec. 1536(b) (setting deadlines for completing 
consultation).
    \43\ 50 C.F.R Sec. 402.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question in Cottonwood, however, was whether the Forest Service 
must also reinitiate consultation over the forest plan. These plans 
provide a general road map for future management decisions but do not 
authorize any on-the-ground activity.\44\ That must be done through a 
subsequent action, like the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, that 
goes through its own environmental analysis and ESA consultation. Prior 
to Cottonwood, the apparent answer to this question was ``no.'' The 
Supreme Court had, interpreting essentially identical language in the 
National Environmental Policy Act, held that land management plans like 
this are not continuing actions and, therefore, do not require 
supplemental analysis.\45\ The Tenth Circuit had considered the precise 
question in Cottonwood and held that once a federal land management 
plan is issued the action is complete and Section 7's consultation 
requirement no longer applies.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
    \45\ Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 73 
(2004).
    \46\ Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d 1149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Ninth Circuit went the other way, holding that federal agencies 
must reinitiate consultation at the forest plan level whenever there is 
a new species listed, critical habitat designated, or any other new 
information.\47\ Essentially reading the word ``action'' out of the 
statute, the court held that so long as an agency could take some 
future hypothetical action affecting the species, like amending an 
existing forest plan, then it must perpetually consult over past, 
completed actions--even those that have no on-the-ground impact on the 
species.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, 789 F.3d at 1084-88.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse this 
outlier decision, explaining that it ``has the potential to cripple the 
Forest Service and BLM's land-management functions'' and to distract 
the Fish and Wildlife Service from activities that could actually 
benefit listed species.\49\ Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined 
to review the Ninth Circuit's aberrant decision.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ See Pet. for Cert., supra n. 12.
    \50\ Forest Serv. v. Cottonwood Env't L. Ctr., 137 S. Ct. 293 
(2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon after the Supreme Court passed on the case, the Forest Service 
requested consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. That process 
would take nearly a year, with several rounds of back-and-forth between 
the two agencies.\51\ According to the Forest Service, this single 
reconsultation cost the agency more than $250,000.\52\ And, ultimately, 
it concluded that the forest plan was not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify lynx critical habitat and, therefore, required no 
change.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ See Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion on the 
Effects of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction on Designated 
Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx (2017).
    \52\ Deputy Chief French QFR, supra n. 12 at 1-2.
    \53\ See Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Northern Rockies 
Lynx Management Direction, supra n. 51 at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2020, 16 years after the project was initiated, the federal 
court lifted the injunction and allowed the project to finally proceed. 
Notably, the extended delays and mountain of additional paperwork did 
not result in any material change to the project or benefit to any 
species. The project is being implemented today in exactly the way it 
was proposed more than a decade ago. But the attorneys who brought the 
case made $300,000 in attorney's fees paid by the government.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ See Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Cottonwood Envtl. Law 
Ctr. v. Forest Service, 12-cv-45 (Apr. 27, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, of course, the litigation group behind Cottonwood promptly 
filed a new lawsuit challenging the project, arguing that all of the 
analysis should be redone yet again because a new scientific study had 
been published.\55\ That case, fortunately, didn't go very far and the 
project is currently being implemented.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ See Helena Dore, Federal judge tosses lawsuit against three 
southwest Montana timber projects, Bozeman Daily Chron. (Dec. 19, 
2020).
    \56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Need for a Cottonwood Fix

    Soon after the Supreme Court declined to review Cottonwood, 
Congress responded by passing a temporary fix. That fix provided that 
neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management needed to 
reinitiate consultation over completed land management plans, with 
certain qualifications, whenever a new species is listed or critical 
habitat is designated.\57\ That decision staved off, even if only 
temporarily, Cottonwood's full negative effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ P.L. 115-141, Sec. 208, 132 Stat. 1065 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even so, the exceptions to the temporary fix have given a preview 
of what's to come without a permanent fix. According to the Forest 
Service, 27 lawsuits had been filed and another 49 had been threatened 
as of October 2021.\58\ Those cases resulted in five injunctions.\59\ 
Today, the temporary fix expires and, without further action from 
Congress, we're about to see the full effect of the Ninth Circuit's 
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Deputy Chief French QFR, supra n. 12 at 2.
    \59\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congressman Rosendale's Forest Information Reform Act (H.R. 200) 
would permanently fix Cottonwood by clarifying that perpetual 
reconsultations over forest plans are not required. Notably, it would 
not affect reconsultation over individual projects to implement these 
plans and, therefore, would not sacrifice any species conservation.
A Cottonwood fix is necessary to reduce the forest-restoration backlog 
        and tackle the wildfire crisis

    In 2022, the Biden administration released a 10-year strategy to 
tackle the wildlife crisis, which calls for restoring 20 million acres 
of national forest system land over and above the Forest Service's 
usual workload.\60\ To meet that ambitious but essential goal, the 
agency needs a reliable and efficient process for developing, 
approving, and implementing forest restoration projects. Unfortunately, 
the current process is slow and cumbersome. A recent study by PERC 
found that on average it takes 3.6 years after the environmental review 
process is initiated to begin on-the-ground work for a project 
involving mechanical treatment and 4.7 years for a project involving a 
prescribed burn.\61\ If an environmental impact statement is required, 
these timelines shoot up to 5.3 and 7.2 years, respectively.\62\ For 
litigated projects, tack on an additional 2 years.\63\ The Wildfire 
Crisis Strategy's 10-year goals cannot be met if projects are tied up 
for most of that time in paperwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ See Confronting the Wildfire Crisis, supra n. 9.
    \61\ See Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis?, 
supra n. 10 at 8.
    \62\ See id.
    \63\ See id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without a permanent fix, Cottonwood would add additional delays and 
bureaucracy to forest restoration projects not captured in the above 
figures. According to Forest Service estimates, the temporary fix's 
expiration means that the agency must reinitiate consultation over 187 
species across 36 national forests.\64\ This will take the agency 5-10 
years to complete at a cost of several million dollars--money which, 
otherwise, could fund on-the-ground restoration work.\65\ Vicki 
Christiansen, the former Forest Service Chief, summed up the problem 
well: ``the consequences are severe . . . [T]his Cottonwood decision is 
duplicative . . . It takes numerous resources away from getting work 
done on the ground.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Deputy Chief French QFR, supra n. 12 at 2.
    \65\ See id.
    \66\ See Legal and Practical Implications, supra n. 11 at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Endangered and threatened species and other wildlife may pay the 
price for bureaucratic delays. In 2011, the Klamath National Forest 
proposed a project to reduce wildfire risks in northern spotted owl 
habitat.\67\ For 10 years, the project was held up due to objections 
over impacts to the owl.\68\ Ultimately, 2021's Antelope Fire ``burned 
through the site before a single chainsaw touched a tree, destroying 
the owl habitat that the environmental groups were trying to save,'' 
according to the Sacramento Bee.\69\ And the negative impacts to 
wildlife can continue long after the last flame is put out. In New 
Mexico, Rio Grande cutthroat trout are still struggling a decade after 
a catastrophic wildfire burned through Bandelier National Monument.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ See Ryan Sabelow & Dale Kasler, Wildfire scientists push back 
against CA environmentalists, Sacramento Bee (Oct. 17, 2021).
    \68\ See id.
    \69\ See id.
    \70\ See Susan Montoya Bryan, Post-wildfire conditions result in 
poor recovery for fish, AP (Mar. 10, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Cottonwood is limited to the Ninth Circuit, its effects 
will be felt far beyond. The Ninth Circuit covers Arizona, California, 
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii, states which 
contain a disproportionate share of the national forest system.\71\ 
When forests in these states burn, they release smoke that travels 
hundreds of miles, exposing countless communities to harmful 
pollutants.\72\ They also threaten landscapes and species valued by 
people around the country and, indeed, around the world.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ See Fix America's Forests, supra n. 2 at 16. 85% of cases 
challenging forest restoration projects are filed in courts within the 
Ninth Circuit. See id. at 38.
    \72\ See Nadja Popovich & Josh Katz, See How Wildfire Smoke Spread 
Across America, N.Y. Times (July 21, 2021). See also EPA, Why Wildfire 
Smoke is a Health Concern (last accessed Mar. 2, 2023).
    \73\ See Kyle Dickman, To Save Sequoias From Wildfire, We Must Save 
Them From Ourselves, Outside (July 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Projects in neighboring states may also be affected if litigants 
can find a way of filing cases challenging them in the Ninth Circuit. 
Such stark differences in the law among circuits encourages forum 
shopping. In 2019, an environmental litigation group filed a case in 
Arizona seeking to block forest restoration projects throughout Region 
3, which includes all of New Mexico.\74\ The Forest Service identified 
the injunction from that case--and the region's foresters need to catch 
up after missing a year of their work because of it--as a factor in the 
prescribed burn that grew out of control and became the 340,000-acre 
Hermit's Peak fire.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ See WildEarth Guardians v. Fish & Wildlife Service, 416 F. 
Supp. 3d 909 (D. Ariz. 2019).
    \75\ See Forest Service, Gallinas-Las Dispensas Prescribed Fire 
Declared Wildfire Review (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reversing Cottonwood would not undermine the Endangered Species Act

    While reversing Cottonwood would remove a significant obstacle to 
forest restoration, it wouldn't sacrifice protections for species. As 
the Tenth Circuit explained in Forest Guardians, forest plans and 
similar land management plans are not self-implementing.\76\ They are, 
the court explained, ``more akin to `road maps' . . . creating a 
vision'' for future forest management decisions.\77\ These plans can 
only affect listed species by being implemented through individual 
projects. And all of these projects must already go through 
consultation and address impacts to newly listed species, designated 
critical habitat, or discovered information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ See 478 F.3d at 1154.
    \77\ See id. at 1155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fixing Cottonwood would also not interfere with implementation of 
the Endangered Species Act. The rule announced in the case did not 
exist during the statute's first four decades. It has never applied in 
most of the country. And even where and when it has applied, Congress 
has sharply limited its application through the temporary fix. Thus, 
allowing the decision to go fully into effect is likely to upset 
settled implementation of the Endangered Species Act, rather than the 
reverse, by significantly increasing the burden on the Fish and 
Wildlife to do a significant number of duplicative consultations that 
distract from its on-the-ground efforts to recover species.
    Cottonwood's supporters claim that it is essential to species 
conservation and imposes virtually no burdens on the Forest 
Service.\78\ But their arguments are self-refuting. One claimed a 
document ``debunked'' any argument that Cottonwood produces delays 
because the Custer-Gallatin National Forests' reconsultation over the 
lynx critical habitat took less than 4 months.\79\ But the document 
actually shows that the consultation took nearly a year.\80\ The Forest 
Service was only able to limit the delay t6his much by devoting 400 
employee days to the work at a cost of $250,000.\81\ Another group 
asserts that fixing Cottonwood would ``gut'' the consultation 
process.\82\ The only example they cite for this hyperbolic assertion 
is a reconsultation over several frog species in the Sierra 
Nevadas.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ See Bart Johnsen-Harris & Lauren McCain, Cottonwood Overhaul 
Threatens Strength of the ESA, Defenders of Wildlife (Dec. 22, 2022); 
Press Release, Completion of Northern Rockies Lynx Analysis Discredits 
Montana Senators' Rationale for Weakening Endangered Species Act, 
Center for Biological Diversity (Dec. 4, 2017).
    \79\ See Completion of Northern Rockies Lynx Analysis, supra n. 78.
    \80\ See Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Northern Rockies 
Lynx Management Direction, supra n. 51 at 1, 4 (stating that the 
consultation was initiated on Nov. 2, 2016 and concluded on Oct. 18, 
2017).
    \81\ Deputy Chief French QFR, supra n. 12 at 2.
    \82\ See Cottonwood Overhaul Threatens Strength of the ESA, supra 
n. 78.
    \83\ See Letter from Alaska Wilderness League, et al., to House and 
Senate Leadership (Dec. 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But that reconsultation resulted in no change to the forest plan or 
benefits to the species, it was simply duplicative.\84\ And, of course, 
these examples do not reflect what would happen now that the temporary 
fix is expiring and the Forest Service suddenly faces 5-10 years' worth 
of reconsultations to complete all at once at a cost of time and money 
the agency doesn't have to spare.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ See also Fish and Wildlife Service, Amendment of the 
Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine 
National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered 
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct 
Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened 
Yosemite Toad 2, 58 (June 15, 2017) (deeming the Forest Service's 
existing standards and best management practices were already 
sufficient). These groups have also emphasized the remarkably short 
amount of time spent on this consultation (10 days). But this amount of 
time is misleading. In that case, the Forest Service had previously 
consulted after the Service proposed critical habitat for the frogs and 
toad and prospectively addressed and regulated the proposed areas as if 
they had already been designated. See Programmatic Biological Opinion 
on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada 
of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, 
Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-
legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad (Dec. 19, 2014). See also 
California Cattlemen's Assoc. v. Fish & Wildlife Service, 369 F.Supp.3d 
141 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2019) (denying grazing permittees' standing to 
challenge the critical habitat designation because the Forest Service 
began regulating to conserve ``essential habitat'' more than a decade 
earlier and the designation led to no new restrictions).
    \85\ See Deputy Chief French QFR, supra n. 12 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonwood was wrongly decided

    Finally, Congress should fix Cottonwood because the Obama 
administration's position in the case was correct and the Ninth 
Circuit's decision was not. The Endangered Species Act does not impose 
a free-floating consultation requirement for federal agencies. Instead, 
it requires that they consult over any ``action'' they approve, fund, 
or carry out that is likely to harm species or their critical 
habitats.\86\ This limits consultation to proposed or ongoing agency 
actions. Once a forest plan or other land-use plan is finalized, the 
action is complete and the consultation requirement no longer 
applies.\87\ This conclusion is compelled by the logic of a 2004 
Supreme Court decision.\88\ And it is explicitly confirmed by the Tenth 
Circuit.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ 16 U.S.C. 1536(a).
    \87\ See Pet. for Cert., supra n. 12 at 28-32.
    \88\ See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. at 73.
    \89\ See Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1154-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, essentially read the action 
requirement out of the statute. According to it, so long as an agency 
has the power to potentially take some future action that might affect 
a species, it must perpetually reconsult over its past, completed 
actions. As the Obama administration warned in urging Supreme Court 
review of the case, there is no limiting principle to this theory. 
Unless it is reversed, there's no reason to expect it to be limited to 
forest plans and other land management plans. Instead, every agency 
could have to repeatedly consult over every regulation they've ever 
issued every time a new species is listed, critical habitat is 
designated, or a new study comes out.\90\ And supporters of Cottonwood 
have already indicated they want to stretch the decision to other 
agencies.\91\ Neither the Fish and Wildlife Service nor other federal 
agencies have the bandwidth for such an unlawful, unprecedented, and 
unnecessary expansion of the consultation requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ See Pet. for Cert., supra n. 12 at 28-32.
    \91\ See Letter from Alaska Wilderness League, supra n. 83 at *3 
(suggesting Cottonwood be applied to the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, and other agencies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    Shrinking the 80-million-acre restoration backlog that fuels the 
wildfire crisis is an urgent conservation challenge. Cottonwood erects 
unnecessary red tape and encourages special-interest litigation that 
would hinder the Forest Service's ambitious 10-year goals in the 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy. Allowing the temporary Cottonwood fix to 
expire and the decision to fully go into effect would be a serious 
setback to forest restoration. Congress should act now to fix the Ninth 
Circuit's errant decision.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Wood, for your testimony. The 
Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes. We will start 
with Representative Fulcher from Idaho.
    Sir, you have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
panelists for coming and speaking today. I appreciate your 
input, expertise, and your work.
    I have a few questions, but I would like to start with Mr. 
French. I didn't get to hear all of your testimony, but I was 
able to read it, and I wanted to touch base in regard to the 
fire retardant issue. We have a piece of legislation on that, 
obviously, coming up here. Share, if you will, to me and to the 
Subcommittee here, on what would happen with the Forest 
Service's ability to fight fires if that tool was not in the 
toolbox?
    Mr. French. So, the question is if we lost the ability to 
use retardant?
    Mr. Fulcher. Yes.
    Mr. French. It would be a critical loss of an essential 
tool we have to protect communities. In the last 12 years, we 
have dropped more than 81,000 times retardant in order to 
create critical space for our firefighters to go in and reduce 
the intensity of fires before they come into communities.
    It is an essential tool for us out West. And as a past 
firefighter, I can't imagine sending ground folks in to fight 
fires if you have not gone through and pre-treated or reduced 
areas from their intensity with retardant. It would be 
crippling.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, and for the perspective. 
While you are on here, I want to do another question with you, 
and this has to do with the FIR Act. I think that you had 
mentioned in your testimony, at least in the written testimony, 
that the Forest Service had some concerns with the FIR Act, and 
that is the legislation Mr. Rosendale has. Is that the case, 
and can you share what that might be?
    Mr. French. Yes. I think, in terms of the FIR Act, there 
are some specific call-outs to the role of project level 
consultation that we would like to work with you on to be more 
specific in the language, as an example. Those are some of the 
spaces that we would like to focus on.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, it is a language issue, or there is a 
fundamental problem in the approach?
    Mr. French. No, there is definitely a language issue that 
requires some clarification on how it is applied.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. All right. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Bronson, if I could talk to you just for a moment here. 
You had an interesting comment with your testimony that 
litigious special interests have weaponized the Endangered 
Species Act. And beyond just fixing a major issue, the 
Cottonwood decision, what other reforms would you recommend to 
solve that problem?
    Mr. Bronson. Well, Mr. Chairman, Representative Fulcher, 
that is a big question.
    I think, fundamentally, that the Endangered Species Act 
lays out some very clear restoration goals and processes. The 
problem with this specific issue with Cottonwood is the fact 
that we have a loop that they keep returning back again any 
time new information comes on. It makes it hard to manage, 
going forward. So, that is specifically here.
    But I think the other issues relating to the use of the 
Equal Access to Justice Act, where folks are, frankly, making 
money filing suits again and again over these issues, those are 
probably our top concerns.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. I can't disagree.
    I have about 1 minute left here. Mr. Wood, you also talked 
about the Cottonwood decision. In 30 seconds or so, paint a 
picture from your perspective what the West would look like if 
every single forest plan or resource management plan had to be 
redone every time a new endangered species challenge comes up.
    Mr. Wood. Yes. So, I think the best example to look at is 
what happened with the Mexican spotted owl litigation that 
delayed forest restoration work in New Mexico and Arizona for 
over a year, and ultimately led to a wildfire there.
    If you have dozens of existing forest plans that have to go 
through re-consultation all at the same time, the Forest 
Service doesn't have the ability to do that. It is not going to 
be a matter of weeks, like some of the cherry-picked examples 
that supporters of Cottonwood cite. It is going to take years. 
And in the meantime, projects are not going to be able to go 
forward because you cannot invest resources or do on-the-ground 
work while you are consulting at the forest plan level.
    Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you, Mr. Wood, panelists.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Fulcher. Next, I 
would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Representative 
Kamlager-Dove.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Brown, in your testimony, you noted how frequently the 
Forest Service re-initiates these consultations at the 
landscape level scale. There are approximately 154 national 
forests. How many per year re-initiate consultations on their 
plan, and what is the main reason that they do so?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that 
question.
    Usually, the reason that the Forest Service re-initiates 
consultation is because of an underlying change in the action, 
meaning that the Forest Service is actually changing its forest 
plan on its own, in response to either amending the plan to 
incorporate, for example, new information or new provisions, or 
is revising their plan. So, usually, the agency itself is re-
initiating consultation, as it should, under the law.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And how many, do you think?
    Ms. Brown. I think the number is pretty low. It is around 
seven per year, I believe.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, great. Now, on these rare occasions 
where re-initiation occurs, it is my understanding that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has to complete a biological 
opinion. And when this occurred in the national forests in the 
Sierra Nevada for several species of endangered frogs, how long 
did it take to complete?
    Ms. Brown. I think it took 11 days.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. And under this legislation, if the 
Forest Service or BLM learned that climate change, worse 
droughts, or wildfires were occurring and harming endangered 
salmon, or bull trout, or spotted owls, or amphibians, or any 
species, could they re-initiate consultation at the landscape 
scale to address the impacts of climate change?
    Ms. Brown. Yes, they could, and they should do so.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Mr. French, do you agree or disagree 
with these answers?
    Mr. French. I definitely disagree with the context of some 
of the answers.
    The example we use: Often, when you hear about the time 
frames for consultation, they don't take into consideration 
literally the months and sometimes years it takes of 
negotiations to develop the analyses to support those. The last 
one that we did, as an example here, that looked at the Lynx 
Amendments that we did in Region I, that was over 400 personnel 
days that took us to get there, and it was nearly a quarter of 
$1 million, and it took well over a year. And that is more the 
typical space that we find ourselves in.
    More importantly, every project that was held up had gone 
through specific consultation, and there was no change to all 
those plans that we re-consulted on, because all the standards 
and guides essentially were fine for what we were doing. So, 
there was really no conservation benefit.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. So, when you say you disagree with 
the context, it is really my questions, not necessarily her 
answers.
    Mr. French. Well, I disagree with the--I mean, you could--
--
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I have a limited amount of time, so I am 
going to reclaim my time and go on.
    Ms. Brown, we are hearing arguments that the 9th Circuit's 
Cottonwood decision was wrongly decided because forest plans 
are not ongoing actions that require consultation. Do you agree 
with this assessment?
    Ms. Brown. No, I don't. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas in 1994 held that forest plans 
are ongoing actions and, therefore, because the agency retains 
control over those plans, that re-initiation is required under 
the Endangered Species Act. So, it has been the law of the 9th 
Circuit since 1994. There have been several other cases that 
have come to the same conclusion in addition to the Cottonwood 
case, and yet we have been able to manage our lands just fine 
since 1994.
    So, I don't think that the Cottonwood case is really the 
boogeyman that folks hold it out to be. And it is interesting 
that we are now in this place when this has been the standard 
case law for the vast majority of our national forests for many 
years.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And my last question to you 
is, if you can just elaborate on why the FIR Act is not needed, 
in your opinion.
    Ms. Brown. Yes, I think that the Endangered Species Act 
works the way that Congress intended it to act. There is a two-
phase approach. One, we are doing consultation on forest plans 
to undertake that large-picture view to make sure that our 
forest plans have the standards, and guidelines, and objectives 
in them in order to conserve and recover listed species. And 
then we need to take an individualized project-level look, as 
well, so that you look at how that plan is playing out in a 
particular place with additional information.
    So, both levels of consultation provide information back to 
the Forest Service to make sure that they are, in fact, meeting 
their congressional obligations under the Endangered Species 
Act.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize Mr. Bentz from Oregon.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my first question--I 
heard the statement that our forests are doing just fine, but 
perhaps I misunderstood that.
    Ms. Brown, was that what you meant to say, that our forests 
are doing just fine under the current planning? I just heard 
that phrase a few minutes ago.
    Ms. Brown. Yes, I think that, legally, the forests are 
doing as is required by Congress. If your question is, could we 
do better in terms of our management of those lands, yes, I 
would agree with you, as we are trying to do in eastern Oregon 
with our collaborative work in your district.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. And to that end, the folks here would 
probably be interested in knowing that I think the reason it is 
working is the collaboration effort is good. Of course, it 
takes years, and it takes everybody around the table. But the 
only reason that it finally ultimately works is because some of 
that which is removed actually pays for the cost of removal.
    And I have seen pictures of the log decks in that area, so 
I know that is exactly what is happening. So, the real 
challenge is to try to get people convinced, as you have tried 
to do, and I applaud your efforts, to allow the removal of 
actually merchantable timber in the process of cleaning up the 
forests. And that, to me, is a key element of any activity. 
Otherwise, you can't pay for it.
    So, are you here willing to testify today that, indeed, 
being able to take merchantable timber off the land when we are 
trying to repair the forests, if you will, is an acceptable 
element of any of these plans?
    Ms. Brown. Yes, I am. I believe that there are areas of our 
forests that can pay for their way out of the woods. There are 
also probably more millions of acres that are going to require 
and have required congressional investment in order to pay to 
get that stuff off the land.
    But yes, there can be a mix of activities, particularly as 
long as we have multiple-use management laws on the books.
    Mr. Bentz. Right, and thank you for that.
    Mr. Ellis, there is a constant refrain about the climate 
change. It is almost used, when we hear those two words, as an 
excuse, or maybe even something that we Republicans are blamed 
for. It is our fault almost that there is climate change.
    And then there is a quick movement away from the actual 
fact of hotter and drier, which it is, longer seasons--the need 
to delay getting back into the forests and actually do 
something about it. We call it adaptation, I think. Because we 
know it is getting hotter, we know it is getting drier, and we 
need to get into the woods and fix it. Yet, the type of 
processes that apply to these absolutely essential activities 
delay, and delay, and delay. And the Cottonwood decision will 
delay things. There is no doubt of it.
    But what is your thought? Is there a reason that justifies 
doing yet another study, when we know millions of acres are 
going to burn down? Is there something that is so much more 
important that we study it while we watch it burn? Or shouldn't 
we get in and do something about it to try to protect our 
forests first?
    I mean, I am just asking. Should we study this thing until 
we all burn up, or should we get in the forests and do 
something about it?
    Mr. Ellis. Well, with regards to the current legislation, 
our organization does support the bill. The Forest Service has 
so much on their plate with the monies coming down through 
infrastructure and their 10-year strategy, which is a good 
strategy for addressing the restoration, especially in these 
fire sheds, to have to go back on their already existing plans, 
it is going to cost them money, it is going to take staff time.
    But back on your question about climate change, climate 
change is real. We are all feeling it, and it is affecting the 
forests, our rangelands. And our organization thinks the Forest 
Service has a good 10-year strategy in place. I think it is 
important in implementing the strategy to work with the 
communities. That is going to be very important for success----
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Ellis, I appreciate the work--and by the 
way, don't get me wrong, it is getting hotter. It is getting 
drier. There is no doubt of it, and none of us dispute it. The 
real thing that I dispute is we don't seem to be adapting to it 
quickly enough by getting in the forests and trying to save 
them, particularly when it comes to the sequoias.
    And one last question. I will go back to Ms. Brown for a 
second, and it is kind of a blunt question. The temporary 
Cottonwood fix will expire this month if Congress doesn't 
provide a permanent fix. Do you or your clients plan to file 
litigation against the Forest Service in Region 6 using 
Cottonwood as a precedent?
    And if so, where do you believe it will be triggered, on 
what national forests and what current forest management plans? 
If you are not, then that is good, too. That is better, 
actually.
    Ms. Brown. As an attorney yourself, you probably are aware 
that if I did have such plans I couldn't disclose those for an 
ethical breach.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, I am glad you don't have any. That sounds 
correct. I am happy to hear you are not going to be suing on 
that kind of a basis.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman from Oregon yields back. I would 
like to recognize Representative Stauber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like 
to welcome a very good friend of mine who is a logger and 
trucker from Northern Minnesota. He and his family harvest the 
wood that we produce in Northern Minnesota. Mr. Peter Wood, he 
is part of the Associated Contract Loggers and Truckers of 
Minnesota. I have been out with him, and it is something to 
see, he, and his daughter, and son harvest those crops in 
Northern Minnesota in such a professional way. Peter is sitting 
to the right, he has his boots on if need be, if we need 
something harvested, he is ready to go.
    Peter, thank you for being here today.
    Deputy Chief French, good to see you again. And I want to 
thank you for joining us today.
    First of all, thank you for your willingness to work with 
my friend and colleague, Mr. Rosendale, on H.R. 200. Fixing 
Cottonwood needs to be a high priority. As you mentioned in 
your testimony, many forest plans are set to expire. Both of 
the plans in my district, the Superior and Chippewa plans, are 
in very late stages. And just a few months ago, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service uplisted the northern long-eared bat to 
endangered, despite no human cause whatsoever.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Stauber. And as you can see behind me, the range of the 
northern long-eared bat is massive. My district, along with all 
of the Midwest, and most of the East are completely engulfed in 
northern long-eared bat habitat.
    Mr. French, under Cottonwood, will every new northern long-
eared bat roost discovered on forest system lands create the 
possibility of a new ``information lawsuit'' at the project 
level?
    Mr. French. It certainly could.
    Mr. Stauber. Repeat.
    Mr. French. Yes, it could.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. When safe harbor expires for plans such as 
the Chippewa and Superior, will this set up a whole new level 
of liability for consultation?
    Mr. French. Yes, what will happen as of today is that we 
have 87 plans that have one of those triggers, either a new 
listing, new species, or new information that we would need to 
start re-consultation on.
    Mr. Stauber. So, some claim this re-consultation is not 
onerous because it is limited to 135 days. In your experience, 
does consultation actually occur within that time frame?
    Mr. French. No. And I want to be thoughtful here, because 
we have a very good working relationship with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries.
    When you start the official clock and you create that time 
frame, there are literally usually months, and months, and 
months, sometimes years, of work that goes into a particular 
consultation. I did it for years. I mean, that was part of my 
role in this agency. I think, across the board, if you talk to 
any of our biologists, we routinely never meet that deadline.
    I will say that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
leadership there are working diligently to help change that.
    Mr. Stauber. I agree, we do need to change that. Again, 
thank you very much, Mr. French, for your willingness to work 
on H.R. 200 with my good friend, Mr. Rosendale. We need to 
solve this problem.
    Mr. Ellis, in my minute and 32 seconds here, thank you for 
joining us. I am a proud co-sponsor of Mr. LaMalfa's 
legislation because we need to be doing all that we can to 
suppress wildfires. I am worried about the Biden 
administration's lack of seriousness here. If a nation-wide ban 
takes effect, how much more danger should wildland firefighters 
expect to face as they try to fight catastrophic wildfires?
    Mr. Ellis. It is a problem. As a former firefighter, there 
are many times where I ordered retardant, or been on fires that 
had retardant. As I said in my testimony, it is a critical tool 
to stay in the toolbox.
    Mr. Stauber. It would put firefighters' lives in danger, 
correct?
    Mr. Ellis. Yes, firefighters and the public, not to mention 
the public and people living in these communities.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. I will just say that, first off, 
thanks for your service. To allow this Administration to put a 
blanket ban on--I think is derelict. As a witness here today, 
you just supported Mr. LaMalfa's legislation in a way that many 
people don't understand. They don't look at the human toll and 
the concern for our firefighters out in our forests that are 
fighting these forest fires to protect all of us, including the 
forests, and our lives. And I want to thank you for that.
    And I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony, 
taking the time to come here to be at this hearing.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Representative yields. Now, I would like 
to recognize the Representative from California.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Brown, we are told that because consultation occurs at 
the project level, that it doesn't need to happen again at the 
plan level. But it is my understanding that there are binding 
decisions made in plan-level documents like the placement of 
roads, or areas designated for off-road vehicle use that could, 
in fact, have impacts on newly-listed species.
    Is it your understanding that all we need is project-level 
consultation to ensure land management decisions are not 
jeopardizing endangered species?
    Ms. Brown. No, Congresswoman, I do believe that we need to 
do consultation at both levels for the reasons that you just 
pointed to. For example, off-road vehicle use, including winter 
off-road vehicle use, is something that is authorized in the 
forest plan, and there are no subsequent project-level 
decisions that deal with that once that decision is made that 
we can go in certain areas off-roading, both winter and summer 
recreation. There is no further authorization that is required. 
So, it is important to take a look at that plan level to make 
sure that that authorization doesn't jeopardize listed species 
or their critical habitat.
    So, this legislation would obviate that view when, in fact, 
that might actually be the action that is pushing a listed 
species toward extinction.
    Ms. Porter. So, it is the plan level consultation currently 
that helps us see the cumulative impacts across the landscape 
or a given region.
    Ms. Brown. That is right.
    Ms. Porter. Are there other decisions included--can you 
think of any--I mentioned the off-road vehicle use or the 
creation of a road. Do you have any other examples, if you can 
think of any, that are examples of things put in at the project 
level that could end up being a problem down the road, and that 
we need to see at the plan level?
    Ms. Brown. Yes, I think there are some other types of 
examples. One, are long-term authorization decisions that are 
made once, and then we implement those decisions over long 
periods of time that are authorized by the forest plan.
    So, for example, mining is one such example. Grazing is 
another type of example. We are very behind on our 
environmental analysis and consultation on grazing decisions, 
and yet those are authorized initially in the forest plan 
itself. So, if we are not looking at the forest plan that 
actually addresses some of those longer-term authorizations, we 
are missing a big piece of the puzzle.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. Next, I would like to acknowledge 
Representative Moylan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question for 
Mr. Steve Ellis.
    Sir, I thank you for your 38 years of firefighting service 
there, and I understand, with your experience with these 
fires--you are here today, at least. You knew exactly how to 
take care of our forests and other people that you helped out 
throughout that service. So, thank you, sir.
    And in your testimony, you mentioned that you are aware of 
instances where these retardant drops, at the right time and 
place, make all the difference in life and property protection 
for the final outcomes. And sir, with all your experience, I 
would just like you to continue to express to us the importance 
of what this is with your frontline examples when it comes down 
to it.
    Explain more if these retardant drops can make such a 
difference in these types of wildfire situations.
    Mr. Ellis. Well, Congressman, I mean, there are many 
examples out there you could come up with in 38 years. I think 
one that comes to mind for those of you familiar with Blaine 
County, Idaho, Sun Valley and Ketchum, Idaho. Back in the 
1980s, I had a call one night. An aircraft had come out of the 
Sun Valley Airport and gone into the mountainside. It was 
tragic. All lives were lost. I think a Boise News reporter was 
on that flight, as I recall.
    So, my people and I went up there, and we were working 
direct. That means we were working a line burning out between 
the fire and--the mountainside was on fire between the fire and 
the community down above Hailey. Obviously, we don't use 
retardant at night. In daytime, we would have put it down, but 
in the morning we had the airtankers going, and we put some 
down on top to keep it from looping around toward Ketchum. 
Everybody knows about Ketchum, Idaho, if you head north that 
way. And then also, to assure it wouldn't move down into the 
community where the houses were, and we caught it. And a tragic 
loss of life, a small aircraft. I could give you a lot of them. 
But that is one that comes to mind.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate you stressing the point, and I 
thank you once again for what you have done and appreciate all 
the work you continue to do to educate us on the right thing to 
do here, as the Committee. So, thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Representative yields. Next, I would like 
to recognize Mr. Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I request 
the unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of 
support from Senator Daines, who has the companion bill in the 
Senate for my FIR Act.
    Mr. Tiffany. So moved.

    [The information follows:]

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                           March 23, 2023    

        Chairman Bruce Westerman      Ranking Member Raul Grijalva
        Committee on Natural 
        Resources                     Committee on Natural Resources
        1324 Longworth House Office 
        Bldg                          1332 Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of 
the Committee:

    I write in support of the legislative hearing the Subcommittee on 
Federal Lands will hold on Congressman Rosendale's Forest Information 
Reform (FIR) Act, which takes up the important question of fixing the 
disastrous consequences that came from the 2015 Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service (Cottonwood) decision.
    The Cottonwood decision has caused significant damage by delaying 
necessary forest management work, which has hampered wildfire 
mitigation efforts and wildfire restoration projects on our public 
lands and National Forests leading to a higher risk of wildfire. For 
example, a proposed forest management project in the Lewis and Clark 
National Forest of Helena, Montana, was delayed by Cottonwood 
litigation. Soon after, the Park Creek and Arrastra Wildfires burned 
over half of the proposed treatment area damaging forest health and 
valuable wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, this cycle of ligation delays 
and wildfire is not a unique occurrence. Cottonwood litigation can 
involve multiple states and multiple forests in the same delays. This 
happened to five national forests in New Mexico and one in Arizona that 
were embroiled in Cottonwood litigation, which delayed forest 
management work and put at risk millions of acres of national forest. 
In the wake of these delays, the Hermits Peak Fire became the largest 
wildfire in New Mexico's history. A permanent fix is urgently needed to 
stop the frivolous attacks against responsible forest management.
    In 2018, Congress included a partial Cottonwood fix in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, which amended consultation 
requirements for the Forest Service and BLM. National Forest System 
lands and BLM lands were exempted from re-initiation of consultation, 
under certain circumstances, but this fix expires today. This hearing 
on the FIR Act is timely as the Committee will hear updates from the 
Forest Service on the expected result of this expiration. In 2021, at a 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing, Deputy Chief of the 
National Forest System, Chris French testified that approximately one 
hundred forest plans will have to immediately initiate a re-
consultation as a result of the expiration, which would cost millions 
of dollars over several years, not to mention the possibility of even 
more litigation that would slow or stop forest management projects. 
This would be devastating for forested communities as we enter the 2023 
fire season.
    A Cottonwood fix is critical for forest and ecological health and 
has enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate. Last Congress, the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed my bill that would fix 
the 9th Circuit's Cottonwood decision, S. 2562, by voice vote. It is 
time we get this permanent fix signed into law and I thank the 
Committee for the persistent work in this shared goal.
    I look forward to working with you, the House of Representatives in 
its entirety, and my colleagues in the Senate to send a Cottonwood fix 
to President Biden's desk.

            Sincerely,

                                              STEVE DAINES,
                                              United States Senator

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much. Very good. I am going to 
start with Mr. French.
    Mr. French, I am trying to set a historical perspective 
here on exactly what has been going on in the Forest Service. 
It seems to me that, basically, you used to be an enterprise 
unit, and that the Forest Service used to generate revenue back 
into the Federal Government.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Rosendale. If we look at the chart right behind me 
here--it is a little bit crooked--but you can see that at one 
time, going back into 1989, the Forest Service, adjusted by 
inflation, was generating $2.9 billion a year, $2.9 billion a 
year of revenue, which certainly was going to take care of 
covering the costs for the Forest Service, and then generate 
revenue for the people across this nation.
    And in Fiscal Year 2021, that value has been reduced to 
about $152 million, one-twentieth of the actual revenue that 
they used to generate back in 1989. Does that seem like it is 
accurate to you? I mean, do I have something that is wrong, 
or----
    Mr. French. I mean, the total volume--if you are referring 
to timber harvest from that time to this time has declined, 
significantly declined, especially in terms of the amount of 
merchantable sawlogs that we offer, which is where that revenue 
and market base would be from.
    Mr. Rosendale. Sure. So, how long, on average, do the 
consultations take between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service? Because we continue to get conflicting 
information here.
    Mr. French. Well, again, I will talk on my own experience.
    Like I said, it used to be under consultation approaches, 
even in the 9th Circuit, before the Cottonwood decision, if we 
did see an issue that we thought we needed to re-initiate and 
do at a longer, larger scale, we could do that within our own 
time frames if we saw something that we thought that made sense 
for it. But we could continue on with our project-level 
consultations, and those would look at both what the effects of 
that project were, and also we have to disclose our foreseeable 
actions, our past actions, look at that cumulatively. And when 
we get issued a biological opinion from the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, they look at the effects within the range of the 
species. These take a long time.
    I mean, they have 135 days. I will tell you, just as an 
example, the one I gave you before took over a year for us to 
accomplish. The ones in New Mexico that were referred to before 
took us well over a year to accomplish. I just met with all the 
regional foresters across the agency last Monday, and their No. 
1 concern that they brought up to me was the length of time it 
was taking for us to do consultation.
    Mr. Rosendale. Exactly. I appreciate that. I am going to go 
to Mr. Wood.
    Mr. Wood, it is so good to have you here from Bozeman. I 
have gone up on the watershed for Bozeman, and recognized that 
80 percent of the city's water comes from that area. And to 
think that it took 15 years to sign off on a plan that did not 
deviate at all from what was proposed 15 years ago to me is 
frightening, because there could have been an absolute tragedy 
there if there had been a fire and that watershed had been 
damaged.
    So, my question is, what are the impacts of the delays for 
the broader Forest Service management? What are the impacts and 
risks involved in not taking care of those management practices 
when they are first proposed?
    Mr. Wood. Yes. So, the risk is we currently have an 80-
million-acre forest restoration backlog. That will grow if we 
don't start doing work at much larger scale and reducing it. 
And as long as that restoration backlog remains, we will have 
wildfire risks, we will have degraded habitat, we will have 
worse watersheds.
    It is not just people that pay the cost, but towns like 
Bozeman certainly would. We got very lucky that we didn't have 
a fire in those 15 years, but our endangered and threatened 
species are also paying the price for past management 
decisions.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
    And we have heard testimony from Ms. Brown that we really 
don't have that much of a delay when we are doing this 
additional investigation. But I can tell you we have 28 sales 
that are being held up in Montana right now, covering 30,000 
acres.
    If we could have the next slide brought up.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Rosendale. For the 10 years between 1983 and 1993, 
harvested timber acres outpaced wildfires. It outpaced 
wildfires. So, we have the timber down below, and we have the 
wildfire acres up above here. And as you can see, from 1983 to 
1993, timber being harvested outpaced the acreage that was 
being burned. And you can see what happens.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me just one more moment.
    You can see what happens as the timber being harvested has 
gone down. It is amazing that the total acres that are being 
destroyed by wildfires has increased dramatically in those time 
periods.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again, and I 
appreciate my colleague from Montana bringing those charts 
there, and pointing out in graphic detail what we are looking 
at with the load of inventory we have in our forests. And it 
seems to make perfect sense, the correlation there between fire 
and the overloaded inventory.
    Let me consult here with our witness on--I would like to--
for Ms. Brown here real quick--by the way, my staff assistant 
you may have seen here a little while ago wants to send ``Go 
Pios'' to you. You are a Pioneer, Lewis and Clark? Yes, OK.
    Ms. Brown. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. No one else will probably get that, but----
    Ms. Brown. No, Mr. Bentz is gone.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Did you ever get to go see the train museum up 
there?
    Ms. Brown. I have not.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, it is excellent. Go look up 4449, the 
locomotive. Anyway----
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for the tip.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, as several of my colleagues have mentioned 
here in the situation we have seen ourselves getting in, the 
forest condition, 40 or 50 years now, there is a lot of 
frustration on this panel, as well.
    The consultations were just talked about. What do you see 
as the win in the length of time the consultations are taking, 
versus getting out and doing the type of thinning, and 
managing, and harvesting that would, I think, by Mr. 
Rosendale's chart, show that there is a direct relation in 
over-population in the forests and the intensity of fire?
    Ms. Brown. Well, I do think that, through the consultation 
process, both at the project level and at the plan level, we 
are gaining information about how our land management actions 
are affecting listed species, and through that process are also 
able to take mitigation actions to ensure that those actions 
don't unnecessarily harm listed species or their critical 
habitat.
    And I do agree that in many cases and in many places we 
should be doing more science-based, active restoration.
    I think what would be a fruitful area of conversation is to 
actually dig a little deeper in terms of why is it taking the 
Forest Service as long as it is to consult, along with Fish and 
Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Is this 
a staffing concern? Is it a funding concern? And I think those 
questions could use a deep dive.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Could it be that if, when they do the work, 
that someone finds it to be incomplete and it turns into a 
lawsuit because, oh, you forgot to do this, you didn't do that, 
on a particular species that they somehow left off the list, or 
what have you?
    And it seems that those are tools used by those that don't 
want us to be out in the woods to stop and stall, even post-
fire. What do you think of that?
    Ms. Brown. Sometimes that is true. That is the nature of 
the judicial system, that we have tools to hold the Federal 
Government and agencies accountable, and oftentimes we use 
those tools.
    But I also do believe that there are ways to get ahead of 
these issues through collaboration, for example, through 
thoughtful forest planning, through thoughtful, large landscape 
planning like the collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program. There are ways to address those issues.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, it seems that one was, you might say, 
more aggressive forest management harvest 50 years ago versus 
what Mr. Rosendale's charts are showing is that the bogging 
down is what is causing us to lose. Wildfires used to be more 
commonly thought of as a big fire, maybe 5,000 acres. Now, 
commonly, it is 100,000 acres any more. So, it seems the 
process we are talking about is actually going backward toward 
fire safety.
    And with longer drought periods, we are just getting into 
more trouble.
    Ms. Brown. Well, if I might, Congressman, I do believe--and 
it is actually a fact--that we used to harvest far more timber 
than we do today. And as a result of that kind of management, 
we are also facing an extinction crisis in a lot of ways. We 
have also degraded water quality in a lot of ways. Now, I think 
we have learned a lot in those past 50 years, and our science 
has advanced in terms of how we can more sensitively manage our 
lands and reduce wildfire risk.
    We also used to put out fires consistently, and what the 
best available science tells us today is that that was actually 
a mistake, and we need to find a way to reintroduce fire in a 
thoughtful and safe way.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, and we are so far behind, though, now it 
is really hard to introduce the fire, so we have to do a lot 
more mechanical harvest and find a narrow window of time in the 
winter or whatever that you can actually burn things, which I 
support. We probably were over-aggressive on putting out 
everything instantly.
    Anyway, I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I think we have gotten 
through all of our panel, and I am going to take 5 minutes here 
to ask a few questions.
    Mr. Bronson, what we heard earlier is that re-initiation of 
the process just takes a few days, that there isn't that much 
that is involved with it. Could you comment about the effect in 
the Cottonwood-related injunction that helped lead to the 
Hermits Peak Fire? Did those delays not affect that?
    Mr. Bronson. Mr. Chairman, I think clearly, the fact that 
we had overgrown habitats not necessarily in the burn area, but 
adjacent to it, but also in the prescribed fire area that had 
not been mechanically thinned prior to that, and the fact that 
management had been held up for a long time, and there was an 
urgency that was felt by the agency that led to the eventual 
prescribed fire getting out of control and becoming a wildfire.
    So, clearly, those delays in the prevention of that 
mechanical thinning for over a year were contributing factors.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, because I show those delays as being, 
like, 13 months. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bronson. Correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Deputy Chief French, why should Wisconsin 
firefighters come to the West if you are not going to use that 
retardant?
    I have friends, I know many DNR personnel that work in fire 
in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. They 
regularly go out West. If fire retardant is not going to be 
used, why should they go out West and risk their lives?
    Mr. French. Thank you, Chairman. We will continue to use 
retardant as long as we are allowed to, and when retardant is 
necessary in order to reduce wildfire severity, in order to 
bring in ground crews. If we cannot use it, we will not put 
ground crews in that position.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if you can't put ground crews in, what 
happens?
    Mr. French. We have to try to manage that fire in a 
different way, maybe from a much further place. I mean, I want 
to be clear. For us, retardant is an essential needed tool for 
us to suppress fires.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Ellis, what is this going to look like if 
they can't use retardant?
    Mr. Ellis. Well, it is a problem. If you can't use 
retardant, you are going to put more public at risk, you are 
going to put more firefighters at risk, infrastructure, you are 
going to have higher cost in property loss. It is just such a 
key tool.
    As far as your firefighter strategy, if you get big fires 
and what you end up is going back into what we call a point 
protection type of situation, where in those large fires we 
just figure out key areas we want to try to defend, defend them 
the best you can. But you are going to have more fires, bigger 
fires. You are going to have more fires that are small, that 
you would normally catch small, get larger.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. French, is your agency going to 
aggressively defend your ability to use this fire retardant?
    Mr. French. Absolutely.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Wood, tell me about the 9th Circuit. We 
are saying that the law is simply being used as being written, 
and stuff like that. Is the 9th Circuit viewed as mainstream 
amongst the various circuits in the United States?
    Mr. Wood. No. Historically, it has been overturned by the 
Supreme Court at a much higher rate than other circuits, 
especially on forest management.
    As I mentioned, two districts are responsible for a vast 
majority of litigation. I believe the overall number is 
something like 80 percent of cases are filed in the 9th 
Circuit, and that is true even for forest regions that span 
both the 9th and 10th. Litigants have an incentive, and do, 
file cases in the 9th Circuit instead of the 10th, take 
advantage of their law.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if you want to shut down natural resources 
production in America, the 9th Circuit is the place to go.
    Mr. Wood. Based on the current law over injunctions and 
Cottonwood and other--yes, you would have the easiest time, 
because there you could just prove the procedural violation. 
You wouldn't have to deal with the substance.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we see significantly different decision-
making that comes out of the 9th Circuit versus some of the 
others around the country?
    Mr. Wood. Absolutely. The 10th Circuit has explicitly 
rejected the 9th Circuit's approach on Cottonwood, and the 
Supreme Court's decision in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 
casts serious doubt on it.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, my time has expired here.
    We are going to move to a second round of questions here. 
Any objection?
    No, then I would like to recognize Mr. Rosendale for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. I 
do have a couple more questions.
    I want to go to a specific project. We have been talking 
pretty broad about the general condition of forests and forest 
health here, but we have the Stonewall Project in the Helena-
Lewis and Clark National Forest, and that would have managed--
specifically managed--vegetation to benefit wildlife, 
specifically. But Cottonwood-inspired litigation delayed the 
project. So, I am going to divide this into two separate 
questions.
    How would this project have benefited? I want to get the 
environment from you, Mr. Wood, and then following, if you 
could tell me how would it have benefited wildlife, Mr. 
Bronson, in Montana. So, if you could, please.
    Mr. Wood. So, the question is how would it benefit the 
environment different than wildlife? So, I shouldn't address--
--
    Mr. Rosendale. Yes, let him adjust the wildlife. We are 
going to have you address the environment. How would that have 
benefited the environment?
    Mr. Wood. So, wildfire risk is a huge problem for water 
quality and air quality. We, in Montana, breathe the trees that 
burn in California and Oregon. So, when we don't address these 
projects quickly, the environmental consequences are not 
limited to the area, they spread wherever the smoke goes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Mr. Bronson? Wildlife.
    Mr. Bronson. The Stonewall Project in Montana involved elk 
management objectives that were trying to increase the quality 
of grazing, opening up some areas and reducing canopy cover, so 
that there was improved grass and forb production, which is 
what elk eat. It was specifically aimed at improving the 
habitat to benefit the elk in the area.
    One of the things that we have seen in Montana and in other 
places is that in 1984, when the Elk Foundation started, elk 
spent most of their time on Federal national forest land. And 
we are seeing more and more that elk are not spending as much 
time on that public land, because the improved habitat on 
private land, industrial forests and places, that is where the 
elk are spending more of their time, and that is creating 
additional problems.
    One of the problems in Montana is that elk sometimes are 
impacting agriculture on private lands. Well, those elk didn't 
used to do that, because they were on the national forests. And 
it is because of declining habitat quality on the national 
forests.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Bronson.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Rosendale. And I would say that probably the declining 
condition of the forests has a lot to do with this graph that 
we see here, where we used to have probably 20 times more 
forests being harvested, which created that understorage that 
they would actually be able to consume, instead of having the 
old-growth forests, which wildlife does not--I am not a 
biologist.
    What wildlife would we find in these old forests that are 
choked out with dead----
    Mr. Bronson. Not very much, especially the older filled-in 
conifer forests. Red squirrels are one of the mammalian species 
that are present, but a lot of the species that many of us are 
focused on and care about, they do require openings, they 
require edge habitat. They require a more diverse mix of 
forests. Large stands and large tracts of old growth are not as 
productive for most wildlife species.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much. And, again, what we see 
is this broad range between what used to be harvested out of 
the forests, where the wildfires were, the acreage that they 
consumed, and where it has grown to today.
    Now, I am not a scientist, but it doesn't take a rocket 
scientist to figure out that when you decrease the amount of 
timber that you are taking out of the forests, is it safe to 
say, Mr. Wood, that it is going to come out of the forests in 
the form of smoke instead of logs?
    Mr. Wood. Yes, absolutely. And I agree with Ms. Brown's 
comment earlier that commercial timber harvesting is what funds 
the non-commercial harvesting that has to happen. A lot of the 
greatest fire risk comes from small-diameter trees and brush, 
but we can't afford to get that out if we are not doing 
commercial timber harvesting.
    Mr. Rosendale. And finally, Mr. Bronson, if I could, I have 
seen the land after a wildfire has gone through it. And because 
of the excessive fuel supply that is there, typically those 
lands are sterile for quite some time. They have ruined the air 
quality, as we have had other witnesses state before, that we 
end up breathing the timber that is burning in California in my 
home state of Montana. But we also see a deteriorating land 
quality, we see water quality, we see fisheries, and they are 
destroyed for many, many years.
    Would you say that we are putting other animals at risk of 
being listed on the Endangered Species Act by the destruction 
of so much habitat?
    Mr. Bronson. We certainly are reducing the quality of 
habitat, which is diminishing species and populations. Yes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I would 
yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize Representative LaMalfa for another 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again.
    In the Forest Service testimony, it was expressed that the 
Biden administration opposes touching the Clean Water Act. So, 
Mr. French, based on your understanding of our bill, does this 
amend the Clean Water Act?
    Mr. French. My understanding of the bill is it wouldn't 
require us to have a permit under the Clean Water Act.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Pardon?
    Mr. French. My understanding of the way the bill is 
constructed, the way I read it, it wouldn't require us to have 
a permit for discharge under the Clean Water Act.
    Mr. LaMalfa. But it doesn't change the Clean Water Act.
    Mr. French. It doesn't change the underlying fundamental 
law, no.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right. OK. Because what we are talking 
about with this material, its typical application is about 85 
percent. It is a mix, 85 percent water, 10 percent the ammonium 
phosphate fertilizer, and then about the other 5 percent would 
be clay and other materials that make it stick, a sticker like 
we refer to in agriculture. So, the vast majority of this 
material is basically inert to any environmental issue.
    So, I don't understand what is being expressed here, other 
than another ploy to prevent the normal operations of putting 
out fire. I don't understand that. So, it is water, fertilizer, 
and a little bit of a sticker material to make it stick to the 
foliage. So, the problem here is one that I don't understand.
    And as we have heard plenty today is that, without this 
material, we are in big trouble. And one of the reasons we 
named it as we did is that it is also going to be helpful for 
firefighters who we put in the line of fire, so to speak, and 
the safety of them being involved is critical, as well.
    So, when you mentioned a minute ago it might require the 
Forest Service to take a retreat position and have a fire be 
much farther and much wider to find a way to defend it if we 
don't have these tools, is that what I heard you say?
    Mr. French. It can be, depending on the tactics of that 
particular fire. We have gone through environmental disclosures 
on the use of retardant, and we use low toxicity and materials, 
and we have not found significant effects.
    Now, having said that--or I should say we have disclosed 
the effects, and they were determined to be acceptable in the 
space we are in. And as was mentioned earlier, we have done a 
lot to create best management practices, training, buffers in 
order to reduce any potential risk.
    Mr. LaMalfa. And this is done at the Forest Service 
guidelines.
    Mr. French. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. It isn't by some private party. So, they are 
following your guidelines.
    Mr. French. Correct.
    Mr. LaMalfa. And what we have expressed over and over again 
is that, using this material, you have a buffer zone. So, the 
plane, the helicopter drops it. There is maybe a 300-foot zone. 
None of it can hardly even get from the drop zone--maybe a 
little bit into the buffer, that is what buffers are for, and 
in the rare instances where there has been a water issue, my 
understanding anecdotally is that that water space was 
monitored, and no harm came to any wildlife or fish.
    So, we are talking about a pretty safe material here. And 
those folks that are trying to thwart that are really putting a 
lot of land, a lot of acres, a lot of wildlife, and a lot of 
people and communities in great harm.
    Let me touch on the other bill that I am working with Mr. 
Peters on, and I appreciate his help and being in partnership 
with him on that, on a good bipartisan bill. So, Mr. French, 
when we are talking about these horrendous chemicals that--me, 
as a farmer in my real life, we had a hard time keeping the 
ones we use, the label current and the ability to use them. And 
these folks are getting to use things that have been illegal in 
this country or were never legal in this country.
    What are you really seeing on these sites?
    I have been to the sites up in Siskiyou County, Northern 
California. What are we doing here when we can hardly keep the 
retardant available to us, yet so little is being done on these 
illegal grow sites for marijuana and such?
    Mr. French. It is a mess. I mean, we have to go in, and we 
are spending millions of dollars because often we don't know 
what materials were used. And then, when we do find containers, 
you can see that they are very dangerous to humans. So, we have 
to go in and treat it as a contaminated site.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Quickly, do you find the environmental groups 
are as worried about these chemicals as they are the retardant 
and other measures to go fight fire?
    Mr. French. I can't speak to that, Congressman.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. All right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I am going to take 
another 5 minutes here for a second round of questioning.
    Ms. Brown, have you ever sued one of the cartels for the 
damage they are doing in the national forests?
    Ms. Brown. No.
    Mr. Tiffany. When you have litigated, have you ever 
measured the emissions from fires to incorporate into your 
lawsuits?
    In other words, the additional emissions that are going to 
happen as a result of a lawsuit that delays a project, have you 
ever incorporated that in as one of the balancing factors that 
the judges should take into account?
    Ms. Brown. Congressman, as far as I know, none of my 
litigation has actually caused or resulted in a wildfire. So, 
no.
    Mr. Tiffany. As far as you know. How many sawmills have 
closed in the Western United States?
    You saw that chart where we went from the harvest that we 
were at, and where we are at now. How many sawmills across the 
West have closed?
    Ms. Brown. I couldn't answer that, but I would say a 
substantial number.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you know how many people are unemployed as 
a result of those sawmills being closed?
    Ms. Brown. I could not answer that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I had a very good friend who was actually 
my college roommate at the University of Wisconsin River Falls, 
who went out West and went up to the glacier area, and he used 
to write poignant letters to me in the early 1990s, telling 
about how they are shutting us down, and we are losing so many 
employees. We are losing mills, one after another. It was a 
terrible story, and all due to this litigation.
    Have you ever served on a fire line like Mr. Ellis is 
referring to?
    Ms. Brown. No, I have not, but through my collaborative 
work I have kept a mill open.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. French, so if Cottonwood expires and that 
spreads throughout the country, how many forest plans across 
the country will be vulnerable to re-consultation if there is 
not action by Congress?
    Mr. French. Our estimate as of yesterday on the expiration 
today, is that there are 87 plans currently in need of re-
consultation when the safe harbor expired today.
    Mr. Tiffany. How long would you guess--I mean, how long is 
typical that it will take for that re-consultation? How many 
days, months, years?
    Mr. French. It is different. Every single plan is 
different. Our earliest estimation, which we have been working 
on for, actually, well over a couple of years, is likely 
somewhere between 5 and 10 years and tens of millions of 
dollars.
    Mr. Tiffany. Five to 10 years to get through those projects 
that have to go back through re-consultation?
    Mr. French. For us to do consultation on the plans right 
now that are subject to re-consultation with the expiration of 
the safe harbor, that is our best estimate right now.
    And, again, that is different, forest by forest.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is not 13 days, it is 5 to 10 years.
    Mr. French. Well, in totality of what I just gave, and we 
are adding more as we don't get plans revised.
    Mr. Tiffany. How is that going to affect the ability to 
execute your 10-year wildfire strategy?
    Mr. French. It diverts a lot of natural resource biologists 
and others that would be surveying projects and doing 
consultation on fuel reduction projects.
    And that is one of our biggest challenges, is that our non-
fire workforce in the last 15 years has declined so much that 
every little extra thing we put in the system just causes our 
ability to do things to decline.
    Mr. Tiffany. How are you doing hiring people?
    Mr. French. We are doing better than we did a year ago. It 
is still unacceptable. We have----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is like--if I may interject--it is like 
the rest of America. You talk to any employer, public or 
private, they are having a hell of a time finding people.
    Mr. French. Our biggest issue is housing, the salaries we 
pay, the availability. We did increase last year, but not at a 
rate we need to.
    Mr. Tiffany. And that, folks, is why you can't say, 
``Congress, throw more money at the problem. Hey, and we will 
fix it,'' because there are not enough bodies to do the work 
unless you can get the cartels to come and help you. Maybe you 
could do it that way.
    Mr. Wood, do you believe that the current method of 
reporting hazardous fuels treatments will be adequate to 
measure whether the target of 20 million acres is achieved, if 
we continue to do things as we are?
    Mr. Wood. No, based on the current reporting process, the 
public won't know whether you actually reduce the backlog by 20 
million acres or 5. It is incredibly difficult to tell right 
now.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is important to pass the ACRES Act.
    Mr. Wood. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Well, I am going to close things up here.
    First of all, I want to recognize two constituents of mine, 
the gentleman Henry Schienebeck, who serves as the Executive 
Director for the Great Lakes Timber Professionals, an 
organization that covers both Michigan and Wisconsin, widely 
respected, and the president of the association, Matt Jensen. I 
am so glad that you are here and visiting us in Washington, DC. 
I hope your visit has been productive.
    And then I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 
into the record these letters urging Congress to protect the 
continued use of fire retardant as a tool against wildfires 
from the following: California Farm Bureau; the Public Lands 
Foundation; National Association of Forest Service Retirees.

    [The information follows:]

                     Public Lands Foundation (PLF)

                          Arlington, Virginia

                                                 March 17, 2023    

Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    On behalf of the Public Lands Foundation (PLF), I am writing you 
about a potentially serious issue facing the public lands and the 
wildland fire management agencies this coming fire season. This past 
fall the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) 
filed a lawsuit in the Montana District Court under the ``citizen 
suit'' provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) alleging violations of 
the CWA for past discharges of aerial fire retardant into navigable 
waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit. The FSEEE is requesting that the U.S. Forest Service, 
and by extension other Federal fire management agencies, not use aerial 
applications of fire retardant until a permit is secured. This could 
potentially result in aerially applied retardant not being available 
for use in 2023, putting the public natural resources, infrastructure, 
and people at risk.
    As you are aware, aerial fire retardant use is a big part of the 
Federal wildland fire response. It has been safely and responsibly used 
for decades under the assumption that a NPDES permit was not required 
because the regulations for administering the NPDES system (40 CFR 122) 
specifically state that fire control is a ``non-point source 
silvicultural activity'' (40 CFR 122.27). Communications from EPA 
dating back to 1993 also indicated that a permit was not required. The 
loss of this important tool through court order would have a nationwide 
effect on Department of the Interior agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, 
Department of Defense, and state fire agencies.
    The National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) 
recently sent a letter to Secretary Tom Vilsack on this issue (see 
attached). The letter lays out the issue in detail as well as 
suggesting some solutions. The PLF is in total agreement with the 
letter and encourages the Department to help find a solution to this 
important issue.

    Thank you for your consideration.

            Sincerely,

                                           Mary Jo Rugwell,
                                                          President

                                 ______
                                 

        National Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR)

                            Ft. Collins, CO

                                                  March 7, 2023    

Hon. Tom Vilsack
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    This past fall, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics 
(FSEEE) filed a lawsuit in Montana District Court under the ``citizen 
suit'' provision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) alleging violations of 
the CWA for past discharges of aerial fire retardant into navigable 
waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit.
    The 2011 Aerial Application of Fire Retardant EIS delineated more 
than 30% of USFS land area as retardant avoidance areas and developed a 
tracking process to monitor inadvertent drops into water. The 2011 
decision prohibits delivery of fire retardant directly into 
waterbodies, or into buffers surrounding waterbodies, with an allowed 
exception to protect life and safety.
    In the draft 2022 Aerial Fire Retardant SEIS, the Forest Service 
disclosed that 376 out of 56,868 total fire retardant drops (less than 
one percent) made between 2012 and 2019 were directly into water, 
because of intrusions or the exception allowed to protect life and 
safety. FSEEE is alleging these direct drops into waterbodies violate 
the CWA because the Forest Service did not have a NPDES permit.
    The CWA requires NPDES permits for any addition of a pollutant from 
a point source to navigable waters/waters of the United States. The 
Forest Service has been operating under the assumption that a NPDES 
permit was not required because the regulations for administering the 
NPDES system (40 CFR 122) specifically state that fire control is a 
``non-point source silvicultural activity'' (40 CFR 122.27) and 
communications from EPA dating back to 1993 indicated a permit was not 
required. Overturning this 30-year-old exemption would set a bad 
precedent, opening a Pandora's box, and likely putting other 
agricultural or silvicultural exemptions at risk.
    Currently there is no NPDES permit established for aerial 
application of fire retardant. A rulemaking to establish a general 
permit would take several years and cost millions of dollars that could 
better be spent elsewhere. Even if EPA develops a national permit, 
states are not required to adopt it, but can modify or create their 
own. This would further complicate firefighting across state lines. A 
NPDES permit would add a large and wasteful administrative burden to 
Forest Service operations and would likely not change aerial 
application requirements, nor actual resource effects on the ground.
    FSEEE is requesting the Forest Service not to use fire retardant 
until the permit is secured. This could result in fire retardant not 
being available for use starting this 2023 fire year and would 
needlessly put billions of dollars of infrastructure/assets/natural 
resources and millions of people at risk.
    More importantly, it would remove a key tool used to safely fight 
wildfires and put at risk local, county, state, and federal 
firefighters at a time where wildfire is increasing in scale and scope 
across the western United States. Any court ruling has the potential to 
be nation-wide and affect the Department of the Interior (DOI), state 
fire agencies, and the Department of Defense (DOD), essentially all 
those who fight wildfires on federal, state and private lands.
    In our view, Congress will need to pass legislation, either to give 
agencies time to develop a national permit or to codify the existing 
firefighting exemption. At a minimum, a potential solution would be to 
pursue a legislative fix that would allow the agency time to work 
through the permitting process while continuing to use fire retardant.
    A much better and permanent solution would be to legislate that a 
permit not be required under this section, nor should any State require 
a permit, for application of fire retardant from aircraft in connection 
with fire suppression activities. We support the latter.
    Many members of NAFSR are former wildland firefighters and 
understand the need and use of fire retardant as a critical tool, as 
well as the need to ensure its careful use. We feel that to not allow 
the use of fire retardant in fire suppression would be unconscionable.
    The Congress would also find it unacceptable to stand by in the 
middle of this summer as a wildfire threatens life, property, and 
valuable natural resources without the use of fire retardant. 
Legislating during such an emergency is certainly less desirable than 
acting now.

            Sincerely,

                                               Steve Ellis,
                                                              Chair

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. In their letter, the National Association of 
Forest Service Retirees writes correctly that to not allow the 
use of fire retardant in fire suppression would be 
unconscionable.
    So, I would really like to thank all the witnesses for 
taking the time and treasure to come here to Washington, DC to 
testify. I am hoping that our Committee and our Subcommittee is 
going to be out and around America, not just Washington, DC 
here, as we go forward. I know the Chairman of the Full 
Committee has expressed that, and we really look forward to 
getting out to visit America as we go through this session of 
Congress.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Subcommittee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2023. The hearing record will be 
held open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Tiffany

                     WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION

                               Denver, CO

                                                 April 28, 2022    

        Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary   Hon. Tom Vilsack, Secretary
        U.S. Department of the 
        Interior                      U.S. Department of Agriculture
        1849 C Street NW              1400 Independence Avenue SW
        Washington, DC 20240          Washington, DC 20250

    Dear Secretaries Haaland and Vilsack:

    As we collectively begin the work to responsibly implement 
provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, Pub. L. 
117-58), Western Governors are concerned about the effect some 
procedural rules may have on the ability to expedite project 
implementation on public lands. A specific example is the requirement 
to reinitiate endangered species consultations of existing management 
plans following any new information.
    This requirement has the potential to block or delay essential land 
management activities, wildlife habitat enhancement, and wildfire fuel 
reduction projects on federal lands. If new information triggers re-
initiation of consultation at the project level, the U.S. Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management should not be required to have 
new consultation at the plan level. Forest Plans and Resource 
Management Plans should incorporate new information according to the 
timelines already established in statute.
    Because species considerations are already incorporated at the 
project level, this change would neither affect how species are managed 
nor how habitat concerns are addressed. It would simply ensure that an 
entire Forest Plan or Resource Management Plan is not reopened due to 
the site-specific considerations of a local project. Modifying this 
requirement would avoid unnecessary and duplicative administrative 
processes and expedite other management activities already approved 
under Forest Plans and Resource Management Plans.
    Western states are eager to increase the pace and scale of 
restoration activities on western forests and rangelands, mitigate the 
potential effects of uncharacteristic wildfire, and to support fire-
adapted communities in the West. Western Governors stand ready to 
assist you in these important endeavors.

            Sincerely,

        Brad Little                   Jared Polis
        Governor of Idaho             Governor of Colorado
        Chair, WGA                    Vice Chair, WGA

                                 ______
                                 
                                                  July 20, 2022    

        Hon. Joe Manchin              Hon. John Barrasso
        Chairman                      Ranking Member
        Senate Committee on Energy 
        & Natural Resources           Senate Committee on Energy & 
                                      Natural Resources
        306 Hart Senate Office 
        Building                      307 Dirksen Senate Office 
                                      Building
        Washington, DC 20210          Washington, DC 20210

Re: Support for the Bipartisan, Manchin/Daines Substitute Amendment to 
        S. 2561--``Cottonwood Fix''

    Dear Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso:

    The undersigned conservation organizations, representing millions 
of natural resource professionals, sportsmen, and sportswomen are 
writing today to request the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources favorably report the Bipartisan Manchin/Daines, Amendment in 
the Nature of a Substitute to S. 2561, the ``Cottonwood Fix''.

    Since the Ninth Circuit Court issued the 2015 Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service (Cottonwood) 
decision, the Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
have been required to reinitiate consultation with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration on Land Management and Forest Management Plans at the 
programmatic level when new Endangered Species Act (ESA) information 
came to light. This continues to block and slow many essential USFS 
forest management, wildlife habitat enhancement and wildfire fuel 
reduction projects.

    On October 21, 2021, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) testified 
before the Committee that unless action is taken to resolve challenges 
stemming from the 2015 Cottonwood decision, the agency will have to go 
through re-consultation, regardless of the merit, on over one-hundred 
forest plans that ``will take years and cost millions of dollars,'' 
threatening to undermine the Administration's 10 Year Wildfire Crisis 
Strategy.

    There has been bipartisan and widespread support for a ``Cottonwood 
Fix.'' In May 2016 the Obama Administration petitioned the Supreme 
Court to review and overturn the case, and in January 2021 the Trump 
Administration initiated a rule to amend Section 7 of the ESA to 
address the issue. The Supreme Court rejected the original petition, 
and no final rule has been issued.

    Congress recognized the critical need to address the Cottonwood 
decision when it included a provision in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2018 that adjusted consultation requirements for 
the USFS and BLM, but with different instructions to each agency. The 
2018 provision was only a partial ``fix'' providing the USFS an 
exemption from re-initiation of consultation only for critical habitat 
designations and species listings. Regarding BLM, Section 209 of the 
2018 Act also provided a partial ``fix'' by exempting only grant lands 
under the Coos Bay Wagon Road Reconveyed Lands Act and Oregon and 
California Revested Lands Act from re-initiation of reconsultation for 
new species listings and critical habitat designations.

    When this provision sunsets in March 2023, all forests, including 
those outside of the Ninth Circuit, will be subject to this 
unjustified, ambiguous procedural requirement. The USFS made clear to 
Congress, in testimony before this Committee, the adverse impact this 
will have on their ability to manage our forests and make significant 
strides to improve forest health.

    Delays in forest management projects caused by ``Cottonwood'' 
litigation are costly and hinder critical forest management activities. 
Species listed under ESA are already considered when assessing each 
land management project implemented by the USFS. Agencies undergo 
review and consultation at the project level where the potential 
impacts can be best evaluated. Court rulings requiring reconsultation 
at the plan level are duplicative and unnecessary, and injunctions 
delay good projects from being implemented in a timely manner.

    According to the National Interagency Fire Center, wildfires have 
burned nearly 5.5 million acres throughout the U.S. in 2022 and 52 
million acres since 2016, with over 65% of the wildfires impacting 
federal lands. There is precedent for Congress to address 
``Cottonwood'' and action is urgently needed end harmful and 
unnecessary delays in federal forest management activities, including 
the management work funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act.

    Our organizations would like to express our gratitude to Senators 
Daines and Manchin for their leadership in addressing this critical 
issue and it is with a sense of urgency to adequately manage our 
federal forests, that we support and urge the Committee to favorably 
report the bipartisan, Senator Manchin/Daines Substitute Amendment to 
S. 2561, the ``Cottonwood Fix''.

            Sincerely,

        American Woodcock Society     National Rifle Association

        Archery Trade Association     National Shooting Sports 
                                      Foundation

        Association of Fish and 
        Wildlife Agencies             National Wild Turkey Federation

        Backcountry Hunters & 
        Anglers                       North American Grouse Partnership

        Boone & Crockett Club         Orion: The Hunter's Institute

        California Waterfowl 
        Association                   Pheasants Forever

        Camp Fire Club of America     Pope & Young Club

        Congressional Sportsmen's 
        Foundation                    Public Lands Foundation

        Conservation Force            Quail Forever

        Council to Advance Hunting 
        and Shooting Sports           Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

        Dallas Safari Club            Ruffed Grouse Society

        Delta Waterfowl               Safari Club International

        Ducks Unlimited               Sportsmen's Alliance

        Houston Safari Club           The Wildlife Society

        Izaak Walton League of 
        America                       Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
                                      Partnership

        Mule Deer Foundation          Whitetails Unlimited

        National Assoc. of Forest 
        Service Retirees              Wild Sheep Foundation

        National Bobwhite 
        Conservation Initiative       Wildlife Management Institute

        National Deer Association     Wildlife Mississippi

                                 ______
                                 
        
        
        
        
        

        Hon. Joe Manchin              Hon. John Barrasso
        Chairman                      Ranking Member
        Senate Committee on Energy 
        & Natural Resources           Senate Committee on Energy & 
                                      Natural Resources
        306 Hart Senate Office 
        Building                      307 Dirksen Senate Office 
                                      Building
        Washington, DC 20210          Washington, DC 20210

Re: ``Cottonwood Fix''

    Dear Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso:

    The undersigned conservation organizations, representing millions 
of natural resource professionals, sportsmen, and sportswomen are 
writing today to request that Congress take immediate action to address 
harmful and unnecessary delays in federal forest management activities 
caused by the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States 
Forest Service (Cottonwood) decision.

    Since 2015 when the Ninth Circuit Court issued the Cottonwood 
ruling, the Forest Service (USFS) has been required to reinitiate 
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration on Land Management and Forest Management Plans at the 
programmatic level when new Endangered Species Act (ESA) information 
came to light. This has blocked and slowed many essential USFS forest 
management, wildlife habitat enhancement and wildfire fuel reduction 
projects.

    There has been bipartisan and widespread support for a ``Cottonwood 
Fix.'' In May 2016 the Obama administration petitioned the Supreme 
Court to review and overturn the case, and in January 2021 the Trump 
administration initiated a rule to amend Section 7 of the ESA to 
address the issue. The Supreme court rejected the original petition, 
and no final rule has been forthcoming from USFWS.

    Congress also recognized the critical need to address the 
Cottonwood decision when it included a provision in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2018 which adjusted consultation requirements for 
the USFS and BLM, but with different instructions to each agency. The 
2018 provision was only a partial fix providing the USFS an exemption 
from reinitiation of consultation only for critical habitat 
designations and species listings and only through March 23, 2023. 
Regarding BLM, Section 209 of the 2018 Act also provided a partial 
``fix'' by exempting only grant lands under the Coos Bay Wagon Road 
Reconveyed Lands Act and Oregon and California Revested Lands Act from 
re-initiation of reconsultation for new species listings and critical 
habitat designations.

    Delays in forest management projects caused by ``Cottonwood'' 
litigation are costly, duplicative and hinder critical forest 
management activities. Species listed under ESA are already considered 
when assessing each land management project implemented by the USFS. 
Agencies undergo review and consultation at the project level where the 
potential impacts can be best evaluated. Court rulings requiring 
reconsultation at the plan level are duplicative and unnecessary and 
injunctions delay good projects from being implemented in a timely 
manner. Current consultation regulations must be clarified to prevent 
frivolous lawsuits that seek to block projects that improve habitat for 
big game and other wildlife and reduces vulnerability of forests to 
catastrophic wildfire, insects and disease.

    According to the National Interagency Fire Center, since 2016 
wildfires have burned over 46 million acres throughout the United 
States, with over 65% of the wildfires impacting federal lands. While a 
regulatory ``fix'' may be possible, the federal regulatory process is 
cumbersome, time consuming and will lead to additional litigation. 
There is precedent for Congress to address ``Cottonwood'' and action is 
urgently needed lest the important management work that will 
potentially be funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Funding bill 
will be tied up in courts. It is with a sense of urgency to get this 
important work done on the ground that we support and urge 
congressional action to provide a ``Cottonwood Fix''.

            Sincerely,

        American Woodcock Society     Orion: The Hunter's Institute

        Archery Trade Association     Pheasants Forever

        Backcountry Hunters and 
        Anglers                       Pope & Young Club

        Boone & Crockett Club         Professional Outfitters and 
                                      Guides of America

        California Waterfowl 
        Association                   Public Lands Foundation

        Camp Fire Club of America     Quail Forever

        Congressional Sportsmen's 
        Foundation                    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

        Conservation Force            Ruffed Grouse Society

        Delta Waterfowl               Safari Club International

        Houston Safari Club           Sportsmen's Alliance

        Mule Deer Foundation          The Wildlife Society

        National Bobwhite 
        Conservation Initiative       Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
                                      Partnership

        National Deer Association     Whitetails Unlimited

        National Forest Service 
        Retiree Assoc.                Wild Sheep Foundation

        National Rifle Association    Wildlife Management Institute

        National Shooting Sports 
        Foundation                    Wildlife Mississippi

        National Wild Turkey 
        Federation

                                 [all]