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




 
               H.R. 188; H.R. 934; H.R. 1450; H.R. 1726; 
            H.R. 3389; H.R. 3396; H.R. 3499; H.R. 3522; AND  
   H.R. ____, ``FOREST SERVICE FLEXIBLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS 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

                               __________

                         Tuesday, May 23, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-30

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources






[GRAPHIC(S) 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
                 
52-385 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
Robert J. Wittman, VA
Tom McClintock, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ
Garret Graves, LA
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Daniel Webster, FL
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Russ Fulcher, ID
Pete Stauber, MN
John R. Curtis, UT
Tom Tiffany, WI
Jerry Carl, AL
Matt Rosendale, MT
Lauren Boebert, CO
Cliff Bentz, OR
Jen Kiggans, VA
Jim Moylan, GU
Wesley P. Hunt, TX
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
                                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
                                         CNMI
                                     Jared Huffman, CA
                                     Ruben Gallego, AZ
                                     Joe Neguse, CO
                                     Mike Levin, CA
                                     Katie Porter, CA
                                     Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
                                     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
                                     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
                                     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
                                     Kevin Mullin, CA
                                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
                                     Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
                                     Seth Magaziner, RI
                                     Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
                                     Ed Case, HI
                                     Debbie Dingell, MI
                                     Susie Lee, NV

                    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 Tuesday, May 23, 2023............................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2

    Panel I:

    McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     4
    Moore, Hon. Blake D., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     5
    Issa, Hon. Darrell, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     7
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     9
    Tokuda, Hon. Jill N., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Hawaii............................................    10

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Heithecker, Troy, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest 
      Service, Washington, DC....................................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    20
    Dugan, Robert, Chairman, Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, 
      California.................................................    21
        Prepared statement of....................................    23

    Desautel, Cody, President, Intertribal Timber Council, 
      Portland, Oregon...........................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
    Johansson, Jamie, President, California Farm Bureau, 
      Sacramento, California.....................................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30

    Panel III:

    Duncan, Riva, Fire Chief, Umpqua National Forest, U.S. Forest 
      Service (Retired); Vice President, Grassroots Wildland 
      Firefighters, Asheville, North Carolina....................    49
        Prepared statement of....................................    51
    Goddard, Rick, Managing Director, Caylym Technologies 
      International, Fresno, California..........................    53
        Prepared statement of....................................    55
    Godes, Jonathan, President, Colorado Association of Ski Towns 
      (CAST); Glenwood Springs City Councilor, Glenwood Springs, 
      Colorado...................................................    57
        Prepared statement of....................................    59

    Crabtree, Laurence, U.S. Forest Service (Retired), Bieber, 
      California.................................................    60
        Prepared statement of....................................    62
                                     

   LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 188, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY 
CONCERNED TO COORDINATE WITH IMPACTED PARTIES WHEN CONDUCTING A 
 FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PROVEN 
   FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2022''; H.R. 934, TO REQUIRE THE 
 SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CARRY OUT ACTIVITIES TO SUPPRESS 
  WILDFIRES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1450, TO AMEND THE 
  AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014 TO MODIFY THE TREATMENT OF REVENUE 
    FROM TIMBER SALE CONTRACTS AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY 
 COUNTIES TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF 
  THE INTERIOR UNDER GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS, AND FOR OTHER 
  PURPOSES, ``TREATING TRIBES AND COUNTIES AS GOOD NEIGHBORS 
 ACT''; H.R. 1726, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO 
 PARTNER AND COLLABORATE WITH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND 
THE STATE OF HAWAII TO ADDRESS RAPID OHIA DEATH, AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES, ``CONTINUED RAPID OHIA DEATH RESPONSE ACT OF 2023''; 
  H.R. 3389, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ACTING 
 THROUGH THE CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE, AND THE SECRETARY OF 
 THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT AN EVALUATION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE 
 OF THE CONTAINER AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM (CAFFS), AND FOR 
OTHER PURPOSES, ``EMERGENCY WILDFIRE FIGHTING TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 
2023''; H.R. 3396, TO REQUIRE THE STANDARDIZATION OF RECIPROCAL 
FIRE SUPPRESSION COST SHARE AGREEMENTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 
``FIRE DEPARTMENT REPAYMENT ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 3499, TO AMEND 
 TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE DIRECT HIRE AUTHORITY 
  TO APPOINT INDIVIDUALS TO FEDERAL WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING AND 
  FIREFIGHTING SUPPORT POSITIONS IN THE FOREST SERVICE OR THE 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``DIRECT 
HIRE TO FIGHT FIRES''; H.R. 3522, TO AMEND THE HEALTHY FORESTS 
    RESTORATION ACT OF 2003 TO ESTABLISH EMERGENCY FIRESHED 
 MANAGEMENT AREAS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``FIRESHEDS ACT''; 
AND H.R. ____, TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2018 
 TO REAUTHORIZE FOREST SERVICE FLEXIBLE PARTNERSHIPS, ``FOREST 
      SERVICE FLEXIBLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS ACT OF 2023''

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, May 23, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Tiffany, McClintock, Fulcher, 
Stauber, Bentz, Moylan, Westerman; Neguse, Porter, and Leger 
Fernandez.
    Also present: Representatives Boebert, Issa, Moore of Utah, 
Valadao; and Tokuda.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on 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 hear testimony on nine 
forest management and fire suppression bills: H.R. 188 and H.R. 
934 by Mr. McClintock; H.R. 1450 by Mr. Fulcher; H.R. 1726 by 
Representative Tokuda; H.R. 3522 by Mr. Moore; H.R. 3499 by Mr. 
Issa; H.R. 3389 by Representative Valadao; H.R. 3396 by 
Representative Harder; and Ranking Member Neguse's Forest 
Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 2023.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais; the 
gentlemen from California, Mr. Valadao and Mr. Issa; the 
gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert; the gentleman from 
Utah, Mr. Moore; and the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Tokuda.
    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 a 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. Last week, an article appeared in Politico 
arguing that the progressive left should get behind permitting 
reform because delay is a form of climate denialism. In making 
this case for speeding up our country's environmental analysis, 
an official was quoted as stating, ``Yes, we can respect our 
environmental laws and we can move quickly at the same time.'' 
You may be surprised to learn this official was not a 
Republican governor or Member of Congress, but rather Democrat 
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.
    While this Committee has had some productive conversations 
on forest management this year, there is still too often a 
disconnect between what my friends on the other side of the 
other side of the aisle say about permitting reform versus 
Democrats in their own White House.
    The reality is this isn't just a funding and staffing 
issue; we must reform laws like NEPA, and we have to do it now. 
We need to speed up the bureaucracy that has been slowing down 
forest management projects for decades if we want to truly 
confront the wildfire crisis.
    What is true for clean energy projects is also true for 
forest management. We can streamline reviews for these projects 
and still respect our nation's environmental laws. For too 
long, we have been told that streamlining like categorical 
exclusions undermine bedrock environmental laws. This catch 
phrase of the left has lost virtually all meaning because it is 
often said without providing any evidence that these reviews 
will actually lead to worse environmental outcomes.
    If anything, the opposite is true. We have seen time and 
time again that streamlining the bureaucracy has led to better 
environmental outcomes and better outcomes for local 
communities. Lake Tahoe is a prime example of this. Just 2 
years ago, the Caldor Fire was bearing down on the Lake Tahoe 
Basin when it entered a hazardous fuels treatment area that was 
made possible by a Tahoe-specific categorical exclusion. These 
treatments dramatically slowed the fire and gave wildland 
firefighters the ability to fight back and save over 600 homes.
    Nearby Grizzly Flats, which is less than 100 miles from 
this area, was ineligible for this 10,000-acre categorical 
exclusion. The result? A planned hazardous fuels project was 
delayed for nearly a decade and incomplete when the Caldor Fire 
occurred. The community was virtually wiped from the map.
    The Tahoe categorical exclusion was the difference-maker in 
these two situations, and it is the type of tool that should be 
afforded to all of our national forests. That is why I am 
supportive of Congressman McClintock's Proven Forest Management 
Act, which would expand the use of categorical exclusions that 
has inarguably saved communities without compromising any level 
of environmental analysis.
    We will also be considering Congressman Moore's FIRESHEDS 
Act, which builds upon cutting-edge Forest Service research to 
prioritize landscape-scale fuels reduction treatments to 
protect the most at-risk communities across the West. Anybody 
who supports the Forest Service's 10-year confronting-the-
wildfire-crisis strategy needs to support this legislation, 
which complements it by using the same fireshed research.
    The Forest Service has often called the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law a downpayment on the funding for the 10-year 
strategy, but it is far past time for us to put a downpayment 
on the streamlining necessary to actually complete this work. 
We are over a year into the implementation of this strategy, 
and without addressing our permitting challenges we will never 
meet the lofty goals set by the Forest Service.
    I am also supportive of Representative Fulcher's Treating 
Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act, which would improve 
the co-stewardship of Federal lands with our tribal partners. 
This bipartisan bill, which recently passed out of the House Ag 
Committee on a 59 to 0 vote, should be a no-brainer. My home 
state of Wisconsin is a leader in the use of Good Neighbor 
Authority, and I am excited to see legislation moving that will 
help improve this vital tool.
    In addition to these forest management tools, we will be 
considering some thoughtful wildfire suppression legislation, 
including Congressman Issa's Direct Hire to Fight Fires Act; 
Congressman Valadao's Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology 
Act; and Congressman McClintock's fire suppression legislation. 
These bills are the first step in fulfilling key guiding 
principles for this Subcommittee that we must put wildland 
firefighters into winnable situations, and we must address 
their challenges in a fiscally responsible manner.
    As is the case with forest management, we must remember 
that this is not simply a funding issue. While we need to 
ensure better and equitable pay for our wildland firefighters, 
we must also cut the unnecessary red tape that is preventing us 
from hiring these men and women in the first place. We must 
also make sure our current fire suppression practices aren't 
needlessly putting firefighters into harm's way.
    I would like to thank all the Members on both sides of our 
dais for their leadership on the important bills before us 
today.
    I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here and 
traveling long distances to provide your expert testimony. I 
look forward to hearing from each of you.
    We will hear from Ranking Member Neguse when he arrives. 
But now, I would like to recognize Representative McClintock 
for 5 minutes in regards to two bills, H.R. 188 and H.R. 934.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have done such 
a good job of describing them, I am not quite sure what I have 
left, but I will give it a try here.
    H.R. 188, the Proven Forest Management Act, extends an 
existing law passed with bipartisan support and signed by 
President Obama in 2016. That is the law that provided a 
categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy 
Act for forest thinning projects up to 10,000 acres under 
certain conditions within the Tahoe Basin.
    Under NEPA, a simple forest thinning project now requires 
an average of 4 years of environmental studies that produce 
reports often exceeding 800 pages. They cost millions of 
dollars to produce, often more than the value of the timber 
that we are removing. Federal timber auctions that once 
produced millions of dollars to the Federal Government and to 
the local communities affected now end up costing money. So, 
not a lot of it gets done. Federal timber harvests in the 
Sierra have declined 80 percent as a result.
    The Lake Tahoe categorical exclusion has now been in effect 
for 8 years. It has taken the review time for thinning projects 
from 4 years down to less than 4 months. It has cut the reports 
from 800 pages down to a few dozen. Under this authority, the 
Tahoe Basin Management Unit has increased the removal of excess 
timber from 1 million board feet a year to an average of 9 
million board feet. Treated acreage in the Tahoe Basin has 
tripled.
    Mr. Chairman, you very clearly laid out what I like to call 
the tale of two cities from the Caldor Fire: one that was 
subject to this authority, saved from the fire; and the other, 
Grizzly Flats, which was not covered by this authority, utterly 
and completely destroyed.
    The other bill, H.R. 934, requires the Forest Service to 
aggressively attack all fires as soon as they are spotted, and 
it provides authority for local fire departments to initially 
attack all fires on Forest Service land. This used to be known 
as the 10 a.m. Rule. Its abandonment has led to many instances 
of small fires that could have been easily extinguished 
exploding out of control instead. Perhaps most famous was the 
Yellowstone fire in the 1980s. In response, Reagan immediately 
reinstated the 10 a.m. Rule, only to have that order later 
abandoned.
    The policy of allowing fires to burn is based on the 
premise that active suppression of fires leads to a buildup of 
excess fuel, and that is right as far as it goes. If you are 
not going to remove excess timber from a forest, you are going 
to have a lot of fires. And if you put those fires out, yes, 
you are going to have bigger fires. But that is the whole point 
of forest management: to remove excess timber before it can 
burn. Nature doesn't mind waiting a century for a forest to 
regrow. We mere mortals don't have that luxury.
    A few years ago, the Tamarack fire began from a lightning 
strike and it smoldered for 10 days on a quarter acre of forest 
land. The Forest Service sent helicopters over it every day to 
take pictures for its Facebook page, but it never bothered to 
drop a single bucket of water to put the fire out. Worse, it 
forbade local fire agencies from putting out the fire 
themselves. On the 10th day, the Tamarack Fire burst out of 
control. It ended up destroying 17,000 acres of forest land and 
about 80 homes. Their excuse was, well, it wasn't doing 
anything, so they decided to just monitor it.
    Well, I put the question to them, ``If you found a 
rattlesnake curled up in a corner of your bedroom that wasn't 
doing anything, would you simply monitor it until it did?'' The 
Forest Service recognized how dangerous this policy was after 
the Tamarack Fire, and at least temporarily ordered initial 
attack on all fires in the Sierra. This bill simply makes that 
policy permanent.
    Mr. Chairman, remember, only you can prevent forest fires. 
Maybe not all of them. But I can say with confidence that these 
two bills that restore proven forest management policies will 
prevent many forest fires and save many communities from the 
catastrophe visited on towns like Grizzly Flats. So, let's not 
waste any more time.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative McClintock. Next, I 
recognize Mr. Moore from Utah. His bill, the FIRESHEDS Act.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE D. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and other distinguished members of the Committee. It is 
always great to be back. Thank you for welcoming me and for 
keeping this really, really important piece of legislation on 
the forefront.
    My team and I, and the entire state of Utah, and once all 
Americans learn about it, which I am sure they are going to 
study it all tonight, they are going to appreciate it, as well. 
This is simply a bill that is geared toward taking good data, 
good process, and trying to implement it across our country. 
So, I appreciate the opportunity to join you today. And. again, 
this is called FIRESHEDS Act, and I appreciate the 
consideration.
    I introduced this bill with my friends, Congressman Cuellar 
in the House and Senator Risch in the Senate. And as the summer 
season approaches, we stand on the brink of another wildfire 
season that will threaten communities, lands, family 
businesses, and more across our nation.
    And I want to put it into context. Utah has had significant 
drought in the last few years, and we just experienced our 
highest snow totals ever. All of our communities in the Wasatch 
Front are under flood right now. We had an incredibly wet 
winter. And guess what? Even that leads to higher brush totals 
and higher potential risk of wildfire. So, this occurs in a 
drought. This occurs in high-water years. We have to be able to 
sincerely look at what we are doing in our forests.
    Like I mentioned, fires form an integral part of our 
ecosystems. Their rate and severity, though, have increased in 
recent years. As a result, their impact in our lives and our 
environment has grown to levels that demand a new management 
approach.
    The financial toll of uncontrolled wildfires is staggering. 
Each year, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest 
Service collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars to 
combat fires, a figure projected to rise consistently.
    The economic and emotional impact are significant, as well. 
Last year, a fire in Parleys Canyon threatened and forced the 
evacuation of my constituents, which made this a personal issue 
for many of us.
    Furthermore, the environmental consequences of wildfire 
cannot be overlooked. In 2020, researchers estimated that 
nearly 112 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 
the emissions from approximately 24 million cars driven for 
just 1 year, were expelled into the atmosphere due solely to 
California's wildfires in that very year. Twenty-four million 
cars driven for just 1 year from wildfires. I hope that we all 
can recognize this is something that we all need to be able to 
address and get ahead of.
    Our current mitigation efforts are falling behind in the 
intensity of these fires. And without provocative approach, 
this gap will continue to expand. I introduced the FIRESHEDS 
Act to instigate a comprehensive shift in our approach to 
wildfire management that will help us better prevent fires 
before they even begin. The FIRESHEDS Act does this by 
leveraging modern technology to map and manage firesheds, areas 
that are particularly susceptible to wildfires, to undertake 
landscape-scale management projects ranked in the top 10 
percent for wildfire exposure. It uses data to target the 
biggest areas of risk, to put it simply.
    This targeted, science-based strategy will help us mitigate 
the likelihood of fires within these regions. By facilitating 
efforts to create fuel breaks to slow or halt fires, implement 
prescribed burns to rejuvenate ecosystems dependent on fire, 
and remove unhealthy tree stands to reduce burn risks in the 
fire-prone areas, we can ensure that our ecosystems are healthy 
and our communities are safe.
    Because wildfires do not acknowledge state boundaries, the 
FIRESHEDS Act encourages shared stewardship agreements, 
promoting collaborative partnerships among states and with 
Federal Government. This approach has worked well in Utah, and 
I was honored to join Governor Cox, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, 
and others for the signing of an updated shared stewardship 
agreement.
    As catastrophic wildfires predominantly afflict specific 
regions, their repercussions reverberate across our nation, 
underscoring the importance of a unified effort. Republicans 
and Democrats are united in our interest in safeguarding our 
natural resources for future generations. As a member of this 
Committee in the 117th Congress, I saw this firsthand, and 
appreciated learning from each of you. The FIRESHEDS Act will 
further the shared goal by modernizing the way we manage lands 
and breaking down barriers between Federal and state 
governments.
    I just want to re-emphasize the point. Wildfires don't care 
if you are a red or a blue state. We, in Utah, have engaged the 
Federal Government and the partners that we have there to truly 
look at a data-driven approach and entered into shared 
stewardship agreements that we think so many states could 
partake and actually benefit from, and we strongly encourage 
that to be recognized as the emphasis of this bill.
    Thank you again, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse 
for the opportunity to join you today. I hope the sense of 
urgency we feel can unite us behind this bipartisan, bicameral 
bill.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Now, I would like to 
recognize Representative Issa in regards to H.R. 3499, the 
Direct Hire to Fight Fires bill.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member. I don't have 
to tell you that California is the home of wildfires. Because 
of our size and the nature of our breakdown, there is no region 
in California that doesn't see a fire. Whether it is eastern 
San Diego County or western Riverside counties, including the 
Cleveland National Forest, we have enjoyed over 12 wildfires in 
my district in my 18 years of service. The Cedar Fires, the 
Harris Fires, the Witch Creek Fires were all devastating. Three 
times during my tenure the President of the United States has 
come out to look at the devastation.
    That devastation can be mitigated, and you are working on 
many solutions. However, we cannot change the weather and we 
will not be able to change the reality that there will be 
wildfires. Governor Newsom and the state of California simply 
haven't done this kind of protection, and they won't do it as 
it happens again.
    The time to plan and prepare isn't after a fire. It is 
before, when conditions are calm, when winds are tame, when 
fires are in the future. Just months ago, Governor Newsom 
bragged about his record budget surplus, and I and others 
encouraged investments in our future, including fire 
prevention. That opportunity, pun intended, went up in smoke. 
Now the state is saddled with a record budget deficit. Make no 
mistake, Governor Newsom and his team didn't plan to fail, but 
so far they failed to plan.

    So, now that the budget is in deficit, we need to have a 
consensus on some solutions. One of those solutions is my bill, 
Direct Hire to Fight Fires. The bill provides the fire service 
with direct hire authority it needs to swiftly hire skilled 
personnel.

    Fifty-eight percent of California's forest lands are owned 
and managed by the Federal Government: the U.S. Forest Service, 
the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. 
In 2022, a combined 2,122 wildfires burned nearly 10,000 acres 
of land in our state. Yet, the Forest Service has limited 
ability to use direct hire authority. In 2022, the Forest 
Service was able to use direct hire, and it hired 4,860 people 
using direct hire, and only hired 16 without it.

    It is clear that Congress must delegate direct hire 
authority to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to 
fast-track firefighters appointments. Wildfire emergencies 
demand immediate action, and the bureaucracy and red tape 
should not tie our hands at a time in which our communities are 
burning. By streamlining the hiring process, this will ensure 
the ability to get the skilled firefighters who exist quickly, 
which will transform the firefighting service in a way that it 
never has before.

    Fires need to be stopped from burning sooner. Every minute 
you stop a fire is a dramatic amount less fire that you have to 
stop.

    With that, I thank the Committee for consideration and 
yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Issa. Next, I would 
like to turn to the Ranking Member for his opening statement of 
5 minutes.

    And I understand congratulations are in order.

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you.

    Mr. McClintock. Yes.

    Mr. Neguse. It is exciting.

    Mr. Tiffany. Share the information.

    Mr. Neguse. Oh, sure. Well, thank you, first Chairman 
Tiffany, for your courtesy. And my apologies for delay in 
getting to the hearing.

    As you mentioned, we had some news in our family. The 
Neguse family grew by one. My wife and I had our second child, 
a son, Joshua.

    [Applause.]

    Mr. Neguse. Yes, over the weekend. It is exciting. I will 
accept that applause on behalf of my wonderful wife, who 
deserves all of the applause. It is not my applause----

    Mr. Moore. It wasn't intended for you.

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. Neguse. Exactly, so I will relay that back to Andrea. 
But we are over the moon and very blessed.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you all to the witnesses for joining us 
today, for being a part of this important Subcommittee hearing.
    Of course, a pleasure to have Jonathan Godes, in 
particular, from the Colorado Association of Ski Towns 
testifying today.
    Today's hearing follows last week's important oversight 
hearing on forest management, wildfire suppression, and 
wildland firefighters, and includes several Forest Service 
bills, as the Chairman articulated previously, dealing with 
some of these issues. Today's bill list, in my view, 
demonstrates the complexity of topics which we have been 
discussing thus far this session, and the variety of issues 
that the Forest Service manages.
    We have seen the devastating impacts of climate change in 
our forests and our communities as fire seasons continue to 
increase in frequency and severity. We have to recognize the 
need to do everything that we can to promote healthy and 
resilient forests and prioritize community safety.
    Ensuring that wildland firefighters, who put their lives at 
risk each and every day to protect our constituents, are paid a 
fair salary, receive lifesaving benefits, and have access to 
affordable housing should be at the top of our list, and that 
is exactly why we are pursuing that path with my bill, Tim's 
Act.
    First and foremost, my bill would sustain a well-deserved 
pay raise to ensure that the reforms that we secured in the 
last Congress are made permanent. Now, I realize that the bill 
is not on today's agenda, but I hope we can find a way to work 
together to get this done before we reach the projected pay 
cliff later this year.
    I am delighted to see that one of my bills is included in 
today's agenda, the Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnership 
Act of 2023. This bill, by way of background, would extend a 
program first authorized under the 2018 Agriculture Improvement 
Act to allow the Forest Service to lease administrative 
properties to counties, municipalities, or other public 
entities to provide additional housing resources or address 
other local needs.
    It is a great bill. Of course, I am biased, but I believe 
that it would cut red tape and administrative burdens and 
ultimately create opportunities for effective collaboration 
that will help address some of the housing challenges in rural 
communities. It is by no means a panacea, but as we will hear 
today from Mr. Godes, who serves on the Glenwood Springs City 
Council, it is an important tool already being put to good use 
to provide affordable housing for first responders in my state, 
in Colorado, like wildland firefighters, and to address Forest 
Service and other workforce housing capacity needs in our 
mountain communities.
    We need to have an all-hands-on-deck approach to support 
our rural communities and the wildland firefighting workforce, 
which is why I am so encouraged also to see Representative 
Harder's Fire Department Repayment Act is included in this 
agenda. My colleague from California's bill establishes 
standard operating procedures for fire suppression cost share 
agreements to ensure reviews are done in a timely manner, and 
local fire departments continue to receive the support that 
they need and deserve.
    Like I said at the top of my remarks, the Forest Service 
has a broad cross-section of responsibilities, which ranges 
from supporting local communities to protecting our forest and 
grasslands from the threat of invasive species. Representative 
Tokuda's Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act will help 
support ongoing efforts to address the fungal disease attacking 
native Ohia trees in Hawaii.
    And I want to thank Representative Tokuda for her 
leadership. And I understand this is her first legislative 
hearing, and the only freshman or new Member, I should say, on 
our list of bills today. So, we are grateful to have her here, 
and to be able to hear her important bill, which will have a 
profound impact on her state.
    I want to say thank you to our Chairman. I am encouraged 
that today's hearing includes three bills sponsored by 
Democratic Members. I think that is a significant step in the 
right direction that moves us closer to the balance that I 
worked really hard to try to achieve last Congress when I 
served as Chair of this Subcommittee. So, I want to thank the 
Chairman for his demonstrated interest in considering 
bipartisan and Democratic-led legislation.
    I think we can all agree that our national forests are 
vital for water conservation, critical habitat, and public 
recreation. And as we continue this important discussion, I do 
hope that we can reflect on what many of our witnesses in the 
past have said before this Committee regarding the biggest 
challenge to our shared forest management priorities, and that 
is staffing and agency capacity. I suspect we are going to have 
a robust discussion on those issues and more today, and I hope 
we can work toward bipartisan solutions to address our shared 
concerns regarding reduced wildfire risk.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. Next, I would 
like to recognize Representative Tokuda in regards to H.R. 
1726.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JILL N. TOKUDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

    Ms. Tokuda. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
congratulations to you and Andrea on your new bundle of joy, 
and distinguished members of the Federal Land Subcommittee, 
thank you for including the Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response 
Act of 2023 in today's hearing, and thank you for the 
opportunity to speak in support of this important bill.
    I want you to imagine stepping into a lush native forest, 
hearing the birds, honeycreepers singing in the canopy. And 
then, with a Thanos-like snap of your fingers, 50 percent of 
that forest disappears because of what is on the bottom of your 
shoe. Now, that sounds like science fiction, but that is 
exactly what is happening to one of Hawaii's most iconic trees 
that makes up 50 percent of all native forests, and covers 
nearly 1 million acres of forest land throughout Hawaii.
    Ohia Lehua is foundational to our native ecosystems and is 
endemic to six of Hawaii's eight major islands, making it one 
of the most prolific of all native trees. Ohia Lehua is well 
adapted to Hawaii's unique climates. It is the first tree that 
you will see spring up from a recent lava flow along the coast, 
and it is vital to the creation of new fertile lands. Growing 
from the coast to 8,000 feet above sea level, it keeps our 
mountains from eroding, prevents runoff, and protects the 
watershed for agriculture, drinking water, and other endemic 
plants and animals. Furthermore, Ohia Lehua provides critical 
habitat for birds and many other species, including many of 
Hawaii's federally endangered forest birds.
    Ohia Lehua also has an important role in Native Hawaiian 
culture. Its wood was traditionally used to beat bark into 
clothing, serve as pounding boards to process taro into food, 
and make weapons in defense of lands. Its leaves were also used 
for medicinal teas and its flowers used to make lei and as 
adornments in traditional practices like hula. Because of the 
role these trees play in maintaining our forest canopy and 
watershed, Rapid Ohia Death, or RAD, poses a lethal threat to 
ecological balance in our islands.
    Initially reported in 2010, RAD has already spread to tens 
of thousands of acres and killed over a million trees on Hawaii 
Island alone. Individual trees can die very quickly, their 
leaves turning brown within a few days and falling off in a 
matter of weeks.
    Large swaths of dead Ohia trees pose extreme fire risk, 
especially in today's unstable climate, and are more prone to 
habitat-modifying noxious weeds and trees like miconia and 
strawberry guava, all of which are known to greatly impact 
watershed health and alter ecosystem function.
    In April 2018, researchers finally determined that the 
cause of Rapid Ohia Death was two fungal species previously 
unknown to science. The RAD fungi is transmitted through wood, 
live plants, and soil, and it is thought to have originally 
come to Hawaii and spread throughout our islands on the shoes 
of visitors. Despite efforts to contain the spread of RAD to 
Hawaii Island through restrictions on the movement of plant 
material and increased sanitation programs, RAD has now been 
found on the islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Maui.
    Because there is no known cure for RAD, it has the 
potential to kill off Ohia trees statewide and devastate our 
precious island ecosystems.
    While RAD poses a critical threat to our native forests, 
watersheds, critically endangered forest birds, and natural 
beauty, support for combating RAD has been extremely limited. 
For example, the Lyon Arboretum, a local research facility on 
Oahu, has had to rely on funding through a GoFundMe campaign to 
further the vital seed banking of Ohia Lehua.
    This is why I am proud to introduce the Continued Rapid 
Ohia Death Response Act of 2023, alongside Senator Hirono, 
which would require the Secretary of the Interior to partner 
and collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the state 
of Hawaii to address RAD. It also supports ongoing detection, 
prevention, and restoration efforts to combat RAD, including 
Federal resources to support critical research and staff.
    We cannot stand to lose half of all of our native forests 
in Hawaii. This bill is critical in turning the tide in the 
fight against Rapid Ohia Death and protecting Ohia Lehua and 
Hawaii's unique ecosystems for future generations.
    And in case you are wondering what Ohia Lehua looks like, 
my dress actually has the patterns of the flowers on it now. It 
is very much a part of our local culture and heritage.
    So, mahalo for all of your support for this important piece 
of legislation.
    Thank you again, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Representative 
Tokuda.
    Next, we are going to move on to our second panel, and this 
will be in regards to the forest management bills. We have Mr. 
Troy Heithecker, who is Associate Deputy Chief of the U.S. 
Forest Service; Mr. Robert Dugan, Chairman of the Placer County 
Water Agency; Mr. Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal 
Timber Council in Portland; and Mr. Jamie Johansson, President 
of the California Farm Bureau.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee rules you 
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the 
microphone.
    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.
    Mr. Heithecker, we will let you kick things off. You have 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF TROY HEITHECKER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. 
                 FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Heithecker. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for this 
opportunity to testify on the fire and forest management-
related legislation being considered before the Subcommittee 
today.
    I currently serve as Associate Deputy Chief of the National 
Forest System for the USDA Forest Service. I started my career 
on the Tongass National Forest, working in forest management, 
and prior to this assignment, I served as the forest supervisor 
on the Ouachita National Forest, one of the most productive and 
actively managed forests in the country. I have either directly 
or indirectly been involved with forest management for my 
entire 25-year career with the Forest Service.
    In my current position, I am responsible for policy 
oversight and direction for natural resource and public service 
delivery programs across 193 million acres of national forests 
and grasslands in 44 states and territories that make up the 
National Forest System. This includes our forest management 
programs, which are among the focus areas of the bills you are 
considering today.
    Before we start the discussion on the bills on today's 
agenda, I want to call attention to the urgency to invest in 
our wildland firefighters. As you know, critical 
infrastructure, homes, communities, structures, and natural 
resources are at grave and growing risk of catastrophic 
wildfire. Across the country, more than 12,000 Forest Service 
wildland firefighters benefited from the temporary pay increase 
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Investing in our Federal firefighters means averting the 
pay cliff that thousands of Federal wildland firefighters will 
soon face. The President's budget request builds on the 
temporary pay increase, and it addresses what we desperately 
need: a permanent fix to increase Federal wildland and tribal 
firefighters pay; increased investments in their mental and 
physical health and well-being; improvements to their housing 
options; and an expanded number of permanent firefighters. The 
permanent pay reforms require authorizing legislation, and we 
are committed to working with you on advancing a comprehensive 
legislative proposal.
    In addition to investing in our wildland firefighters, it 
is critical that we address work on the ground, which 
ultimately addresses the wildfire crisis. We are now in our 
second year of carrying out our 10-year strategy for 
confronting the wildfire crisis in the West. Our strategy aims 
to increase science-based fuels treatments by up to four times 
the previous treatment levels, especially in those areas most 
at risk.
    The Forest Service is very grateful to Congress for 
providing the resources to seed our initial work and put the 
wildfire crisis strategy in motion. While we appreciate every 
effort that Congress is making to advance the wildfire crisis 
strategy, we have significant concerns about additional 
procedural and process requirements. For this reason, we cannot 
support H.R. 3522, the FIRESHEDS Act, as written.
    We are also concerned that the FIRESHEDS Act could 
substitute a science-based approach to fire management with a 
specific state or governor's interest for a region, over-riding 
existing land management objectives.
    USDA supports H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as 
Good Neighbors Act. Expanding the authority to retain receipts 
to tribes and counties would significantly increased county and 
tribal participation in the Good Neighbor Authority and, in 
turn, help us increase the pace and scale of needed forest 
management activities.
    USDA supports many of the goals of H.R. 188, Proven Forest 
Management Act, but would like to work with the bill's sponsors 
to address the concerns noted in our written testimony.
    In addition, USDA recognizes the importance of the Ohia 
tree, and supports the intent of H.R. 1726, Continued Rapid 
Ohia Death Response Act.
    I want to take a moment to discuss fire suppression, the 
topic of the second panel and the five remaining bills. By 
Forest Service policy, every fire receives a strategic, risk-
based response that is appropriate for the circumstances. Each 
strategy uses the full spectrum of management actions to 
consider fire and fuel conditions, weather, values at risk, and 
resource availability. The Agency has serious concerns that 
H.R. 934 would remove critical resource management and 
firefighting tools and tactics from the interagency responders 
who have to make life-and-death decisions. Therefore, we cannot 
support the bill as written.
    USDA appreciates the intent of Emergency Wildfire Fighting 
Technology Act, but does not support the incorporation of 
containerized systems into our suppression response, given 
safety and operational concerns.
    USDA supports the intent of the Forest Service Flexible 
Housing Partnerships Act and the Fire Department Repayment Act, 
and would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors 
on them.
    USDA would also like to work with the Subcommittee and bill 
sponsors on the Direct Hire to Fight Fires bill.
    In closing, I want to reiterate the Agency's commitment to 
addressing the wildfire crisis. We greatly appreciate the 
significant resources Congress has provided to help us take the 
initial steps. We look forward to continuing to work with you.
    Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Heithecker follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Troy Heithecker, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. 
               Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
         on H.R. 188, ``Proven Forest Management Act of 2022'';
    H.R. 934, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out 
       activities to suppress wildfires, and for other purposes;
   H.R. 1450, ``Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act'';
    H.R. 1726, ``Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2022'';
   H.R. 3389, ``Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023'';
         H.R. 3396, ``Fire Department Repayment Act of 2023'';
               H.R. 3499, ``Direct Hire to Fight Fires'';
                     H.R. 3522, ``FIRESHEDS Act'';
 and H.R. ____, ``Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 
                                 2023''

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 
to discuss the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on several 
bills that include provisions related to the USDA Forest Service.
    In addition to the bills on today's agenda, the agency would like 
to call attention to the urgency to invest in our wildland 
firefighters. Critical infrastructure, homes, communities, and natural 
resources are at grave and growing risk of catastrophic wildfire. 
Across the country, more than 12,000 Forest Service wildland 
firefighters benefited from the temporary pay increase provided by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), including more than 4,400 across 
California and Washington. Investing in our federal firefighters means 
averting the pay cliff that thousands of federal wildland firefighters 
will soon face when funds from BIL are exhausted later this year.
    To continue to advance wildland firefighter pay reforms, and 
improve recruitment and retention rates, the President's FY 2024 Budget 
request increases Federal wildland and tribal firefighters' pay, 
invests more in their mental and physical health and wellbeing, 
improves their housing options, and expands the number of permanent 
firefighters. These reforms build on the temporary pay increase 
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The permanent pay 
reforms require authorizing legislation, and the Administration is 
committed to working with congressional leaders on advancing a 
comprehensive legislative proposal.
    We offer the views below on behalf of USDA regarding the fire and 
forest management related legislation being considered before the 
subcommittee today, and we defer to DOI on those provisions that relate 
to DOI administered lands.
H.R. 188, ``Proven Forest Management Act of 2022''

    H.R. 188, the Proven Forest Management Act, includes several 
provisions affecting forest management.
    Section 2(a) directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA), when 
conducting a forest management activity on National Forest System land, 
to coordinate with impacted parties to increase efficiency and maximize 
the compatibility of management practices across such land. This aligns 
with the requirements of the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 
(MUSYA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the 2012 Planning 
Rule which are the basis of our Land Management Plans. The MUSYA calls 
for the harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, 
and NFMA similarly calls for development of land management plans 
through extensive public involvement as well as coordination with other 
local, State and Tribal planning efforts. USDA is unclear on how this 
provision is intended to alter or improve the coordination and public 
engagement which the Forest Service already conducts.
    Section 2(b) directs USDA to conduct forest management activities 
on National Forest System land in a manner that attains multiple 
ecosystem benefits, so long as the costs associated with attaining such 
benefits are not excessive. The Forest Service manages National Forest 
System lands for multiple ecosystem benefits and impacts in compliance 
with the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA). As the MUSYA already directs that 
the renewable surface resources of the National Forest System are to be 
managed for sustainable multiple use goods and services, with 
consideration being given to the relative values of the various 
resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give 
the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output, we are not sure 
what this provision is intended to change. In addition, we are 
uncertain how we would apply the exception for excessive costs, as 
``excessive'' is not defined and the intent of this provision is 
unclear.
    Section 2(c) directs USDA to (1) establish any post-program ground 
condition criteria for a ground disturbance caused by a forest 
management activity required by the applicable forest plan, and (2) 
provide for monitoring to ascertain the attainment of relevant post-
program conditions. Forest Service Land Management Plans and project 
plans incorporate standards and guidelines designed to limit the 
potential adverse impacts of ground-disturbing activities, and 
monitoring is provided for at the plan and project level. The 
Department would like to work with the bill sponsor to understand the 
intent of this provision and to clarify the language.
    Section 2(d) categorically excludes certain forest management 
activities for reducing forest fuels from the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). The Department would like to work with the bill 
sponsor to understand the intent of this provision and its alignment 
with the agency's existing authorities to conduct hazardous fuels 
reduction projects under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.
    Section 2(e) allows USDA, in conjunction with land adjustment 
programs, to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with a 
qualified entity to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control, 
reforestation, Stream Environment Zone restoration, and similar 
management activities on federal lands and nonfederal lands within such 
programs. Recognizing the importance of cross-boundary work, the 
Department supports the intent of this provision, but would like to 
work with the bill sponsor to clarify the scope and parameters of this 
provision.
    USDA supports many of the goals of this bill including public 
engagement, managing for multiple ecosystem benefits, and cross-
boundary management. USDA would like to work with the bill sponsors to 
address the concerns noted in our testimony.
H.R. 934, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out 
        activities to suppress wildfires, and for other purposes

    In January 2022, the Forest Service launched a robust, 10-year 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy. The strategy is designed to invest in places 
where wildfire poses the most immediate threats to communities and 
infrastructure. The strategy combines a historic investment of 
Congressional funding with years of scientific research and planning 
into a national effort that will dramatically increase the scale and 
pace of forest health treatments over the next decade. Through the 
strategy, the agency will work with states, Tribes and other partners 
to addresses wildfire risks to critical infrastructure, protect 
communities, and create more resilient forests.
    H.R. 934 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 
Chief of the Forest Service to use all available resources to suppress 
wildfires and to extinguish them no later than 24 hours after a fire is 
detected on National Forest System lands. It also requires immediate 
suppression of any prescribed fire that exceeds prescription and 
dictates that fire may only be used as a resource management tool if 
the fire is a prescribed fire that complies with applicable law and 
regulations; and that the agency may only initiate a backfire or 
burnout during a wildfire by order of the responsible incident 
commander to protect the health and safety of firefighting personnel.
    By Forest Service policy, every fire receives a strategic, risk-
based response that is appropriate for the circumstances and the 
associated threats and opportunities. Each strategy uses the full 
spectrum of management actions that consider fire and fuel conditions, 
weather, values at risk, and resource availability. Fighting fire 
effectively requires all the current tools available to the agency, 
particularly in lifesaving scenarios such as firefighter and public 
safety, the protection of life and property, and efforts to protect 
communities and infrastructure (such as electricity, bridges, and 
roads), cultural sites, watersheds and other natural resources.
    Our goal is to minimize the number of devastating, destructive 
large wildland fires. Federal and non-federal resources work together 
whenever possible to safely and effectively contain these fires. 
Approximately ninety-eight percent of all reported fires are caught 
during initial attack. Fires that escape initial attack continue to 
receive full suppression action with support from available aviation 
assets.
    For more than a century, policies that favor fire suppression have 
contributed to fuels buildup and dense forests that are more likely to 
burn. The agency also recognizes that prescribed fire can play an 
essential role in restoring the health of forests if they are closely 
managed in the right place, at the right time and for the right reason. 
These fires are only used in carefully selected circumstances and with 
assurances of no undue risk to life, property or communities, and with 
the appropriate resource availability to safely manage for resource 
benefits. By policy, these fires must also be consistent with 
interagency policy and Land and Resource Management Plans. Lightning 
ignitions help with fuels reduction, support renewal of wildlife 
habitat, restore ecosystem and forest health and can prevent larger, 
more destructive fires in the future, particularly in fire-prone and 
fire-adapted ecosystems. To support decision making, the agency uses 
the best available science and weather data to develop strategies and 
tactics that reduce smoke production, and secure and protect 
communities.
    Prescribed fire is a key component of the hazardous fuels 
management and forest health. Prescribed fires may be ignited to reduce 
hazardous fuels to decrease wildfire risk to communities and critical 
infrastructure and to improve forest health. A burn window occurs when 
the prescription parameters for temperature, wind, relative humidity, 
air quality and other factors are met, and the necessary firefighting 
staff, including contingency resources are available. By policy, at the 
initiation of prescribed fire operations, ignitions must cease if the 
prescription parameters are not met and sustained. If the fire escapes, 
the project is declared a wildfire and receives fire suppression 
actions.
    Backfire is a firefighting tactic and emergency action used to 
consume forest fuels in advance of an approaching wildfire and can 
change the direction of the fire. Backfire operations are conducted to 
reduce wildfire threats to life and property and firefighter safety. 
Burnouts strengthen firelines by consuming fuels to widen the fireline 
for containment. Burnouts are approved through Incident commanders in 
collaboration with agency administrators.
    The Forest Service is taking serious actions to address the 
wildfire crisis and we appreciate the support provided through the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and through the Inflation Reduction Act 
for this critical work. The agency must continue to use every tool 
available to reduce the current and future negative impacts from 
wildfire, consistent with agency policy and interagency response.
    The agency has serious concerns that the bill language would remove 
critical resource management and firefighting tools and tactics from 
interagency responders who have to make life and death decisions, and 
therefore we cannot support this bill as written. Nonetheless, we are 
committed to working with Congress on how we effectively respond to 
wildfires and the resources and capacity needed to do so. We would be 
glad to discuss our concerns with the Committee.
H.R. 1450, ``Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act''

    H.R. 1450, Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act, 
revises the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) to require tribes and 
counties to retain and use revenue generated from timber sales to carry 
out authorized restoration work under a good neighbor agreement that 
generated the revenue or under other good neighbor agreements. In 
addition, this bill also allows states, counties, and Tribes to use 
retained revenue for authorized restoration projects on non-federal 
lands under a good neighbor agreement. Under current law, only a state 
is permitted to retain the revenues, and the revenues must be used for 
restoration projects on federal land.
    GNA has been a key authority for the Forest Service to accomplish 
critical forest management to keep our forests healthy and productive. 
In FY22, 306 million board feet were sold under the Good Neighbor 
Authority, and 47,412 acres treated. This work has been completed 
through agreements with state forestry agencies, tribes, and counties. 
To date, the Forest Service has completed 398 Good Neighbor Agreements, 
with more than 85% of the agreements with state forestry agencies. 
There have been 19 Tribal GNA agreements, and 24 agreements with 
counties.
    We believe expanding the authority to allow tribes and counties to 
retain receipts, as proposed in the bill, would significantly increase 
county and tribal participation in GNA, and in turn help us increase 
the pace and scale of needed forest management activities. On projects 
where a commercial timber sale is needed as a tool for hazardous fuels 
reduction to reduce wildfire risk to a community or infrastructure, 
retained receipts can be an important incentive in attracting partners 
to engage in this work.
    Proposed language in the bill would also allow the revenue for 
authorized restoration projects to be used on non-federal lands under a 
good neighbor agreement. The ability to use this revenue on non-federal 
land would facilitate important cross-boundary restoration treatments, 
such as fuels reduction projects within a priority fireshed, as well as 
cross-boundary watershed restoration. This change would also allow for 
more strategic landscape-scale restoration activities in areas of the 
Wildland Urban Interface.
    USDA supports H.R. 1450; however, we would like to work with the 
Subcommittee to fine tune language to ensure compliance with laws 
regarding forest product removal prior to utilizing revenue derived 
from timber harvested on federal lands.
H.R. 1726, ``Continued Rapid Ohia Death Response Act of 2022''

    This bill directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to partner 
and collaborate with the USDA and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid 
`Ohi`a Death (ROD). In addition, the bill directs DOI to continue 
research on Rapid Ohia Death (ROD) and to partner with State and local 
stakeholders to manage ungulates in ROD Control Areas. Finally, the 
bill directs the Forest Service to continue to provide financial 
assistance to prevent the spread of ROD and to restore the native 
forests of the State; and to continue to provide staff and necessary 
infrastructure funding to the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry to 
conduct research on Rapid Ohia Death.
    The Forest Service is active in the prevention, detection, and 
treatment of ROD in Hawaii. The agency has been a collaborative partner 
in addressing ROD, providing technical assistance since its early 
detection in 2014 and financial assistance annually since 2016. We 
expect to continue to support local and state agencies, university, and 
Indigenous communities in protecting valuable forest commodities on the 
islands.
    Ceratocystis lukuohia and Ceratocystis huliohia are two newly 
recognized fungi that have arrived in Hawai`i and are causing a serious 
vascular wilt and canker disease, respectively, on `Ohi`a trees 
(Metrosideros polymorpha). The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural 
Resources (DLNR), with support from Forest Service and USDA's 
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) as well as university researchers, 
leads response efforts. When potentially affected areas are identified, 
a response team follows up with ground surveys and takes samples of 
symptomatic trees. ROD remains a priority for natural resource 
management agencies in Hawaii.
    Researchers are investigating a wide array of topics to develop 
science-based methods for controlling the disease, identifying 
resistance to the disease, and restoring `Ohi`a forests. Community 
outreach is an integral part of the project, including consistent 
messaging on the importance of `Ohi`a forests and how residents and 
visitors can help protect them. Limited detections on Oahu and Maui 
with regular surveillance indicate that the combination of strategies 
deployed by the ROD working groups are making a difference in 
protecting `Ohi`a forests across the state.
    The USDA supports the intent of the Continued Rapid Ohia Death 
Response Act of 2022.
H.R. 3522, ``FIRESHEDS Act''

    The FIRESHEDS Act would amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
of 2003 to establish emergency fireshed management areas.
    This Act would, upon the request of a governor of a State, require 
the Secretary to designate a landscape scale fireshed in the state, 
within 90 days. The establishment of the fireshed would be an activity 
exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act. The Act also sets 
forth criteria for designating fireshed management areas under an 
agreement. USDA is concerned that these criteria are unnecessarily 
restrictive and may limit the ability to designate firesheds where they 
are needed. USDA is also concerned that this process could substitute a 
scienced based approach to fire management with a specific state or 
governors' interests for a region, overriding existing land management 
objectives. It could also create a scenario where states could 
designate all areas as firesheds, in an effort to determine management 
or attract funding, reducing the effectiveness of the tool.
    The Act would also require the Secretary and governor to jointly 
develop a fireshed assessment for each designated fireshed. Fireshed 
assessments would identify community risk and management projects for 
reducing threats to public health and safety. Implementation would 
occur through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Secretary 
and other federal, state, private, and other organizations. USDA is 
concerned that Tribes were not included in the list of collaborators 
that can sign the MOU with the Secretary. The Act also requires that 
management activities in designated firesheds be proposed by a Resource 
Advisory Commission. USDA has concerns about these additional 
procedural and process requirements, including that restoration and 
protection work could be delayed or slowed.
    This Act also establishes a broad Categorical Exclusion for 
fireshed management projects. USDA, in coordination with the White 
House Council on Environmental Quality, would like to work with the 
sponsor to better understand concerns about the applicability of NEPA 
in hazardous fuels treatments and fire preparedness to ensure any new 
tools will be effective in facilitating our work.
    Finally, this Act also makes changes to the Good Neighbor Authority 
to allow states to use revenue for authorized restoration projects on 
non-federal lands under a good neighbor agreement. The ability to use 
this revenue on non-federal land would allow for cross-boundary 
restoration treatments such as fuels reduction projects within a 
priority fireshed and watershed restoration that might cross land 
ownership boundaries under the Good Neighbor Authority.
    USDA is committed to working with States, Tribes, fire 
associations, non-government organizations, and other federal agencies 
at the landscape level to prioritize fuels reduction treatments and 
forest restoration projects that are the right size and in the right 
location to protect life, property, critical infrastructure, and 
natural resources.
    The Forest Service's Wildfire Crisis Strategy, launched in 2022, 
combines a historic investment of Congressional funding with years of 
scientific research and planning into a national effort that is 
intended to dramatically increase the scale and pace of forest health 
treatments. As part of this effort, 21 priority landscapes, comprised 
of 250 high-risk firesheds, have been identified; our work in these 
areas is mitigating wildfire risk to around 200 communities in the 
West. Working with States has been critical to our efforts. We have 
entered into 31 Shared Stewardship Agreements covering 49 states to 
address urgent forest management challenges, and many have established 
landscape-scale firesheds which are jointly assessed by the Regional 
Forester and the Governor. We have also established 398 Good Neighbor 
Agreements with States in 38 states. USFS also has over fifty CEs under 
NEPA available to carry out work, in addition to other administrative 
flexibilities.
    We appreciate every effort that Congress is making to advance the 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy, however we have significant concerns about 
additional procedural and process requirements involved in this bill. 
We cannot support this bill as written and would be glad to discuss our 
concerns further with the Committee.
H.R 3499, Direct Hire to Fight Fires

    H.R. 3499, Direct Hire to Fight Fires, provides Direct Hire 
Authority to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the 
Interior for purpose of filling agency wildland firefighting positions, 
including support positions.
    Direct Hire Authority is a limited, expedited hiring authority that 
currently may be granted administratively by the Office of Personnel 
Management to employing agencies to fill positions in the competitive 
service for which there is a critical hiring need or severe shortage of 
candidates. This authority bypasses standard statutory veterans' 
preference, rating, ranking and public notice requirements, as well as 
re-instatement rights for individuals with prior Federal service under 
the competitive service for Federal civilian hiring, and can support 
streamlined hiring actions. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
may issue such authority to agencies upon written request, and 
justification, or upon an independent assessment that there is a 
critical hiring need or severe shortage of candidates for specific 
positions.
    OPM granted the Forest Service Direct Hire Authority in 2019 to 
fill critical fire positions in a very defined list of fire job titles, 
job series and pay grades. As of May 10, 2023 the agency has filled 
over 16,600 positions using the Direct Hiring Authority and has an 
additional 3,200 currently in process for a total of over 19,800 hired 
personnel. Although Direct Hire Authority has some limitations, the 
agency has benefited from its temporary use of DHA.
    The USDA would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors 
further to best guide longer-term hiring for wildland firefighters and 
support staff.
H.R. 3389, ``Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023''
    The Forest Service collaborates with many partners to accomplish 
wildfire suppression across the nation and deliver aerial suppression 
support in the safest manner possible to our aviators, our 
firefighters, and the public we serve.
    H.R. 3389, Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023 
directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the 
Department of the Interior, in consultation with the National 
Interagency Aviation Committee and the Interagency Airtanker Board, to 
jointly conduct an evaluation of the container aerial firefighting 
system to assess the use of such system to mitigate and suppress 
wildfires and to share the results of the evaluation.
    The Forest Service continues to research technology to improve the 
effectiveness and safety of aerial firefighting including, but not 
limited to, fire imaging, use of uncrewed aircraft systems, wildfire 
detection cameras, modern aircraft, aerial firefighting simulators 
using virtual reality, and aerial delivered retardant and water. The 
agency employs the most advanced and capable equipment available to 
meet the interagency firefighting mission.
    In recent years, several companies with Container Aerial 
Firefighting Systems have approached the Forest Service requesting a 
review of their equipment for use in wildfire suppression operations. 
These systems deliver retardant or water in large containers, such as 
large cardboard boxes that are dropped by aircraft to provide a 
concentrated amount of retardant or water along the fireline. This 
technology is also referred to as Precision Containerized Aerial 
Delivery Systems.
    The Forest Service evaluated Container Aerial Firefighting Systems 
and documented its observations in the Forest Service San Dimas 
Technology and Development Center's 2011 Precision Containerized Aerial 
Delivery Systems Forest Service Report. Testing, evaluation, and 
approval of retardant delivery systems are conducted under the 
authority of the National Interagency Aviation Committee, in accordance 
with methods and standards established by the Interagency Airtanker 
Board. The evaluation occurred in 2010 during a U.S. Army test of the 
technical feasibility of Precision Container Aerial Delivery Systems at 
the Yuma Proving Grounds. Through this evaluation, the agency 
determined that this delivery system does not meet retardant delivery 
standards for coverage level, consistent delivery, delivery time, 
ground firefighter safety or environmental impacts. It also has an 
inconsistent, non-continuous drop pattern which would allow fire to 
burn through fuels with thin or no retardant coverage, unlike 
conventional airtankers that can provide consistent coverage.
    Specifically, the evaluation stated that ``using containerized 
delivery systems as a method of firefighting is a safety concern for 
firefighters and the public in the wildland-urban interface where we 
fight many of our fires.'' Additional concerns were raised regarding 
the extensive debris that is scattered over a large area upon impact. 
Leaving this material on the ground anywhere is an environmental issue. 
The debris would be combustible and would add fuel to the fire 
environment. The debris is not natural to the landscape; removal would 
create additional cost, time, and personnel exposure concerns; debris 
may not be removed due to inaccessible locations; and debris may raise 
public and environmental concerns. There is also high risk of severe 
injury and/or damage to the public, firefighters, facilities and 
vehicles due to falling debris.
    Our current system of retardant loading and delivery has an 
operationally effective infrastructure. Introducing a completely new 
system and process would add to cost, complexity, logistics, and 
possibly disrupt the synchronous operational tempo, both from the air, 
and for firefighters on the ground, which is critical to protecting 
lives, property, and valuable resources. Our current capabilities align 
very well with our requirements and modernization strategy.
    The USDA appreciates the bill's intent to pursue new ideas in 
wildland fire suppression but does not support the incorporation of 
containerized systems into our suppression response given safety and 
operational concerns.
H.R. 3396, ``Fire Department Repayment Act of 2023''

    The Forest Service takes seriously its responsibility to work with 
many partners to accomplish wildfire suppression across the nation. The 
Forest Service negotiates and maintains many State Cooperative Fire 
Protection Agreements to ensure reciprocity for wildland firefighting 
services rendered on behalf of the Forest Service or that the agency 
provides to States and local governments.
    H.R. 3396, Fire Department Repayment Act of 2023 requires the 
standardization of reciprocal fire suppression cost share agreements. 
It directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 
the Department of the Interior to establish standard operating 
procedures related to fire suppression cost share agreements 
established for suppression cost share, to ensure they are in alignment 
with Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements, and that each agreement is 
reviewed and modified as necessary with State and local fire 
suppression organizations.
    Forest Service policy FSM 3170 Cooperative Fire sets forth agency 
direction for the development of Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements 
which require approval by the Deputy Chief of State, Private and Tribal 
Forestry. These agreements are developed following the guidance 
provided in the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements statewide 
template. The guidance also establishes the methodologies that 
signatory parties may use for cost shares agreements.
    The Forest Service supports the intent of the bill and looks 
forward to working with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors to address 
our concerns.
H.R. ____, ``Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 2023''

    Availability of housing for employees doing necessary and critical 
work on federal lands is increasingly challenging as the already high 
costs of housing continue rising quickly in many areas. This is 
particularly true in communities that serve as gateways to our national 
forests and house our employees. In fact, the Forest Service has 
identified lack of quality and affordable housing as a major barrier to 
recruiting and maintaining our workforce, and to fully address the 
wildfire crisis. While the bill applies only to USDA Forest Service, 
DOI is working cooperatively with USDA to more broadly address the 
issue of affordable housing in certain geographic areas where housing 
is unavailable or unaffordable.
    Section 8623 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known 
as the 2018 Farm Bill, provided the agency with some essential tools to 
address affordable housing for our employees. Specifically, the 2018 
Farm Bill provided the authority to enter into lease agreements with 
non-Federal entities in exchange for cash and non-cash consideration in 
the form of construction of new facilities, maintenance of existing 
facilities, other services, or any combination of the three. Despite 
some limitations, Section 8623 has been a unique and valuable authority 
that aids the Forest Service's mission by supplying valuable in-kind 
resources, all while limiting long-term risk by providing the option to 
return lands to the public domain at lease expiration. In addition, the 
use of a lease agreement, as opposed to a permit, offers opportunities 
to our non-federal partners through an arrangement that is more 
attractive to new capital, encouraging economic development in 
communities that border National Forests.
    The Forest Service has been developing several pilot projects under 
the 2018 Farm Bill since this authority was enacted, most notably on 
the White River National Forest in Colorado, where at least one project 
plans to deliver 162 proponent-financed, affordable housing units to 
support the local workforce, some of which will be reserved for Forest 
Service employees. These early efforts are very encouraging, and we 
expect to expand the use of this authority into other areas if it is 
extended.
    H.R. ____ would extend and amend the leasing authority in section 
8623 of the 2018 Farm Bill. Specifically, it would expand in-kind 
consideration application flexibility to areas beyond the specific site 
being leased; set an allowable maximum lease term of 100 years; provide 
an explicit mechanism for lease renewal; and extend the authority for 
an additional 5 years.
    USDA appreciates and supports the intent of this bill to enhance 
and extend this much needed authority. We would like to work with the 
Committee and bill sponsors to refine some of the new provisions to 
ensure that we will be able to meet the legislative intent and the 
focus of the bill on housing shortages while minimizing any unintended 
consequences or allowing for a broader range of activities than 
envisioned.
    That concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may 
have for me.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Troy Heithecker, Associate 
                   Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service

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

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. You mentioned the Forest Service puts out 98% of the 
wildfires reported within 24 hours, with only 1% allowed to burn for 
resource benefits. Will you provide a list to the Committee of fires 
determined to burn for resource benefits in the past five wildfires 
seasons and the outcome of each fire? Specifically sharing if those 
fires allowed to burn escaped the planned area or destroyed homes and/
or caused loss of human life.

    Question 2. In the last five years, please provide the number of 
helicopters and aircrafts available for delivery of water and/or fire 
retardant. Have there been requests for airtanker support during a fire 
season in the past five years where the agency has not been able to 
fill due to a lack of helicopter and airplanes?

    Question 3. The Forest Service testimony notes safety and 
operational concerns on container aerial firefighting system (CAFFS) 
stem from a 2011 testing and subsequent report. Why has the agency not 
tested this technology in recent years? It appears the industry has 
demonstrated the newest versions of CAFFS address many of the initial 
concerns.

    Question 4. For the 2023 wildfire season, how many wildland 
firefighters have been hired to date? How many wildland firefighters 
have completed the onboarding process? How many of these were hired 
through a direct hire authority?

    Question 5. Will you provide a breakdown of the fifty categorical 
exclusions (CEs) under NEPA the Forest Service currently has to carry 
out work? How many of these are related to treating firesheds, reducing 
hazardous fuels, or harvesting timber?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Heithecker. Now, I would like 
to recognize Mr. Robert Dugan, the Chairman of the Placer 
County Water Agency, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Dugan.

   STATEMENT OF ROBERT DUGAN, CHAIRMAN, PLACER COUNTY WATER 
                   AGENCY, AUBURN, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Dugan. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse--congratulations--and members of the Subcommittee.
    PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American River 
Project that provides water supply and generates hydroelectric 
power in Northern California, and supports recreational 
opportunities for millions of citizens from Placer County into 
the Bay Area. I am pleased to be here to testify in support of 
H.R. 188, legislation that builds on lessons learned on the 
ground from the last decade of catastrophic wildfires in the 
West.
    H.R. 188 would establish a categorical exclusion for select 
hazard fuel reduction projects up to 10,000 acres that have 
been developed collaboratively, and are consistent with an 
approved forest plan. H.R. 188 is necessary to meet the 10-year 
strategy set by the Forest Service to significantly increase 
the pace and scale of fuel and forest health treatments to 
address the crisis of wildfire and to protect critical 
watersheds, at-risk communities, and habitats.
    I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to 
thank Congress and the Forest Service for the hard work they 
put into bringing those strategies into the modern reality.
    H.R. 188 will also help realize the critical investments 
provided by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
reduce wildfire risk and restore healthy, productive forests 
for the benefit of everyone and everything dependent on them.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Dugan. Showing the footprint here of the wildfires in 
our forest and our watershed will illustrate why H.R. 188 and 
the other legislation you are considering is so critical. I am 
going to give you a little perspective on our experience on the 
ground.
    Since 2014, the American River watershed has suffered three 
major wildfires that you are looking at here: the King, the 
Caldor, and the Mosquito Fires, which collectively burned some 
400,000 acres to the ground, predominantly on Federal forest 
lands.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Dugan. Last year, the Mosquito Fire alone burned some 
76,000 acres. It destroyed power lines that deliver energy to 
the grid, disrupting critical power supplies for the north 
state grid throughout our past winter when we needed them 
desperately. Tens of millions of dollars were lost in revenue 
and significant restrictions in power supply were experienced 
in that region.
    Further, PCWA estimates that approximately 1.3 million tons 
of topsoil from the forest is eroding into our Oxbow Reservoir 
as a result of the Mosquito Fire severity and its impact 
subsequently on water storage.
    And finally, two major Federal roads providing access to 
the Tahoe and El Dorado National Forests suffered catastrophic 
damage from the Mosquito Fire, severely restricting public 
access to Federal lands, access to PCWA's water and water and 
power infrastructure, and limiting entire communities access to 
critical public health and safety services. Those wildfires 
caused dramatic changes in forest vegetation structure, soil 
conditions, and altered stream flows.
    In 2014, the King Fire led us into a collaboration with the 
Forest Service, the state of California, and the Nature 
Conservancy along with local environmental organizations to 
develop our own 30,000-acre restoration project in French 
Meadows to address this very item.
    I want to thank the Forest Service for their strong 
commitment, from the Chief all the way down to the folks in the 
forest. That partnership has been tremendous.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Dugan. As was already illustrated by the Chair and in 
your briefing packet, the genesis of H.R. 188 was the 
successful use of a categorical exclusion in the South Lake 
Tahoe Basin. And without repeating what has already been said, 
I will tell you that firefighters, forest managers, and land 
managers agree that that project reduced the Caldor Fire 
intensity to the point that they were able to knock the fire 
down and save countless acres of habitat and the devastation 
that would have ensued in the Tahoe Basin had we not done that 
project.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Dugan. This is our watershed. Yours, ours, all of ours. 
This is indicative of watersheds throughout the forested lands 
in the United States.
    We look forward to working with the Committee as you 
advance these forest management strategies.
    Two additional requests, we are looking for clear policy 
for short- and long-term mitigation for post-fire impacts, and 
we are also asking for interagency coordination amongst the 
Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and Federal 
Highways so that we can address the issues of infrastructure 
access and egress throughout those forests.
    In closing, I wish to restate our support for H.R. 188, 
which is necessary to address fuels and forest health 
treatments. And we are available to answer any questions you 
may have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dugan follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Mr. Robert Dugan, Chairman, Board of Directors, 
                       Placer County Water Agency
                              on H.R. 188

Introduction

    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of 
the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands for the opportunity to testify 
in support of H.R. 188 that would reduce wildfires' adverse economic, 
social and environmental impacts to our communities and water 
resources. I request that this formal statement be entered into the 
hearing record, and I will summarize my testimony for the subcommittee.
    I am Robert Dugan and appear before the subcommittee as Chairman of 
the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) Board of Directors. PCWA has led 
the effort to develop sustainable approaches to address wildfire 
impacts. Of direct importance, PCWA's General Manager, Andy Fecko, is 
currently a member of the federal Wildland Fire Mitigation and 
Management Commission working to develop recommendations on how this 
nation can better address wildfires. This hearing is especially timely 
given the Commission's ongoing work that collectively will steer the 
country in a direction that enhances our mutually shared goal of 
protecting communities and reducing the costly impacts of wildfires. 
PCWA is also an active member of the Association of California Water 
Agencies, National Water Resources Association and National Hydropower 
Association; groups that are working diligently in support of effective 
federal, state and local policies and programs to advance wildfire 
suppression efforts.
About PCWA

    PCWA constructed the Middle Fork Project in the 1960s to ensure a 
reliable local water supply. PCWA`s management of the project is 
grounded in a belief that headwaters management is essential to the 
watershed's health. PCWA operations are located in the Middle Fork 
American River watershed and our headquarters are three hours east of 
Sacramento, California. PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American 
River Project that provides water supply, generates hydroelectric 
power, and supports recreational opportunities for the 250,000 citizens 
of western Placer County. Integral to these activities is PCWA's 
commitment to support the ecosystem of our watershed. I would further 
add that our environmental stewardship and commitment to sustainable 
uses of our natural resources has allowed us to work with inter-
regional stakeholders to deliver supplemental water supplies during the 
past several years of extraordinary drought conditions in California.
Our Experiences--Major Wildfires

    Since 2014, the American River watershed has suffered three major 
wildfires: 1) King, 2) Caldor, and 3) Mosquito. These fires devastated 
nearly 400,000 acres, predominantly on federal forest lands. However, 
the impacts of these fires were not limited to federal lands. The 
spillover effects directly compromised our agency's ability to carry 
out its core missions.
    These high intensity wildfires compromised water quality. This 
occurred during active burning and for months and years after the fires 
ended. The impacts from the wildfires include blackened watersheds, 
increased flooding and erosion due to the denuded environment, water 
quality impairments to water-supply reservoirs, limitation of 
hydropower generation facilities' operation, and impairments to 
fisheries and other natural resources.
    The effects of these large catastrophic wildfires linger for 
decades. The impact on forestry health can last for centuries as nature 
seeks to come back from the devastation. From a public services 
perspective, water and hydroelectric utilities that operate in these 
watersheds must grapple in the aftermath of wildfires with 
circumstances that are often worse than the active wildfire event. For 
example, when wildfire debris enters lakes and reservoirs, the volumes 
can be so significant that they overtake the body of water, rapidly 
decreasing valuable water storage capacity. Operationally, the debris 
blocks spillways, damages water conveyance equipment and hydro-electric 
generation equipment. This imposes substantial costs on our ratepayers 
and increases threats to water supply reliability.

    Allow me to highlight wildfires consequences that we have 
experienced and how PCWA proactively worked to mitigate the impacts:
King Fire

     In 2014, the King Fire burned 97,717-acres, fueled by 
            extremely low humidity and high winds that drove the fire 
            into the remote and densely forested Rubicon River canyon, 
            an important tributary to the American River. Once it 
            reached the Rubicon canyon, the fire exploded overnight, 
            devastating the watershed with high-severity incineration. 
            Complete loss of vegetative cover has exposed soils to 
            erosion on thousands of acres of steep, sloping river 
            canyons.

     The U.S. Forest Service estimates that over 300,000 tons 
            of topsoil have eroded into Rubicon River the first year 
            after the King Fire. In the resulting years, PCWA spent 
            nearly $3 million to remove sediment and debris transported 
            and deposited into Oxbow Reservoir. The sediment removed 
            was only that necessary to recover operations of our 
            equipment, most of the sediment remains to date. Sediment 
            removal requires PCWA's Ralston Powerhouse to be taken 
            offline, therefore producing no hydropower.

     Following the King Fire, PCWA led a nationally recognized 
            collaborative watershed restoration effort, the French 
            Meadows Forest Restoration Project, to restore forest 
            health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity 
            wildfire in this critical watershed. PCWA collaborates with 
            the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, Placer County 
            and local conservation NGOs to facilitate this successful 
            project.

Mosquito Fire

     This fire burned 76,788 acres in Placer and El Dorado, 
            California counties. It was California's largest wildfire 
            in 2022. The fire occurred in the heart of the American 
            River watershed and threatened to destroy the communities 
            of Foresthill and Georgetown and potentially spread into 
            the Lake Tahoe Basin.

     PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American River 
            Project, which supplies water to western Placer County and 
            provides clean energy to the California grid. The Mosquito 
            Fire destroyed powerlines that deliver this energy to the 
            grid, making this source of energy unavailable during the 
            winter cyclone of December 2022 and January 2023. This 
            downtime resulted in tens of millions of dollars in lost 
            revenue, but more importantly, starved the nation of clean 
            energy during this extreme weather event and forcing 
            greater use of petroleum energy sources.

     PCWA estimates that 1.3 million tons of topsoil may erode 
            into our Oxbow Reservoir because of the Mosquito Fire. This 
            volume of topsoil is more than 10 percent of Oxbow 
            Reservoir and will have crippling effects on hydropower 
            operations. The work to recover from the Mosquito Fire's 
            impacts will be significant, long-term and costly.

     Two major federal roads providing access to the Tahoe and 
            Eldorado National Forests suffered major damage from the 
            Mosquito Fire, eliminating public access and severely 
            restricting PCWA's access to its hydropower system. If 
            these roads become impassable, PCWA will not have winter 
            access to its reservoirs and powerplants. These roads are 
            critical to public health and safety for firefighting and 
            other emergency response.

    These examples vividly document the dramatic impact of wildfires 
and the priority that must be addressed to mitigate future wildfire 
events. Today's review of proposed solutions is an important first step 
and PCWA hopes that Congress will move expeditiously to pass 
legislation to provide us, and water agencies across the west, with the 
tools to meet the new normal of wildfires.
Support for H.R. 188, the Proven Forest Management Act

    PCWA supports H.R. 188, which would expand, across all National 
Forest System lands, a wildfire mitigation tool that was successful in 
the Lake Tahoe Basin. Specifically, it provides that hazardous fuel 
reduction project up to 10,000 acres, developed collaboratively with 
local governments and consistent with the forest plan, may be 
categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact 
statement or an environmental assessment under the National 
Environmental Policy Act.

    This administrative flexibility would deliver the U.S. Forest 
Service immediate benefits for two specific forest health management 
activities:

  1.  Pre-Wildfire Mitigation--National Forest System lands that have 
            been identified as in need of treatment to reduce the 
            threat of insect and disease infestations and catastrophic 
            wildfires to protect communities and the environment is 
            imperative; and,

  2.  Post-Wildfire Forest Restoration--The protection of the natural 
            and man-made infrastructure of our watersheds post fire 
            must be addressed. Excluding the requirement for an 
            Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact 
            Statement would streamline post-fire management activities 
            to improve the long-term health of the landscape.

    The 2021 Caldor Fire, which burned 221,835 acres, provides a case 
study on this type of use of categorical exclusion, as provide for in 
Public Law 114-322 for the Lake Tahoe Basin, helped mitigate the 
impacts of the wildfire and protected the Tahoe Basin communities.

     When the Caldor Fire entered the Lake Tahoe Basin, it 
            entered Christmas Valley, an area where the U.S. Forest 
            Service, the State of California and local governments had 
            completed several forest thinning projects. In addition, 
            the South Tahoe Public Utility District, in collaboration 
            with the U.S. Forest Service, expediated the installation 
            of water infrastructure (upsized water lines, hydrants, 
            water tanks). Local fire agencies also led a concerted 
            fire-adapted communities effort to fire-hardened homes and 
            businesses.

     The combination of investing in water infrastructure for 
            fire suppression, community wildfire preparedness and 
            hazardous fuels treatments reduced the Caldor Fire 
            intensity and enhanced suppression efforts to protect the 
            Lake Tahoe Basin.

     After the fire, the Forest Service has used the 
            categorical exclusion to expediate a Tahoe Basin Caldor 
            Hazard Tree Fuels Reduction Project to exclude the need for 
            either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental 
            Impact Statement to carry out the project.

Conclusion and Recommendations

    In conclusion, I would like to reiterate PCWA's support for H.R. 
188 and present brief recommendations to address identified gaps 
specific to pre- and post-wildfire mitigation and response policies.
    The reauthorization of the Farm Bill and the anticipated 
recommendations by the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management 
Commission present additional responses to enhance forest management 
and post-fire mitigation. We believe that it is important to report 
legislation through this committee and to secure House passage before 
the next wildfire season inflicts new public health, economic 
dislocation and natural resources losses. In addition, the U.S. Forest 
Service's 10-year strategy to implement strategic restoration projects 
on 50 million acres of federal, state, and private land provides an 
ambitious goal to protect our communities and critical watersheds. This 
is an important step.
    There needs to be a clear policy for short and long-term mitigation 
for post-fire debris flow impacts to receiving waterways and to public 
water and hydroelectric facilities on federal lands. These impacts have 
historically been under-invested in and are costly. Mitigation measures 
include stabilizing topsoil before ensuing winter storms, sediment 
traps in the waterways, and sediment removal once in the waterways.
    It is vital that interagency coordination among the U.S. Forest 
Service, Department of the Interior and Federal Highways Administration 
must be improved to provide for an expediated repair or replacement of 
federal roads damaged by wildfire. This would include the ability for 
federal agencies to contract with local governments to facilitate 
repairs utilizing existing contractual relationships with local-
regional construction companies.
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Dugan. Now, I would like to 
recognize Mr. Cody Desautel, the President of the Intertribal 
Timber Council, for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF CODY DESAUTEL, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER 
                   COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON

    Mr. Desautel. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking 
Member Neguse. On behalf of the Intertribal Timber Council and 
its more than 60 member tribes, I appreciate this opportunity 
to testify on H.R. 1450 and other legislation today.
    All of America's forests were once inhabited, managed, and 
used by Indian people. Today, only a small portion of those 
lands remain under direct Indian management. On a total of 334 
reservations in 36 states, 19.3 million acres of forest and 
woodlands are held in trust by the United States and managed 
for the benefit of Indians.
    Tribes actively manage their forests to provide the 
subsistence, cultural, and spiritual values important to their 
tribal membership, while also providing economic revenue, jobs, 
and forest products that support both tribal and local 
economies. Catastrophic wildfire can negatively impact all of 
these benefits for multiple generations.
    The risk of wildfire to Indian lands is compounded by the 
thousands of miles of shared boundary with Federal agencies, 
primarily the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management. There are countless examples of wildfire spilling 
over from Federal lands onto tribal forests, causing 
significant economic and ecological losses. These fires 
regularly pose a risk to human life on Indian lands and have 
resulted in fatalities.
    Congress recognized the need for tribes to work closely 
with their Federal neighbors to reduce the threat of fire 
across shared boundaries. The result was the Tribal Forest 
Protection Act of 2004, which allows tribes to petition the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to perform stewardship 
activities on their lands adjacent to Indian lands.
    The 2018 Farm Bill not only expanded TFPA authorities, but 
also gave tribes and counties the authority to enter into Good 
Neighbor Agreements with Federal agencies. Unfortunately, a 
drafting error in the final text precludes tribes or counties 
from retaining revenue generated from GNA projects for 
planning. This is a key component of building successful GNA 
stewardship programs, as states have done since 2014.
    The disparity in funding between tribal forests and other 
Federal forests continues to grow. Without an ability to retain 
revenue to support tribal capacity, it is unlikely tribes will 
contribute already limited tribal revenue sources to conduct 
work on adjacent Federal land.
    After expansion of the authority in the 2018 Farm Bill, the 
Colville Tribe attempted to use the Good Neighbor Authority on 
the Sanpoil Project, which shared approximately 10 miles of 
boundary with the reservation. However, without the ability to 
use timber sale revenue to accomplish restoration services, the 
project was cost prohibitive, and the Tribe was forced to 
abandon its plan.
    GNA provides tribes and Federal agencies an additional tool 
for improving forest health across boundaries. While the scope 
of GNA projects is slightly narrower than what tribes may 
accomplish with TFPA and 638 authorities, GNA provides greater 
latitude in retaining project revenues and building additional 
capacity.
    I would also like to make some brief comments on other 
legislation that is being considered today.
    For H.R. 188, this legislation would provide a 10,000-acre 
categorical exclusion for fuels treatment projects if those 
projects are developed in cooperation with various entities. 
The ITC supports the intent of this legislation, and 
appreciates the requirement to consult with Indian tribes. One 
technical suggestion is to define the term ``qualified entity'' 
as it applies to the contracting of fuels reduction work. We 
would also recommend that TFPA and GNA projects automatically 
qualify for the categorical exclusion if they meet the other 
criteria.
    Also, on H.R. 3522, ITC supports the intent of this 
legislation, which would categorically exclude certain fuels 
reduction projects from NEPA evaluation and limits judicial 
review if those projects are developed through a collaborative 
process, a community wildfire protection plan, or a resource 
advisory committee.
    The bill also authorizes the use of GNA to perform covered 
projects. The ITC recommends the bill be amended to include 
TFPA projects as eligible, and to align the amendments of the 
underlying GNA statute reflected in H.R. 1450 to ensure that if 
GNA were used under this bill, tribes are fully eligible to 
participate.
    With that, I thank you for the time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Desautel follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Cody Desautel, President, Intertribal Timber
        Council & Executive Director, Confederated Tribes of the
                          Colville Reservation
                              on H.R. 1450

    I am Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal Timber Council 
(ITC) and Executive Director for the Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation in Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its 
more than 60 member Tribes, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on 
H.R. 1450 and other legislation today.
    All of America's forests were once inhabited, managed and used by 
Indian people. Today, only a small portion of those lands remain under 
direct Indian management. On a total of 334 reservations in 36 states, 
19.3 million acres of forests and woodlands are held in trust by the 
United States and managed for the benefit of Indians.
    Tribes actively manage their forests to provide the subsistence, 
cultural, and spiritual values important to their tribal membership, 
while also providing economic revenue, jobs, and forest products that 
support both tribal and local economies. Catastrophic wildfire can 
negatively impact all of these uses for multiple generations.
    The risk of wildfire to Indian lands is compounded by the thousands 
of miles of shared boundary with federal agencies, primarily the U.S. 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. There are countless 
examples of wildfire spilling over from federal lands onto tribal 
forests, causing significant economic and ecological losses. These 
fires regularly pose a risk to human life on Indian lands and have 
resulted in fatalities.
    Congress recognized the need for tribes to work closely with their 
federal neighbors to reduce the threat of fire across shared 
boundaries. The result was the Tribal Forest Protection Act (``TFPA''), 
which allows tribes to petition the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior to perform stewardship activities on their lands adjacent to 
Indian lands.
    The 2018 Farm Bill not only expanded TFPA authorities but also gave 
tribes and counties the authority to enter into Good Neighbor 
Agreements with federal agencies. Unfortunately, a drafting error in 
the final text precludes tribes or counties from retaining revenue 
generated from GNA projects for planning. This is a key component of 
building successful GNA stewardship programs as states have done since 
2014.
    The disparity in funding between Tribal forests and other federal 
forests continues to grow. Without an ability to retain revenue to 
support tribal capacity, it is unlikely Tribes will contribute already 
limited tribal revenue sources to conduct work on adjacent federal 
land. After expansion of the authority in the 2018 Farm Bill, the 
Colville Tribe attempted to use the Good Neighbor Authority on the San 
Poil project, which shared approximately 10 miles of boundary with the 
reservation. However, without the ability to use timber sale revenue to 
accomplish restoration services the project was cost-prohibitive, and 
the Tribe was forced to abandon its plan.
    GNA provides tribes and federal agencies an additional tool for 
improving forest health across boundaries. While the scope of GNA 
projects is slightly narrower than what tribes may accomplish with TFPA 
and 638 authorities, GNA provides greater latitude in retaining project 
revenues and building additional capacity.
Other Legislation

    I would like to make brief comments on other legislation that is 
being considered in today's hearing:

     H.R. 188, ``Proven Forest Management Act'' (McClintock): 
            This legislation would provide a 10,000-acre Categorical 
            Exclusion for fuels treatment projects, if those projects 
            are developed in cooperation with various entities. The ITC 
            supports the intent of this legislation, and appreciates 
            the requirement to consult with Indian tribes. One 
            technical suggestion is to define the term ``qualified 
            entity'' as it applies to the contracting of fuels 
            reduction work. We would also recommend that TFPA and GNA 
            projects automatically qualify for the Categorical 
            Exclusion, if they meet other criteria.

     H.R. 3522, ``FIRESHEDS Act'' (Moore): ITC supports the 
            intent of this legislation which would categorically 
            exclude certain fuels reduction projects from NEPA 
            evaluation, and limits judicial review, if those projects 
            are developed through a collaborative process, community 
            wildfire protection plan, or resource advisory committee. 
            The bill also authorizes the use of GNA to perform covered 
            projects. The ITC recommends the bill be amended to include 
            TFPA projects as eligible, and to align the amendments to 
            the underlying GNA statute reflect H.R. 1450--to ensure 
            that if GNA were used under this bill, tribes are fully 
            eligible to participate.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Desautel. I would like to 
recognize our final panelist on this panel, Mr. Jamie 
Johansson, President of the California Farm Bureau.
    You have 5 minutes, sir.

   STATEMENT OF JAMIE JOHANSSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FARM 
                 BUREAU, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Johansson. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jamie 
Johansson, and I am a first generation farmer producing olives 
and citrus fruit in Oroville, California. I also serve as the 
President of the California Farm Bureau, California's largest 
farm organization, representing nearly 30,000 members. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the 
FIRESHEDS Act.
    California's wildfires are very personal to me. As 
president of my organization, I have witnessed and heard the 
numerous stories of loss and frustration from our members, in 
addition to I, myself, and my employees and my family have been 
wildfire evacuees.
    With the presence of 18 national forests in California, 
nearly half of the 100 million acres in our state are managed 
by the Federal Government. Given the extensive number of 
wildfire-related impacts California's ranchers are facing, 
California Farm Bureau has a vested interest in quality and 
quantity of forest management activities.
    Recognizing the need for robust financial resources, 
California Farm Bureau supported the inclusion of forest 
management funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. While the recent influx in 
forest management funding is encouraging, we remain concerned 
about the expediency in which treatments on federally owned 
lands are being performed.
    To address backlog and achieve landscape-scale management, 
we must enhance capacity and speed up collaborative processes 
by empowering multiple jurisdictions and partners. Partnerships 
that assist the Forest Service with permitting, NEPA processes, 
and on-the-ground work should be expanded.
    Private industry, including foresters and ranchers within 
our own membership, are highly skilled, trained, and operate 
equipment that could assist the Forest Service with vegetative 
removal, as well as fire suppression activities. In many cases, 
these individuals are also personally knowledgeable about the 
local communities, lands, and landscapes, bringing additional 
contributions to projects.
    It is also important that forest management activities 
utilize the best available data so that resources are 
effectively utilized. For these reasons, we are pleased to 
offer comments in support of the FIRESHEDS Act, H.R. 3522, 
which would allow governors to enter into joint agreements with 
Federal land management agencies and designate landscape-scale 
emergency fireshed management areas in areas of highest risk.
    We especially like that this legislation provides 
flexibility, allowing agreements to be updated as new wildlife 
threats emerge.
    The bill also smartly allows fireshed areas to contain both 
Federal and non-Federal land, furthering collaboration and 
partnership.
    For each emergency fireshed management area, the Secretary 
and the Governor would complete a joint assignment. We strongly 
support these assignments, including timelines and long-term 
benchmark goals for the completion of identified projects.
    Additionally, the inclusion of memorandums of understanding 
in the bill will allow for the assessments to be continually 
updated. This will help ensure that the best available data 
from private entities, research or education institutions, and 
state sources, is applied.
    We are also appreciative that the bill seeks to align 
fireshed management projects in accordance with fireshed 
management plans, and allows for utilization of existing 
statutory and administrative authorities.
    The FIRESHEDS Act also correctly recognizes livestock 
grazing, an often overlooked hazardous fuels reduction 
strategy. Grazing can be an effective management tool for 
Forest Service to improve range condition, manage for fire, and 
control invasive species.
    In addition to the FIRESHEDS Act and other legislation 
being discussed today, we believe that the 2023 Farm Bill 
presents an opportunity to build upon the successes of the 2014 
and 2018 farm bills. We encourage Congress to include a robust 
forest title that enhances the Good Neighbor Authority, 
addresses inadequate markets and infrastructure for low- to no-
value materials, enhances fuel break cross-boundary 
collaboration, removes barriers to increasing pace and scale, 
increases contracting and procurement efficiency, and 
prioritizes reforestation and post-fire rehabilitation.
    The unfortunate reality is we are playing catch-up with a 
situation that has been worsening for decades, further 
exacerbated by drought, disease, and changing climate. 
California's private landowners are unable to increase the pace 
and scale of forest management on their own. Collaboratively, 
we must remain committed to finding solutions if we want to 
achieve fire resilient landscapes.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these 
critical issues, and I am pleased to respond to questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johansson follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Jamie Johansson, President, California Farm 
                                 Bureau
                              on H.R. 3522

INTRODUCTION

    Thank you Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of 
the Subcommittee. My name is Jamie Johansson, and I am a first-
generation farmer producing olives and citrus fruit in Oroville, 
California. I also serve as President of the California Farm Bureau, 
California's largest farm organization, comprised of 53 county Farm 
Bureaus currently representing nearly 30,000 members. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee on the FIRESHEDS 
Act on behalf of the California Farm Bureau and our members across the 
state of California. California's wildfires are very personal to me. As 
President of my organization, I have witnessed and heard the numerous 
stories of loss and frustration from my membership. In addition, I 
myself, my employees and have been wildfire evacuees.
WILDFIRE IMPACTS ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE

    Wildfires have caused numerous direct and indirect impacts on 
California's $50 billion agriculture industry. In addition to being a 
significant public safety threat, many farms, ranches, wineries, 
employee housing, equipment, livestock, and commodities have been 
directly damaged or completely destroyed. For those only partially 
impacted, they are faced with the reality of rebuilding what remains of 
their operation. Because many farmers and ranchers live on their 
farming operation, some have also lost their home simultaneous to 
losing their farm.
Wildfire Smoke & Ash
    California agriculture has faced many challenges related to 
wildfire smoke and ash. For example, the 2020 LNU Complex Fires that 
burned over 360,000 acres, covered much of Northern California's wine 
region in a weeks-long blanket of smoke and ash. The Glass Fire, which 
burned over 65,000 acres in Napa and Sonoma counties immediately 
following, resulted in such severe smoke taint that many wineries 
looking to produce a 2020 vintage were unable to harvest their crop. 
Monterey County, and many of California's central coast counties, as 
well as the winegrape growing regions of the Central and Sacramento 
Valley, also experienced weeks of smoke and ash coverage.
    Wildfire smoke and ash has also affected availability, and at times 
exacerbated shortage, of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) needed by 
farmers and agricultural employees. According to California Division of 
Occupational safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) workplace regulations, 
employers are required to protect outdoor workers with N95 masks or 
respirators when the Air Quality Index is 151 or greater. Particularly 
during the COVID-19 pandemic, our producers were faced with significant 
challenges related to providing our employees with Personal Protective 
Equipment (PPE). Prior to the 2020 wildfires, California Farm Bureau 
and other groups worked with the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture to acquire about 1.5 million respirators that were released 
to county agricultural commissioners from state supplies. But, as the 
wildfires began, people who needed the respirators couldn't get them. 
This prevented even the most usual agricultural activities such as 
harvest, plantings, and cultivation at a time when domestic food 
production was exceedingly critical.
Insurance Availability and Affordability
    Wildfire has also created many residual impacts for California 
farmers and ranchers in the areas of insurance, energy certainty, and 
livestock safety and evacuation. In addition to homeowners' inability 
to renew policies or affordably insure their homes due to wildfire 
risk, California farmers and ranchers have experienced the same 
challenges. In one instance, a member reported their premium had 
increased from $8000 to $36,000. Meanwhile, many southern California 
counties, as well as Napa, Sonoma, El Dorado, Calaveras, Placer, 
Nevada, Shasta, Trinity, Mendocino, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and San 
Luis Obispo counties, have seen policies terminated entirely due to 
wildfire risk.
    Until California State Senate Bill 11 was signed into law in 2021, 
California farmers and ranchers did not have access to California's 
insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, which provided basic 
property insurance only to homes and commercial properties at highest 
risk. This left commercial agricultural infrastructure, wineries, farm 
equipment and other components uninsured. SB 11 authorized these 
operations to access the California FAIR Plan for basic property 
coverage and provided a necessary property insurance backstop for 
agricultural infrastructure. Currently, California Farm Bureau is 
sponsoring state legislation that would allow for commercial insurance 
policies under the FAIR Plan to move back to the admitted commercial 
market, therefore providing opportunities for agricultural producers to 
move back to the competitive market with affordable commercial policies 
protecting farming and ranching operations.
Public Safety Power Shutoffs
    With utility infrastructure in California found to have caused some 
of the most catastrophic damage in California history, the California 
Legislature and California Public Utilities Commission have required 
California's investor-owned utilities to better safeguard their 
infrastructure to prevent those catastrophes. One tool that has been 
implemented is the use of public safety power shutoffs (PSPS). These 
shutoffs simply de-energize electrical grids when certain climatic 
risks, such as wind and low humidity, could potentially result in a 
wildfire should the infrastructure fail or an object come into contact 
with the infrastructure sparking fire. While PSPS implementation can 
serve as a valuable public safety tool, farms and ranches can be 
greatly impacted by these wildfire mitigation efforts as lack of energy 
availability creates added uncertainties for agricultural operations.
Livestock Evacuation Protocols
    Our farmers and ranchers need the ability to safely and responsibly 
cross into evacuation zones to relocate imperiled animals during a 
wildfire incident. Historically, hired vendors working with CALFIRE or 
the United States Forest Service on an active wildfire incident, 
including water tender operators, heavy equipment and dozer operators, 
crew bus drivers, vehicle drivers, mechanics, fallers, swampers, and 
chain saw operators, have been required to complete the Fireline Safety 
Awareness course, a one-day, 8-hour course of instruction. Farmers and 
ranchers have the resources and experience to safely, humanely, and 
efficiently transport livestock to safety. Wanting the same opportunity 
as incident vendors, agriculture organizations supported state 
legislation, Assembly Bill 1103, which established a statewide 
framework for county ``Livestock Pass'' programs to safely provide 
livestock producers access to their ranches during wildfires and other 
emergencies. While prior to the legislation some counties had already 
developed emergency ranch access programs, other counties lacked the 
resources to develop and implement Livestock Pass programs. AB 1103 
required CAL FIRE to establish a statewide training program for 
Livestock Pass holders, codified a requirement that law enforcement and 
emergency responders grant ranch access to Livestock Pass holders, and 
established certain minimum standards for administration of the 
programs, facilitating and streamlining adoption of county Livestock 
Pass programs throughout the state.

INCREASING FOREST MANAGEMENT CAPACITY

    With the presence of 18 National Forests in California, nearly half 
of the 100 million acres in our state are managed by the federal 
government. Given the extensive number of wildfire-related impacts 
California farmers and ranchers are facing, California Farm Bureau has 
a vested interest in the quality, and quantity, of forest management 
activities. Recognizing the need for robust financial resources, 
California Farm Bureau strongly supported the $1.4 billion included in 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), providing the Forest 
Service with implementation resources for the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, 
a 10-year strategy for confronting the western wildfire crisis. Two 
California landscapes, the North Yuba and the Stanislaus, were included 
within the ten initial landscapes. California Farm Bureau also 
supported the additional $1.8 billion in funding provided in Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) for hazardous fuels funding in the wildland-urban 
interface. Within the additional eleven landscapes for treatment that 
were identified, three California landscapes were included in the 
second round of investments. These include the Southern California 
Fireshed Risk Reduction Strategy, the Trinity Forest Health and Fire-
Resilient Rural Communities project, and the Plumas Community 
Protection project.

    While recent funding provided by Congress in the IIJA and IRA to 
address fire risk should be celebrated, we remain concerned about the 
expediency, or pace and scale, in which treatments on federally owned 
lands are being performed given the quantity of treatment work that 
needs to be done and the fire threat our state is facing. We also 
remain concerned about whether or not the necessary financial resources 
will continue to be allocated so that current forest health investments 
are maintained in the longer-term.

    To address management backlog and achieve landscape scale 
management, we must do more to enhance capacity and modernize technical 
expertise. To accomplish this, we must find a way to speed up the 
collaborative process and empower multiple jurisdictions and partners. 
Partnerships that assist the Forest Service with permitting and 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, as well as on the 
ground work, should be expanded. Private industry, including foresters 
and ranchers within our own membership, are highly skilled, trained, 
and operate equipment that can assist the Forest Service with 
vegetative removal as well as fire suppression activities. In many 
cases, these individuals are also personally knowledgeable about the 
local communities and landscapes, bringing additional contributions to 
a project. We strongly believe that by leveraging such partnerships, 
more treatments would be able to be performed on federal land, around 
rural communities, and along shared property lines resulting in a more 
wildfire resilient environment.

    Additionally, both the federal government and the State of 
California have expressed interest in seeking ways to boost investment 
in new facilities where capital investments serve as a driver for 
forest treatments. However, given the significant presence of federally 
owned land, the challenge with this approach is that stewardship 
agreements do not include an obligation that guarantees forest material 
to private industry. Without some level of certainty surrounding supply 
agreements with the Forest Service, it will continue to be very 
difficult to spur new infrastructure investment because existing 
infrastructure is set up based on the landscapes in which they serve. 
In California, industry infrastructure and markets for low to no-value 
wood products is a significant challenge in need of solutions. We must 
work to collectively find ways to complete the NEPA processes for 
forest management and low to no-value wood products, affordably 
transport these materials out of the forest, and incentivize companies 
that can work on biomass or develop new, marketable products out of 
these forest materials.

THE FIRESHEDS ACT

    As private landowners who work and live on and near forested lands, 
our members also recognize that implementing forest management that 
utilizes the best available data, employs strong and effective 
collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries, and engages in 
partnerships with industry and other partners is necessary to 
ultimately change fire behavior and achieve large landscape forest 
management. Including these facets in forest management will best 
utilize the recent influx of federal funding while also addressing 
capacity barriers. For these reasons, we are pleased to offer comments 
in support of the Forest Improvements through Research and Emergency 
Stewardship for Health Ecosystem Development and Sustainability 
(FIRESHEDS) Act. The FIRESHEDS Act would allow a governors to enter 
into joint agreements with federal land management agencies to 
designate landscape scale emergency fireshed management areas 
identified in the top 10% of wildfire exposure on the date of 
designation. We especially like that the bill also allows for such 
agreements to be updated as new wildfire threats emerge. The bill would 
also recognize previously signed stewardship agreements as an agreement 
are defined under the bill. The Act also smartly allows these fireshed 
areas to contain Federal and non-Federal land which would further 
collaboration and partnership.
    For each emergency fireshed management area, the Secretary and the 
governor would then jointly conduct a stewardship and fireshed 
assessment that would include, but not be limited to:

     An exposure risk assessment including scenario planning, 
            mapping, and modeling,

     A strategy for reducing the threat of at-risk communities 
            in the wildland-urban interface within an emergency 
            fireshed,

     Identification of fireshed management projects to be 
            carried out, and

     A timeline and long-term benchmark goals for the 
            completion of projects in the highest exposure areas.

    The bill prioritizes projects that seek to address the highest 
threats to public health and safety with second priority given to 
projects that protect critical infrastructure, habitat, watersheds or 
improving water yield, or a combination. The bill also smartly 
authorizes the Secretary to enter into Memorandums of Understanding 
with additional partners so that assessments are continually updated 
using the best available data including data from private entities, 
research or education institutions, State forest action plans, state 
wildfire risk assessments, and other State sources.
    Following a commonsense approach, projects identified within 
designated fireshed management areas would then be carried out by the 
Secretary in accordance with the fireshed assessment. We are also 
appreciative that the bill seeks to align these projects in accordance 
with the applicable forest management plan, would develop projects 
collaboratively, and prioritize the creation of fuel breaks, reducing 
hazardous fuels, conducting prescribed burns, and removing dead or 
high-risk trees. Fireshed management projects could also utilize 
existing statutory and administrative authorities including a Good 
Neighbor Agreement.
    The FIRESHEDS Act also correctly recognizes livestock grazing as a 
hazardous fuels reduction strategy within the fireshed management 
projects included in the bill. Livestock grazing not only benefits 
ranchers and rural communities, but it also provides important 
management, environmental, and infrastructure benefits that should be 
more fully recognized. Grazing can be an effective management tool for 
the Forest Service to improve range condition, manage for fire, and 
control invasive species. Livestock grazing permittees also often 
provide additional services to public lands such as facility 
maintenance, road maintenance (culvert clearing), and trash removal. 
Additionally, livestock grazing on public lands is an essential social, 
economic, and ecological component of many forested rural communities.
PRESCRIBED FIRE

    One of the most vital components of reducing wildfire fuels in 
overgrown forest lands is prescribed fire, a tool that has been used by 
generations to promote culturally important vegetation and reduce 
forest density. However, in the past century, due to altered fire 
suppression practices and a hesitance to mechanically thin forest 
stands, our forested landscapes are now subjects to excessive fuel 
accumulation.
    Prescribed fire is a crucial component in forest resilience 
efforts, as properly managed burns can provide numerous ecosystem 
benefits including reducing excess brush, shrubs and small-diameter 
trees, encouraging new growth of native vegetation, and maintaining 
plant and animal species whose habitats depend on natural, episodic 
fire. Additionally, when used as part of a larger fuels reduction 
treatment plan, regular, planned use of prescribed fire has also been 
shown to prevent the kinds of catastrophic wildfires that can set back 
particulate matter (PM) emissions reductions goals.
    Due to California's tremendous fuels treatment needs, we must 
express our concern with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) for Particulate Matter as proposed. Currently, the proposal 
seeks to reduce the primary annual average PM2.5 NAAQS from 12 
micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) to between 8-10 ug/m3. This 
proposed change would significantly limit the number of windows 
available in California for land managers to conduct essential 
prescribed burns to prevent future catastrophic wildfires at a time 
when state and federal land managers, including the Forest Service, are 
acknowledging the dire need to increase prescribed fire on the 
landscape.
    While we understand that EPA considers prescribed burns covered 
under the Exceptional Events Rule, the 2016 regulatory process that 
codified the conditions under which prescribed fires could qualify as 
exceptional events is not sufficient enough to enable a robust 
prescribed fire program. Exceptional Events filings are also resource-
intensive and often denied by local air boards. Without explicit 
regulatory allowances for prescribed fire to cause NAAQS exceedances, 
we fear that the proposal could reduce potential burn windows by as 
much as 80 percent. For this reason, we have written EPA urging them to 
develop regulations that enable greater use of prescribed fire in 
tandem with the NAAQS in order to prevent future emissions from high 
severity wildfires. Should EPA finalize the proposed rule as written, 
we urge Congress to consider legislation that creates an exception to 
EPA's requirements.
2023 FARM BILL

    The 2023 Farm Bill presents an opportunity to build upon the 
successes of the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills in a way that better equips 
federal agencies to manage forests, incentivize more public-private 
partnerships, grow new markets for forest products, and support rural 
communities. The 2023 Farm Bill should also encourage the Forest 
Service to utilize all of its authorities, including new authorities 
provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). As work 
on the 2023 Farm Bill continues, we urge Congress to consider the 
following:
Good Neighbor Authority
    Consider amendments to the Good Neighbor Authority that will 
leverage more partnerships that increase landscape-scale restoration 
projects.

     Allow States, Counties, and federally recognized Tribes to 
            retain revenues generated through Good Neighbor projects 
            for reinvestment in conservation and management activities.

     Allow for restoration activities to take place on non-
            Federal lands pursuant to conditions specified in Good 
            Neighbor agreements. Direct the Forest Service to update 
            existing Good Neighbor Master Agreements and Project 
            Agreements to use revenue from existing projects for this 
            work.

     Allow for both new road construction and reconstruction 
            under Good Neighbor Authority contracts on a limited basis 
            for the purposes of water quality, vegetation removal, and 
            safe and efficient use.

Market Investments
    The work being done on both federal and private lands to reduce 
catastrophic wildfire risk creates a large amount of low-value woody 
material. Unfortunately, there are not adequate markets and 
infrastructure currently available to remove this material from the 
forest and put into the marketplace. Depending on truck availability 
and infrastructure locations, transporting this material can also be 
very expensive.

     Expand current programs, such as the Wood Innovations 
            Programs and Community Wood Grant Program, to encourage 
            more market development for woody, low-value material.

     Consider cost share mechanisms to assist with transport of 
            low-value woody materials to processing facilities.

Enhance Fuel Break Cross-Boundary Collaboration
    Connected fuel breaks provide multiple benefits, including 
naturally reducing the wildland fire behavior, providing safer 
opportunities for firefighters, and providing tactical advantages for 
aerial deployment of fire retardant. Fuel breaks near roads can also 
improve egress for those evacuating from wildfire and ingress for first 
responders. Although there has been significant federal investment in 
such work, it is essential that similar work conducted on private lands 
is coordinated and connected so that the benefits of these actions is 
maximized for forest health and public safety.

     Authorize and fund wildfire reduction actions to assist 
            private landowners in connecting, completing, and 
            maintaining fuel breaks on their land with priority given 
            to projects that link with fuel breaks on other lands in 
            high-priority areas.

     Authorize and fund the Forest Service to enter into 
            agreement with private sector entities to construct and 
            maintain connected fuel breaks on federal lands in 
            coordination with State and private landowners.

     Provide authorities, including cost share instruments, 
            that enable USDA to partner with adjacent landowners to 
            reduce wildfire risk.

     Seek ways to connect fuel breaks on federal lands with 
            similar activities on state and private lands.

Remove Barriers to Increasing Pace and Scale of Forest Management
    The 2018 Farm Bill added a new ``rural'' requirement to the Forest 
Service's Landscape Scale Restoration Program, greatly restricting the 
ability to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects in areas with 
populations greater than 50,000, including areas within the Wildland 
Urban Interface.

     Amend the Landscape Scale Restoration Program to remove 
            the rural requirement established in the 2018 Farm Bill.

    The National Association of State Foresters reports that the USDA 
Forest Service has designated approximately 74 million acres nationwide 
as insect and disease treatment areas yet only a fraction of those 
acres has been treated.

     Amend the existing Forest Service Categorical Exclusion to 
            increase the number of acres which can be treated for fuels 
            reduction and pest treatment from 3,000 to 15,000+ acres or 
            larger.

    Each National Forest is governed and guided by a legally binding 
Forest Plan. Plans are developed through a collaborative process with 
many opportunities for public involvement and specifically designate 
which acres within a national forest are suitable for timber 
production. In addition, when a management action is proposed, the 
Forest Service must also initiate a separate National Environmental 
Policy Act process. Currently, there is lack of legal clarity about 
whether individual Forest Plans are an ongoing action under federal 
law.

     Clarify that Forest Plans are not ongoing actions under 
            federal law and that consultation under Endangered Species 
            Act Section 7 is not required at the forest plan level. 
            Additionally, clarify that projects on acres deemed 
            suitable for timber production in individual forest plans, 
            be subjected to reduced analytical requirements.

    Ranchers who graze livestock on federally managed lands serve as a 
primary caretaker of those lands in many ways. Grazing permittees 
should be empowered as partners in conservation and leveraged as a 
landscape management tool to help address buildup of wildfire fuels.

     Recognize grazing as a wildfire management tool in fuels 
            management programs, the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
            Restoration Program, and other collaborative stewardship 
            programs.

    Despite dozens of additional authorities intended to increase the 
pace and scale of restoration, there are still millions of NEPA-ready 
acres waiting for implementation. While significant increases in 
funding should increase implementation, challenges with the Forest 
Service utilizing existing authorities to their fullest extent still 
remain. There should be a path of recourse for stakeholders, or 
Congress, to compel options such as management, long-term stewardship 
contracts, Good Neighbor Authority, and others.

     Create an avenue where stakeholders and Congress can 
            elevate and/or approve specific actions on NEPA-ready 
            projects, especially on lands identified as priority 
            watersheds, high risk firesheds, or identified in a 
            wildfire crisis implementation plan.

Increase Flexibility And Efficiency Of Contracting And Procurement
    Inflexibility in Forest Service contracting, procurement processes, 
and rules continues to be an impediment to forest restoration at the 
pace and scale needed to address the problem. Shorter-term contracts or 
longer contracts that are interruptible, request for proposals (RFPs) 
that have minimum bids, or other conditions that don't reflect current 
realities or the cost of doing business, issues with liability for 
participating agencies, and prohibitions on allowing knowledgeable 
stakeholders having interaction during RFP development are among the 
issues that are commonly slowing progress.

     Direct the Forest Service to revise contracting and 
            procurement policy, guidance, and implementation of 
            existing authorities.

Prioritize Reforestation And Post-Fire Rehabilitation Of Federal Lands
    Millions of acres of forestland have been lost to wildfire. 
According to American Forests, a substantial portion of the over 4 
million acres of potential reforestation needs on national forests 
stems from 2020-2021 wildfires when more than 2.5 million acres burned 
at high severity, adding to the 1.54 million acres of previously 
identified needs. While the recent passage of the REPLANT Act is 
expected to provide significant resources, more will need to be done. 
The current rate of loss is outpacing the nation's public and private 
nursery capacity and seedling supply.

     Prioritize reforestation of federal lands and increase 
            investment for public and private nurseries for the 
            purposes of reforestation.

    In addition to investing in wildfire prevention, post-fire 
reforestation and recovery investments are also critically important 
for the health of our national forests and rural communities. While 
wildfire causes the majority of reforestation needs on national forest 
lands, extreme weather conditions including drought and insect and 
disease infestations also drive reforestation needs.

     Direct agencies to utilize all tools for post-fire 
            rehabilitation, including livestock grazing, and provide 
            funding for prompt post-disturbance forest recovery and 
            restoration activities to prevent the spread of invasive 
            species and protect water quality. Authorize agencies to 
            utilize post-fire recovery funds for rebuilding of 
            operational infrastructure, including federal and non-
            federal facilities, and direct agencies to allow 
            streamlined access, approval, and clearing and removal of 
            wildfire damaged trees impacting the recovery of 
            infrastructure function.

CONCLUSION

    With the presence of 18 National Forests in California and 
significant landownership from other federal and state entities, 
California's private landowners are unable to solely increase the pace 
and scale of forest management. The reality is we are playing catch-up 
with a situation that has been worsening for decades and has been 
exacerbated by drought, disease, and even climate change. Collectively 
and collaboratively, we must remain committed to finding solutions to 
change fire behavior and achieve fire resilient landscapes. Thank you 
for the opportunity to provide testimony on these critical issues. I am 
pleased to respond to questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Johansson. I am now going to 
recognize Members for 5 minutes for questions, and I will begin 
the process.
    Mr. Johansson, what I am hearing you say in your testimony 
is that you can help, that your members can help in the 
California Farm Bureau. Do you want to elaborate on that a 
little bit?
    Mr. Johansson. Yes, in any sort of disaster or natural 
disaster, the first responders are often the landowners or 
neighbors. I mean, historically, there would be smoke on the 
horizon, and everyone would respond.
    I think right now we are seeing devastating floods in 
Tulare Lake now re-emerging down in Tulare and Kings County. It 
is farmers, it is ranchers who are responding to shore up those 
levees. The same happens also in wildfire situations. But most 
importantly, too, as we grow upon the Good Neighbor Authority 
is including those locals, those counties who understand those 
firesheds. And perhaps it has burned before, maybe on a smaller 
scale, but understand how it responded 30 to 40 years ago. So, 
certainly, the front lines there can be your locals on the 
ground and your farmers and ranchers.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
    Mr. Heithecker, in my opening remarks, I said we can 
respect our environmental laws and we can move quickly at the 
same time. From your time as a forest supervisor, would you 
agree that the Forest Service can utilize categorical 
exclusions to respect environmental laws and move quickly at 
the same time?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. The Forest 
Service has internally made concerted efforts to streamline our 
processes, and that includes a nationwide monitoring program, 
an effort started a while ago. Environmental analysis and 
decision-making helped us look at ways to be more efficient 
internally.
    As you know, as we have testified prior, 85 percent of our 
NEPA decisions are made through categorical exclusions. That is 
about 1,400 a year, and that is up from 70 percent around 10 
years ago. All of those categorical exclusions comply with all 
statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements to implement 
that work on Federal lands.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you believe that categorical exclusions 
undermine bedrock environmental laws?
    Mr. Heithecker. They do not. They have to comply with all 
of those environmental laws. They are just another category of 
NEPA decisions. It is just excluded from analysis due to the 
fact that they have been determined with CEQ to not have a 
significant impact to the human environment.
    Mr. Tiffany. With your first answer, this is something this 
Committee and Subcommittee is going to be watching very 
closely, that we are getting the treatments done because that 
is something that is very concerning, with all the additional 
money that has been going out, that there are a significant 
number of treatments that are getting done.
    One more question. Is the 10,000-acre categorical exclusion 
that is currently only available for the Tahoe Basin an example 
of where the Forest Service has been able to move quickly while 
respecting environmental laws?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes. I think if we look across our 
landscapes and how we operate, the size of our decisions is 
often in excess of 10,000 acres, 30,000 or 40,000, where we 
find that there are no significant impacts. And having tools to 
help us do that work at scale faster is a benefit to us.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Desautel, you commented about how the 
drafting error in regards to the Good Neighbor Authority, I 
believe it was in the 2018 Farm Bill, it is my understanding 
you were forced to abandon a project on the Colville National 
Forest. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Desautel. That is accurate. Congress expanded the 
authority for tribes and counties to enter into the agreements, 
but later in the Act, in the section that would have allowed 
them to expend revenues generated from forest products, the 
tribes and counties were not included in that section, and this 
bill would address that.
    Mr. Tiffany. How many acres of fire-prone Federal lands do 
you estimate you would have been able to treat if that would 
have been in place?
    Mr. Desautel. That project area was roughly 40,000 acres. 
But the west quarter of that burned in the 2015 fire season for 
us. So, that is something we are currently working on under a 
Tribal Forest Protection Act Agreement. But we have seen 
significant fires all around that area since the 2015 fire 
season.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if the 2018 law would have allowed that 
treatment, how many acres would that have helped not succumb to 
fire?
    Mr. Desautel. It is hard to predict how much we would have 
stopped it because 2018 was a significant year, worst fire 
behavior than I had seen at any point in my career. But almost 
certainly it would have reduced the fire effects. And I think 
it falls into one of those scenarios where we just aren't 
moving fast enough, that we are seeing projects burn during the 
planning process because the planning processes are lengthy.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Johansson, can we address this wildfire 
crisis without some reforms of NEPA?
    Mr. Johansson. Well, I mean, I think----
    Mr. Tiffany. Can you do it solely with funding, or is it 
going to take some reforms?
    Mr. Johansson. No, it does take reforms. I mean, in 
California, we enjoyed a $100 billion surplus in our state 
budget. It is easy to throw money at a project, and we have 
thrown a lot of money at trying to address this in California. 
But as I have said before, just throwing money at a problem 
such as wildfire and forest thinning doesn't work unless you 
are actually doing the project and the project gets finished. 
It has to be expedited.
    We see, locally, if you are doing a mechanical thinning 
project, it can take up to 3 years to get approval in the 
forest, 4 years if it is a controlled burn. But, theoretically, 
those are averages. We hear stories and I get phone calls of 
frustrations from people in Murphys, California and Calaveras 
County who are on their 7th and 8th year.
    So, the expedited process has to go into effect in terms of 
how we rely on those forest plans that our foresters put 
together, and they are thorough and extensive, and take a very 
long time. That should ultimately be what drives and moves 
forward projects, and not just----
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much. My time is expired, 
and I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Deputy Chief, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I 
have introduced the Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnership 
Act, along with my colleague, Senator Bennet in the Senate, 
which extends an existing authority that I know is being 
utilized right now in my district in Colorado, in the White 
River National Forest. That particular project, as you may 
know, plans to develop 163 affordable housing units in a 
community adjacent to the country's most visited national 
forest. The project includes a set-aside for Forest Service 
employees.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that the lack of 
affordable housing is a major barrier to recruiting and 
retaining your workforce, including the wildfire workforce. And 
I wonder if you might be able to provide some insight or 
perhaps expound a bit on how your agency works with project 
proponents to strike an appropriate balance between supporting 
both Federal employees and the general housing needs.
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. I am 
familiar with that project. I have worked closely with the 
forest supervisor, Scott Fitzwilliams, down there on the White 
River, and we do appreciate the authority given to us in that 
Act.
    It has given us an opportunity that, while it has taken 
some time to figure out the nuances, as you can imagine, it is 
a complicated process, but the ability to partner in areas, 
especially in neighboring national forests, where in Summit 
County, for instance, the housing prices are exorbitant, there 
is not land available to develop homes--we have the land, we 
are able to work with these partners and through this leasing 
authority, provide affordable housing to their employees and 
our employees. It is a great opportunity, and we are looking 
forward to working on expansion of it and continuing to build 
more in the housing world.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I thank you for your remarks, and I 
couldn't agree more. And it underscores why the Forest Service 
Flexible Housing Partnership Act is so important in terms of 
ensuring that the Forest Service has these authorities into the 
future.
    Ultimately, the bill is about collaboration and 
cooperation, and that is something that we take great pride in 
in Colorado. And I think this is an example of a way in which 
the Forest Service can apply that same model perhaps in other 
communities across the country.
    I suspect the Agency has given some thought internally as 
to what other potential sites might exist, to the extent that 
this legislation is enacted and the authority is extended.
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, absolutely. We have. As you know, 
affordable housing and firefighter pay are two of the biggest 
barriers to getting more firefighters on, retaining 
firefighters, investing in their health and well being. And as 
I mentioned earlier, the number of communities that are in or 
adjacent to National Forest Systems that have housing costs 
that are just not affordable to people is a challenge that we 
are trying to overcome.
    And we have a couple other pilot opportunities that we are 
looking at, and really looking forward to successfully 
implementing the project on the White River.
    Mr. Neguse. Again, I thank you for your testimony. I think 
this is a program worth supporting and extending, so I am 
hopeful that my colleagues will support it.
    With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. I would like 
to turn to the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for 
his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dugan, the provisions of H.R. 188 have been in place 
for nearly 8 years now in the Tahoe Basin Management Unit. And 
it has already been noted that when the Caldor Fire hit a 
treated tract as it barreled down on the city of South Lake 
Tahoe, it laid down, and the firefighters were able to stop it. 
Meanwhile, in the adjacent El Dorado Forest, U.S. foresters had 
been trying to treat the trestle project for more than a 
decade. They knew it was critical to protecting the town of 
Grizzly Flats, but the laws and the litigation arising from 
those laws had stalled the project, and it was still pending 
when the Caldor Fire hit the tract, exploded, and utterly 
destroyed the entire town.
    So, I guess the first question is, why shouldn't we extend 
that to the 193 acres of the U.S. Forest Service? Can you think 
of any reason not to?
    Mr. Dugan. Well, I would submit to you this reference. 
There are significant sufficient environmental safeguards, even 
under a categorical exclusion, where we have compliance built 
in. So, I see no reason why we wouldn't want to expand that 
categorical exclusion to all of these areas that we need to 
treat. We have shown it works. Environmentalists are happy.
    Mr. McClintock. As soon as possible, before we lose another 
town of Grizzly Flats or, a few years back, a town of Paradise.
    Have you observed a difference between the private forests 
in the Sierra and those under the care of the Federal 
Government?
    Mr. Dugan. Well, the reality is, yes, the private forests 
are able to respond. The private forests are also able to 
reforest quicker. There are a lot of issues there. But when it 
comes to the topic for today's hearing, absolutely, and that is 
why we need the categorical exemptions because we know the 
system works so slow in permitting.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Johansson, what have you observed 
regarding the condition between the private forests and the 
Federal forests in the Sierra?
    Mr. Johansson. I mean, I agree with Mr. Dugan. It can be 
quite obvious, even traveling on Interstate 80 there in 
California, going into Nevada, into the Tahoe Basin, and you 
can definitely tell there is a difference in terms of active 
management of those private forest grounds.
    Mr. McClintock. You know, when they say, well, it is 
climate change, I think how clever of the climate to know 
exactly the boundary line between the private and Federal 
lands, and only devastate those on the Federal side of the 
boundary line.
    Mr. Heithecker, I am wondering about something. Half of 
California's forests are privately owned, the other half are 
administered by the Forest Service. And as has just been 
pointed out, you can tell the boundary lines between the 
private and Federal lands just by the condition of the forests. 
Private lands are usually healthy. They are well managed. Tree 
density is matched to the ability of the land to support it, 
and they actually make money doing that. The Federal lands, the 
lands that you are responsible for, are densely overgrown, 
stressed, and dying, and you lose money doing that.
    Five years ago I toured the footprint of the of the King 
Fire. The private lands owned by Sierra Pacific Industries, in 
this case had been completely salvaged, and the funds generated 
from that salvage had been used to suppress brush growth, and 
you could see new, young, healthy trees that were already 
planted and growing. The Federal lands--again, the lands that 
you are responsible for--had been abandoned. Six feet of brush 
had grown up on those forest lands. No trees had been salvaged. 
All you could see was dry brush and dry, rotted trees falling 
on top of that dry brush, a perfect fire stack. In fact, the 
firefighters in the Caldor Fire told me when the fire hit the 
King Fire footprint, it literally exploded because of the 
neglect of your agency.
    So, private landowners make money keeping their forests in 
healthy condition, and you somehow manage to lose money keeping 
our forests in decrepit condition. Would you care to explain 
yourself?
    Mr. Heithecker. I will give it a shot. Thank you for that.
    I would say that we are working currently with the National 
Alliance of Forest Owners on a couple of agreements to help 
streamline some of that work across boundaries. We recognize 
the importance of that.
    Mr. McClintock. How do you explain the difference? You lose 
money keeping our forests in decrepit condition. Private 
landowners make money keeping their forests in healthy 
condition.
    I mean, why should anybody listen to your agency on matters 
of forest management, given that record?
    Mr. Heithecker. Well, I would like to think that the Agency 
has a very stout and educated group of scientists supporting--
--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, would you like to explain why the 
difference?
    Mr. Heithecker. Well, our agency is guided by different 
rules and standards than those private lands, I think you are 
aware of that, which is National Forest Management Act, 
Multiple-Use Sustained Act, the National Environmental Policy 
Act, and others.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, those laws were supposed to improve 
the condition of the forest. We have lived with them for 50 
years now. I think we are entitled to ask how are the forests 
doing? And the answer is absolutely damning. And for your 
agency to stand in the way of any legislation designed to 
remediate that problem I find appalling.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I turn to the 
Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    St. Louis County, Minnesota is the largest county east of 
the Mississippi River, as well as my home county. St. Louis 
County is a checkerboard of Federal and non-Federal land. It is 
also one of the best examples of an area where all parties need 
to work together, be it the Bureau of Land Management or the 
U.S. Forest Service that manage our Federal lands, or the local 
tribes and counties that manage our non-Federal lands.
    Given this necessary collaboration that I have seen in 
northern Minnesota, I support enabling our leaders to work 
together and expanding Good Neighbor Authority. I am proud to 
support H.R. 1450, the Treating Tribes and Counties as Good 
Neighbors Act, which has been introduced by my good friend and 
colleague, Congressman Fulcher.
    Congressman Fulcher has been a leader in our conference on 
forest management, and I want to thank him for introducing this 
important piece of legislation that builds upon the success of 
Good Neighbor Authority.
    Mr. Heithecker, in 2018, Congress expanded the Good 
Neighbor Authority in the Farm Bill, expanding the program to 
counties and federally recognized Indian tribes. Can you speak 
to how participation in Good Neighbor Authority agreements 
increased following the changes made in the 2018 Farm Bill?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you. I think, as it has been 
pointed out here, it is important to note that it was an 
oversight or an omission from that language to not have 
revenues retained by the tribes and the counties has been a 
barrier.
    With that said, we still have worked with numerous states, 
including the state of Arkansas, where I came from, to leverage 
that capacity to work across boundaries to implement 
restoration treatments that do include timber value, as well as 
prescribed fire. Critical to collaborate with multiple agencies 
within each of those states, whether it is Fish and Wildlife to 
protect critical habitat, to work with them on administering 
the timber sales, allow them to generate the revenue to help 
them do that work and build capacity to support that work.
    So, I absolutely think that we will benefit if we can get 
the retention of revenues for tribes and counties and allow us 
to expand that opportunity, as was already shared today. And as 
you know, the opportunities exist. And where we can make those 
more effective and more accessible, it is going to benefit all 
of us.
    Mr. Stauber. I appreciate your comments.
    Mr. Desautel, you represent over 60 tribes that make up the 
Intertribal Timber Council. And in your testimony, you noted 
the benefits that you have seen under the Good Neighbor 
Authority program. Would you say that the tribes that you 
represent have missed out on the potential added benefits of 
Good Neighbor Authority since the 2018 Farm Bill only allows 
states to utilize funds from timber sales?
    Mr. Desautel. Yes, sir. I think if the authority had been 
expanded or the language had been corrected early, that tribes 
would have utilized that authority early to take advantage of 
the funding that is available in the infrastructure bill to 
help support Good Neighbor Agreements. Because for the states 
that I am familiar with, Washington State, where I live, being 
one of them, the state had to put in, essentially, seed money 
to stand up the program to establish staffing and develop the 
project planning and NEPA analysis on the first projects to 
generate enough revenue to support that work going forward.
    So, with this funding, it would have given tribes the 
opportunity to generate that revenue, stand up that program, 
build that capacity, to utilize that authority for an extended 
period of time to do that treatment that is needed on adjacent 
Federal land.
    Mr. Stauber. With the hopeful passage of this legislation, 
they will be able to do exactly what you just stated: invest 
more, and the money comes directly to them.
    It is clear that since its introduction over two decades 
ago, the Good Neighbor Authority program has facilitated co-
stewardship of our Federal and non-Federal lands, and has 
brought Federal land managers, states, counties, and our tribes 
together. Over these past two decades, Congress has taken great 
steps to improve and expand Good Neighbor Authority, and I 
commend the provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill.
    However, we have a great opportunity right now to continue 
this success story and make changes that fully take advantage 
of the Good Neighbor Authority in Mr. Fulcher's legislation. I 
strongly support allowing counties and tribes to utilize 
proceeds from timber sales to take additional steps to work 
together and protect our Federal and non-Federal lands. And I 
look forward to supporting Mr. Fulcher's bill that will make 
this fix.
    It is important to recognize that the three entities, 
states, counties, and tribes can take advantage of this and 
allow healthy forests and conservation along with financial 
security, with those funds returned back to those same 
entities.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Stauber. Next, I would like to 
turn to the gentlewoman from New Mexico for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chairman Tiffany 
and Ranking Member Neguse, and the Members on this 
conversation.
    As you know, I always look forward to it when we have the 
bipartisan support for, including tribes, recognizing them as 
sovereign nations, and that we must include them in our various 
legislation to ensure that they are able to take care of and 
participate as sovereign nations in our many programs that we 
have on the Federal level. Thank you so very much for your 
testimony.
    I am also really pleased to have in today's hearing the 
inclusion of the Ranking Member's Forest Service Flexible 
Housing Partnership Act because affordable housing is important 
everywhere I go in my district. As we know, the issue of 
affordable housing is important across this country. Workforce 
housing is very, very important. I focused on that both before 
I got to Congress and then, when I am able to, through our 
community projects, through our congressionally-supported 
projects.
    And in places that are really gorgeous and beautiful, it is 
sometimes even harder because the market prices regular folks 
out of the market. So, in places like Santa Fe and Taos, we 
really see that as very important.
    Mr. Heithecker, can you discuss a little bit more about the 
ability to lease administrative sites that would benefit the 
Forest Service, and what that looks like on the ground?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. It is a 
unique authority for us. I mean, just think about it. If you 
are a private landowner and you want to lease part of your 
property, let somebody else build a house for you, have other 
people live there, the complexities of working that out, it is 
an interesting arrangement. So, the authorities given within 
that Act are new. We are trying to figure those out, and we are 
learning as we go.
    But that exact situation is what we are working on in 
Dillon, Colorado, which is we have a chunk of administrative 
land that is being under-utilized. We have both the city, the 
county, the state, and the Forest Service who have employees 
that can't afford housing there. So, through that authority we 
are allowed to lease the land to the city, in this case, and 
have them build housing. To basically offset the cost of that 
lease, they allow us to have our employees stay there. So, it 
is a really beneficial, mutually agreeable arrangement that 
provides affordable housing to both the city of Dillon and the 
Forest Service.
    And also in Colorado we are working with another group to 
look at another model to work directly with the state on how we 
can accomplish that in other communities throughout that area 
and others in the country.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right, and I look forward to you 
looking at sites in New Mexico because I think the ability to 
utilize lands that are available to their best purpose is part 
of that.
    Mr. Heithecker. Absolutely.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. You talked about the complexities of 
doing it. What does it do in terms of being able to recruit and 
retain employees to know that they will have housing close by? 
Because if they don't have it there, what would a commute look 
like?
    Mr. Heithecker. Well, that is really one of the biggest 
challenges we have, as I mentioned, in addition to firefighter 
pay. But if you are a firefighter coming in, you are working 
these really long and grueling shifts, really risking your life 
in many cases, and folks can't afford, I mean, folks live in 
their cars. That is what they are up against in some of these 
communities.
    The community of Dillon in itself, Summit County in 
general, is one of the more expensive areas that we have 
employees. And the fact that we can create at least some 
solution to allow folks across these other sectors to live 
there and be able to afford to live there, I mean, it is a 
night-and-day experience for them, a game-changer, from my 
perspective.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I think that touching upon that, 
we are asking somebody to risk their lives to help protect our 
forests because there are lots of important reasons to 
suppress, to address wildfires. But they are sleeping in their 
cars?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And this is the same thing in 
terms of when we were looking at pay, right, and making sure 
that we have presumptions with regard to the illnesses that 
they cover.
    So, I think that recognizing there is a wide range of needs 
that those who are put at greatest risk need, ranging from 
housing, to pay, to the presumptions with regards to illness is 
very important. So, thank you for answering those questions, 
and thank you for introducing the bill.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields. Next, the gentleman 
from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, 
for being here. I will start with Deputy Chief Heithecker.
    H.R. 934 proposes to require the Secretary of Agriculture 
to carry out the activities to suppress wildfires. In meeting 
with various timber companies back in Oregon, they asked me if 
I would just do one thing when I got here, and that is to 
convince the Forest Service to put out the fire the moment they 
see it, as opposed to allowing it to burn. This legislation 
would do exactly that. Would you suggest that this legislation 
is not necessary right now?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. As we 
stated in our testimony, the concerns that we would have is 
that we would lose tools that are critical for us fighting 
fires.
    And if you look at our data, it is 96 or 98 percent of all 
of our fires are caught within the first 24 hours. So, you have 
a very small percentage that are not, and I think it is 1 
percent that we currently either monitor or manage for 
resource----
    Mr. Bentz. Let me just suggest that when I was out on the 
side of the various mountains, we drove around spending a 
couple of days looking at where the fires had not been put out 
as soon as they could have been. I will share with you that the 
damage was horrific, and it wasn't just the forest public land 
that was damaged. So, I think the bill is absolutely necessary.
    Let's go to another question. I know that there in your 
budget for this year, 2023, there is $321 million allocated to 
management of hazardous fuels. And I am very happy for the 
effort to clean up, if you will, the forests that under your 
10-year plan you are working on. But I just want to know who is 
doing the work. Who is out there actually reducing fuel loads 
in the forest?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. It is 
going to be a mix. I mean, we are approaching this as all-
lands, all-hands approach. And as you know, we work with the 
states, as I mentioned before, Good Neighbor Authority. We 
hopefully work with counties and tribes on----
    Mr. Bentz. Let's stop there.
    Mr. Heithecker. OK.
    Mr. Bentz. When I have gone out and looked and seen who is 
doing the work, I see contract laborers doing the work. Most 
speak Spanish, and it looked to me like they were doing great 
work, working pretty hard, but they were working under a labor 
contractor, generally, or someone else of like nature. And I am 
happy they are out there doing the work. I just want to know, 
is that your observation? Is that who is actually out there 
doing the work?
    Mr. Heithecker. In some cases, that is an observation, yes. 
It is not an observation I have made. Again, I came from 
Arkansas, working on the Ouachita National Forest. That was 
primarily Forest Service employees out there, both full-time 
firefighters, as well as what we call the militia, reserve 
firefighters, working hand-in-hand with the state and counties 
to do that work.
    Mr. Bentz. That would not be the case on the West Coast. 
And we have 90 million acres of forest now. It is not all 
Federal, but the work that is getting done in significant part 
is being done by folks that are not what I will call anxious to 
do that kind of work. There is the problem.
    I have fought fire before very badly, very poorly. And I 
realized really quickly it was hard, dangerous, dirty work.
    Mr. Heithecker. It is.
    Mr. Bentz. I have also gone out and cleaned up forests, 
believe it or not, when I was in high school. And it is hard, 
boring, hot, and most people don't want to do it. That is why I 
became a lawyer, so that I wouldn't have to do it. And I am 
just saying that it appears to me that the actual work that is 
being done to clean up the forest right now is primarily being 
done by immigrants. And I just wanted you to comment on that 
one more time. But if you don't know, that is fine for you to 
say.
    Mr. Heithecker. I don't have that in front of me. And I 
could talk to you about our wildland firefighter hiring numbers 
and those sorts of things, but I would just offer that it is a 
mix of contracts. It is partners through agreements and our own 
employees.
    Mr. Bentz. The last thing I will mention, and sorry to have 
focused on you this entire time, but a huge part of Oregon is 
controlled by the Forest Service. There was a prescribed burn 
done not too far from where one of my brothers has a ranch and 
has a grazing permit. And it was badly managed, and there was 
an absolutely clear lack of respect by the Forest Service for 
the private landowners. Can you comment on that?
    Is there someone overseeing these folks' activities? 
Because there seems to be an arrogance level and a lack of 
respect that does not bode well for prescribed fires.
    Mr. Heithecker. I am surprised to hear that. Certainly, 
there is a level of oversight. The District Ranger is a local 
line officer. You have your burn bosses that are qualified 
through our rigorous process, as well as forest supervisor, and 
on up from there. So, if that is the case, we have, escapes in 
New Mexico drove us to pause our prescribed fire activities, do 
a comprehensive review of that program, and have made changes 
as a result of that.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Bentz. Next, I would like to 
recognize Mr. Moylan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Heithecker, it is good to see you again. I hope you 
enjoyed the informational trip we had to the Yale School of 
Forestry and the Yale Forest as much as I did. Of course, it 
was very interesting to hear about the Yale forest managers and 
the response to this complex challenge they have in their 
forest.
    And for yourself, Troy, as someone who has spent time in a 
lot of different national forests across the country, can you 
just expand and talk about how important it is to empower 
individual Forest Service units to meet the unique needs facing 
their forests?
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you for the question. It is good 
to see you again, too. It was a great trip. I enjoyed just the 
time together to talk forest policy and think about where we 
are heading with how we manage these great public lands that we 
are entrusted to steward.
    Trying to answer any question in the Forest Service with 
one answer is really challenging. I mean, we have forests from 
Florida all the way up to central Alaska. So, having the 
ability to shape management and activities based on those 
specific ecosystems, what the local public and the communities 
need in terms of resource management and benefits is, I 
wouldn't say it is a challenge, it is an opportunity for us. We 
have to be flexible. We have to understand what each of those 
ecosystems, each of those forest types needs. And like I said, 
working across boundaries with the partners and being as 
collaborative as we can is really critical for us to get that 
work done.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you for that. The next question is for 
Mr. Johansson.
    I believe the best solutions come from the ground up and 
are locally led. The FIRESHEDS Act allows states and local 
entities to address firesheds on both Federal and non-Federal 
land. How would this state and local knowledge help the Forest 
Service in treating more wildfire-prone areas?
    Mr. Johansson. I think it just comes from local knowledge 
and the history of the forest. And as I said before, it is true 
in politics, even, right? The most responsive is always how far 
down you can get to local, whether that is politics or whether 
that is managing a forest or a fireshed.
    When you bring in the counties and the tribes who live 
there, because it is their home you are going to have a much 
more responsive push to address the situation that the forests 
need, in terms of managing them.
    I think, ultimately, too, you have another partner, you 
have another partner at the local level to assist because we 
know that the Forest Service, in terms of acreage that they 
have to manage, is overwhelmed. We can see that in terms of 
even after a fire we can only re-seed up to 8,000 acres a year.
    So, I think it is imperative that you start looking locally 
and look down for more assistance for the Forest Service, and 
then even at the state level.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you for your response.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Moylan. Now, I would like to 
recognize Mr. Westerman, the Chairman, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, thank you to 
the witnesses for being here today. It seems like I have been 
out in the field with all of you at some point, and I 
appreciate your commitment to forest stewardship and the good 
things that come from that.
    Troy, thank you and Under Secretary Wilkes for joining us 
on the field trip last week. And we saw how difficult managing 
that forest in Connecticut can be with the various species and 
the management objectives. But they don't have to do NEPA, they 
don't have any regulatory requirements they have to go through. 
They are not concerned about litigation. Throw all that on top 
of what your folks at the Forest Service experience, and it 
makes your job very difficult.
    And that is why, as policy makers, we get frustrated 
because what we are looking at are results. We want to see 
results on the ground. We want to see acres treated. We want to 
see CEs like Mr. McClintock got passed that show great results 
on the ground. We want to expand those policies.
    I just have to ask, did CEQ review your testimony before 
you were able to submit it?
    Mr. Heithecker. Our testimony goes through a review 
process, yes.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes, that is enough said about that. I have 
been around you in the field. I know you know how to manage 
forests. You did a great job on the Ouachita National Forest, 
and I know that you are a forester and you understand what 
needs to happen on the ground. But you are also working in this 
framework and this environment that we have created here in 
Congress, and that is why we want to change that.
    Can you speak a little bit about how, when you can do your 
job, how successful it can be? I know the Ouachita has been one 
of the most productive forests in the country. It still needs a 
lot of work done on it, but talk about the short leaf pine 
bluestem grass restoration project, and how that has benefited 
the red cockaded woodpecker, plus generated timber revenues to 
do more work on the forest.
    Mr. Heithecker. Yes, thank you, Chairman, and thank you for 
the trip. It was a great opportunity, as I previously 
mentioned, for us to talk about those shared interests and how 
we can help better steward these lands.
    And in my opening remarks I did refer to the Ouachita as 
being one of the most productive and actively managed forests 
in the country, and I was surprised that Chairman Tiffany 
didn't come back at me with Chequamegon-Nicolet or one of those 
others. It is always a back and forth.
    But I think the work in the pine bluestem is just a shining 
example. If you look at how we accomplish the work through 
CFLRP, a collaborative process, looking across landownerships 
and working with partners literally hand-in-hand on prescribed 
fire, and also being able to deliver commercial timber products 
to restore critical habitat for a threatened and endangered 
species.
    As a result of that work and the ability to do that work at 
pace and at scale, it led, I believe, in no small part to the 
downlisting of the red cockaded woodpecker. And just again, 
balancing the needs of those ecosystems, the frequency of the 
treatments that is needed out there, while delivering 
commercially viable products----
    Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to cut you off there. It 
is a great example of how you can have a healthy environment 
and a strong economy at the same time. The two go hand-in-hand. 
And it is a great example of how the intent of the Endangered 
Species Act was followed. When you read the Endangered Species 
Act, it talks about conservation, conservation, and 
conservation. And that is how the Forest Service and other 
agencies get their hands tied by Fish and Wildlife when they 
start listing species and saying leave their habitat alone. But 
we need to do more projects like that.
    Cody, I had a chance to spend some time on the Colville 
Forest last summer, and I know the great work the tribes are 
doing all across the country, and I am a huge supporter of more 
Good Neighbor Authority. We talked about New Mexico earlier. I 
was down on the Lincoln National Forest. The Mescalero Apache 
Tribe has some of the most beautiful Ponderosa pine stands that 
you will see anywhere. And just down the road in Lincoln 
National Forest, it is a moonscape, where tens of thousands of 
acres burned and they don't even regenerate. It is so bad.
    But talk about how important it is to grow Good Neighbor 
Authority to get tribes more involved, and what we can do to 
help make that happen.
    Mr. Desautel. Right. The legislation proposed today, I 
think, will accomplish that.
    But, I mean, tribes are a great proving ground. We have the 
ecological knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge of what 
the landscape should look like, and how we accomplish that. And 
I think because we fall under different regulatory frameworks, 
we can be examples and testing grounds for land management 
policies. And I think most folks that work with tribes 
recognize the great work that happens in Indian Country, and we 
can use that blueprint in our adjacent Federal lands and 
partner with them to make sure we accomplish those same 
management goals.
    Mr. Westerman. Well, I look forward to working with you, 
and all the tribes are doing great work to hopefully greatly 
expand that Good Neighbor Authority.
    I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your questions.
    And I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today. 
It is greatly appreciated. And we are going to move on to our 
third panel now.
    And while the Clerk resets our witness table, I will remind 
the witnesses that are coming for our third panel that under 
Committee Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 
minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing 
record.
    I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing 
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute 
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
    As with the first panel, I will allow all witnesses to 
testify before Member questioning.
    Our witnesses for the third panel are Ms. Riva Duncan, Mr. 
Rick Goddard, Mr. Laurence Crabtree, and Mr. Jonathan Godes.
    We are going to start with Ms. Riva Duncan, who is the Vice 
President of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.
    We look forward to your testimony in the next 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF RIVA DUNCAN, FIRE CHIEF, UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST, 
   U.S. FOREST SERVICE (RETIRED), VICE PRESIDENT, GRASSROOTS 
        WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS, ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

    Ms. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Chairman 
Westerman, Ranking Member Neguse, and distinguished members of 
the Subcommittee for allowing me to appear here today. My name 
is Riva Duncan, and I am currently the Vice President of the 
Grassroots Wildland Firefighters advocacy non-profit, which is 
made up of current and former Federal wildland firefighters.
    On December 31, 2020, I retired from the U.S. Forest 
Service after 31 years with the agency. My position upon 
retirement was Fire Chief for the Umpqua National Forest and 
Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM districts in southwest Oregon. Over 
the course of my career, I worked in five Forest Service 
regions, on seven national forests in Pennsylvania, Florida, 
Utah, California, North Carolina, and Oregon. I was an official 
supervisor and directly involved in hiring from 1998 until my 
retirement.
    Most of you know by now that the Forest Service and the 
four land management agencies under the Department of the 
Interior are struggling to recruit and retain wildland 
firefighters. Over the last few years, this has become a 
critical issue that affects most communities in the U.S.
    Wildfires are not just a California problem, nor are they a 
Western problem. This past spring, numerous areas in Wisconsin, 
New Jersey, and others in the East experienced serious 
wildfires that threatened homes, businesses, infrastructure, 
and the health of citizens. Federal wildland firefighters are 
being called upon to leave their families earlier and earlier 
to fight these destructive fires.
    While I could go on and on about numerous issues facing our 
workforce, I am here today to discuss hiring and the proposed 
bill, Direct Hire to Fight Fires.
    The entire hiring system needs to be critically reviewed 
and modernized for the next 50 years of recruiting, hiring, 
retaining, and promoting Federal wildland firefighters. The 
protracted and convoluted Federal hiring process typically 
affects entry-level firefighters the most, who are trying to 
get their first job as a Federal wildland firefighter. However, 
there are other systemic issues associated with Federal hiring 
which negatively affect long-term career employees who are 
denied promotions and detail assignments who, out of 
frustration, stop trying to obtain different positions within 
the Forest Service and DOI, or end up resigning their Federal 
jobs.
    Hiring became considerably more difficult and cumbersome 
with the centralization of Human Resources in the Forest 
Service, creating the Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) and the 
Bureau of Land Management, creating the National Operations 
Center (NOC). In our opinion, critical effort needs to be made 
to take an objective look at these decisions and consider 
whether decentralization of HR in the Forest Service and DOI 
makes the most sense, moving forward.
    This is not to disparage the employees working in HR for 
these agencies. They are also struggling to keep up with the 
workload, which is telling in the amount of turnover at both 
ASC and the NOC.
    Codifying direct hire authority would certainly provide 
shorter hiring timelines for critical wildland fire positions. 
Anything that helps expedite current hiring processes is a step 
in the right direction. As data shows, DHA reduces the amount 
of time from authorization to employee entry on duty. This 
bill, if it becomes law, would continue to streamline the 
Federal hiring process as it gives greater flexibility and 
timeliness to hire more wildland firefighters in rural and 
hard-to-recruit areas.
    The bill also states it will address and eliminate 
redundancies in the Federal hiring process for wildland 
firefighters and support personnel, streamline the process for 
hiring wildland firefighters and support personnel who are 
employed by the agency in prior years, and reduce barriers for 
wildland firefighters transferring between agencies.
    One stark example of hiring redundancy is the Forest 
Service does not recognize the DOI agency's employee background 
checks, and the DOI does not recognize the Forest Service's. 
This unnecessary barrier leads to significant delays in hiring 
firefighters between agencies and departments, and is often the 
last piece of red tape in the way of onboarding wildland 
firefighters.
    In the Forest Service and DOI, employees must still attach 
a specific Standard Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action to 
their resume that proves they are a current Federal wildland 
firefighter. In the Forest Service, if they attach the wrong 
SF-50, their application is discarded and they are 
disqualified. Conversely, in the National Park Service, if an 
employee attaches the wrong SF-50, they are notified to provide 
the correct form and their package goes on to be evaluated 
against the other factors. These are just a couple of examples 
where different processes in the different land management 
agencies affect pools of qualified candidates.
    We would ask Congressman Issa and the rest of the Committee 
to include a provision in the bill to waive the age requirement 
for veterans and others, as did the Land Management Workforce 
Flexibility Law. Currently, there is an age limit for permanent 
employees into the special retirement system for Federal 
wildland firefighters and law enforcement officers, which makes 
hiring veterans over the age of 37 extremely difficult.
    On behalf of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, thank you 
for allowing me to be here today. I look forward to answering 
the Committee's questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Duncan follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Ms. Riva Duncan, Vice President,
                   Grassroots Wildland Firefighters;
 Forest Fire Chief, US Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest (Retired)
                              on H.R. 3499

Opening Remarks

    Thank you, Chairman Westerman, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Neguse, Congressman Issa, and members of the 
subcommittee for allowing me to appear before you today. My name is 
Riva Duncan and I am currently the Vice President of the Grassroots 
Wildland Firefighters advocacy non-profit. On December 31, 2020, I 
retired from the US Forest Service after 31 years with the agency. My 
position upon retirement was Fire Chief for the Umpqua National Forest 
and Roseburg and Coos Bay BLM Districts in Southwest Oregon. Over the 
course of my career, I worked in five Forest Service regions on seven 
national forests in Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, California, North 
Carolina, and Oregon. I was an official supervisor and directly 
involved in hiring from 1998 until my retirement.
    Most of you know by now that the Forest Service and the four land 
management agencies under the Department of Interior are struggling to 
recruit and retain wildland firefighters. Over the last few years, this 
has become a critical issue that affects most communities in the US. 
Wildfires are not just a California problem, nor are they a Western 
problem. This past spring numerous areas in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and 
others in the East experienced serious wildfires that threatened homes, 
businesses, infrastructure, and the health of citizens. Federal 
wildland firefighters are being called upon to leave their families 
earlier and earlier to fight destructive fires.
    While I could go on and on about numerous issues facing our 
workforce, I'm here today to discuss hiring and the proposed bill 
``Direct Hire to Fight Fires.''
    The entire hiring system needs to be critically reviewed and 
modernized for the next 50 years of recruiting, hiring, retaining and 
promoting federal wildland firefighters. The protracted and convoluted 
federal hiring process typically affects entry-level people the most 
who are trying to get their first job as a federal wildland 
firefighter. However, there are other systemic issues associated with 
federal hiring which negatively affect long term career employees who 
are denied promotions and detail assignments who, out of frustration, 
stop trying to obtain different positions within the Forest Service and 
DOI or end up resigning their federal jobs.
    Hiring became considerably more difficult and cumbersome with the 
centralization of Human Resources in the FS, creating the Albuquerque 
Service Center (ASC), and the Bureau of Land Management, creating the 
National Operations Center. In our opinion, critical effort needs to be 
made to take an objective look at these decisions and consider whether 
decentralizing HR in the FS and DOI makes the most sense moving 
forward.
    This is not to disparage the employees working in HR for these 
agencies. They are also struggling to keep up with the workload which 
is telling in the amount of turn-over at both ASC and the NOC.
    Codifying Direct Hire Authority would certainly provide shorter 
hiring timelines for critical wildland fire positions. Anything that 
helps expedite current hiring processes is a step in the right 
direction. As data shows, DHA reduces the amount of time from 
authorization to employee entry on duty. This bill, if it becomes law, 
would continue to streamline the federal hiring process as it gives 
greater flexibility and timeliness to hire more wildland firefighters 
in rural and hard to recruit areas.
    The bill also states it will address and eliminate redundancies in 
the Federal hiring process for wildland firefighters and support 
personnel, streamline the process for hiring wildland firefighters and 
support personnel who were employed by the agencies in prior years, and 
reduce barriers for wildland firefighters transferring between 
agencies. These are extremely important points that will reduce hiring 
timelines.
    One stark example of hiring redundancy is the FS does not recognize 
the DOI agencies' employee background checks, and the DOI does not 
recognize the Forest Service's. This unnecessary barrier leads to 
significant delays in hiring firefighters between agencies/departments, 
and is often the last piece of red-tape in the way of onboarding 
wildland firefighters.
    In the FS and DOI, employees must still attach a specific Standard 
Form 50 Notification of Personnel Action to their resume that proves 
they are ``current'' federal employees. In the FS, if they attach the 
wrong SF 50, their application is discarded and they are 
``disqualified'' as they cannot ``prove'' they are a current federal 
employee, which I believe ASC can verify in less than a couple minutes. 
Conversely, in the National Park Service, if an employee attaches the 
wrong SF 50, they are notified to provide the correct form and their 
package goes on to be evaluated against the other factors.
    These are just a couple of examples of where different processes in 
the different land management agencies affect applicant pools of 
qualified wildland firefighters and support personnel.
    We would ask Congressman Issa and the rest of the committee to 
include a provision in the bill to waive age requirements for veterans, 
and others, as did the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Law, PL 
114-47. Currently there is an age limit for permanent employees into 
the special retirement system for federal wildland firefighters and law 
enforcement officers which makes hiring veterans over the age of 37 
extremely difficult. As the agencies stand up more ``veterans'' fire 
crews, it's important we honor their service in this way.
    On behalf of Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, thank you for 
allowing me to be here today. I look forward to answering the committee 
members' questions.
Other Hiring Observations and Challenges
Positive Education Requirements in the 401 Series
    Many of the wildland fire support positions, namely fire 
ecologists, fire planners, and fuels specialists are in the 401 General 
Biology series. This series is ``professional'' and so has positive 
education requirements. Across the FS, numerous wildland fire employees 
in this series have been disqualified from lateral reassignments, 
temporary promotions, and permanent promotions into the same series by 
HR because they ``do not meet'' the positive education requirements. 
Again, they are already in this series, and yet somehow don't meet 
those requirements when seeking other 401 positions. Some employees are 
just too overloaded or too frustrated to appeal these decisions, and 
many who seek to appeal often don't find out about this oversight until 
it's too late.
Antiquated Payment Processing System (tied to HR)
    The FS's pay system, housed at the National Finance Center in New 
Orleans, and is directly tied to the HR system, is also seriously 
antiquated and in need of reform. We recently discovered that only one 
personnel action can be processed at the same time. Many temporary 
firefighters, those in the Not To Exceed (NTE) 1039 hours category, are 
being onboarded and requiring three distinct personnel actions: 1. 
actually being put into hire/pay status, 2. provided the pay supplement 
authorized in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), and 3. Being 
placed into government housing and having their ``rent'' deducted from 
their paycheck. These temporary employees do not see their first 
paycheck for two to four weeks, their supplement isn't included until 
their second or third paycheck, and often their rent isn't deducted for 
several more pay periods (it is not unusual for a temporary to get a 
large ``backpay'' deduction toward the end of their employment period). 
We also have examples of other significant issues with the BIL 
supplement for a few hundred wildland firefighters and support 
personnel due to this ineffective and inefficient system.
Other Observations Regarding Centralized HR (FS)
    Centralization of the Forest Service's HR at the Albuquerque 
Service Center (ASC) has been a monumental failure. Yet the agency 
fails to acknowledge this and seriously look at decentralization. There 
are few HR specialists left who actually worked at unit and/or remember 
what that was like. Those who haven't, struggle to understand the work 
of all employees, not just wildland firefighters. Employees at the 
field units (including the regional offices and Washington Office) are 
just a ``number'' or a ``name.'' During the early days of the 
transition to ASC, while I was Deputy Forest Fire Chief on the Klamath 
National Forest in CA, I sent one of the dispatchers to ASC to give 
presentations on what the wildland firefighter workforce was and what 
they did. This was eye-opening for the HR specialists. However, the 
turnover rate is so high that if someone were to do that again, they'd 
have to go nearly every month in order to reach the constantly new 
group of HR employees. The FS publishes a monthly report of 
disciplinary actions across the agency and it is staggering to see how 
many employees at ASC are receiving disciplinary action, some of them 
for violating personnel practices. These extreme examples of job 
dissatisfaction and poor performance/behavior have a ripple effect down 
to the units. Decentralization would allow HR employees to serve 
directly with the employees with whom they work every day. They would 
know them as people and not just as names on a list or a voice over the 
phone. We are convinced this would solve a multitude of HR issues. But 
the highest level of managers within the FS seem reluctant to admit 
that while centralization seemed like a good idea it has been a massive 
failure since it started over 15 years ago. We would like to see an 
outside, objective group take a critical look at ASC and make 
recommendations on what it would take to fix the most glaring of issues 
affecting efficiency and efficacy.
Grassroots Wildland Firefighters Advocacy Group Background

    The Grassroots Wildland Firefighters were formed in 2019 by active 
and retired federal wildland firefighters. The intent of the group is 
to address the issues surrounding the everyday world of the wildland 
firefighter, including: pay and classification, comprehensive health 
and well-being, and OWCP claims.
    The Grassroots Wildland Firefighters are focused on bringing our 
diverse group of voices to bear on leadership in the land management 
agencies and our elected officials, at the local, state and federal 
level. Our mission is to advocate for proper classification, pay, 
benefits and comprehensive well being.
    We acknowledge these are complex and multifaceted issues spanning 
several government agencies. Our overarching goal is to create a better 
quality of life for those who sacrifice so much of themselves to 
protect life, communities, and natural resources.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Duncan. Next, I would like to 
recognize Mr. Rick Goddard, Managing Director of Caylym 
Technologies of Fresno, California.
    Mr. Goddard, you have 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF RICK GODDARD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAYLYM 
         TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Goddard. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify in support of H.R. 3389, the Emergency Wildfire 
Fighting Technology Act of 2023.
    I currently serve as the Managing Director of Caylym 
Technologies, a veteran-owned, California-based company that 
has developed an aerial delivery system to fight the ever-
increasing destruction of wildfires globally. Prior to joining 
the civilian business community, I served as an officer of 
Marines specializing in aviation, and particularly close air 
support and air defense missions.
    Our innovative technology and a strong private partnership 
have proven successful in mitigating catastrophic wildfires in 
several countries. But, unfortunately, we cannot help in 
fighting wildfires here in our own country due, I believe, to 
bureaucracy and red tape.
    Here in the United States, we are all witness of the 
terrifying trend, the fact that wildfire season is now year-
round and more catastrophic. With this year's heavy rainfall 
that has accelerated vegetation growth which will fuel this 
year's wildfires, we are looking to another brutal and 
potentially deadly year. Just look at the situation in Alberta 
and British Columbia, Canada now. They have lost millions of 
acres already, and it is not even summer yet.
    The smoke and air pollution of these fires is already 
reaching our Midwest. In California, we have already seen high 
90-degree temperatures in this past week. The Forest Service 
alone does not have the necessary resources to handle what is 
to come. They are severely understaffed and, pending on the 
ongoing court decision, the Forest Service could lose the 
ability to deploy retardant from the air altogether, until the 
EPA issues a Clean Water Act permit, which could take years. 
Simply put, our state and Federal fire agencies need better 
technologies now, more than ever.
    We are here today advocating for putting another tool in 
the toolbox for combating and preventing the mass destruction 
we experience from wildfires today. Containerized Aerial 
Firefighting Systems, or CAFFS, has already been adopted across 
the globe. Currently it is being used in Romania, Peru, Greece, 
Uruguay, Bulgaria, and now Israel. Still, because of the Forest 
Service's refusal or inability to complete the necessary 
evaluation, CAFFS is not currently approved for use in the 
United States.
    In 2015, the United States Air National Guard highlighted 
and recommended the use of container delivery system-based 
capability, and today we call that CAFFS. The Air Guard noted 
that the airdrop-capable disposable containers with liquid 
payloads dramatically increases the number of airlift assets 
available to respond to wildfire emergencies, providing a 24-
hour capability to attack wildfires.
    CAFFS can be dropped from any rear-loading cargo aircraft, 
transforming the thousands of cargo planes and helicopters 
currently in our inventory into aerial firefighting platforms, 
and that is without any modifications to the airframes. These 
systems are affordable and immediately available, and they 
effectively support our country's ability to fight wildfires 
day and night.
    It is important to note that a CAFFS airdrop eliminates the 
need, potentially, of those most harmful chemicals in 
traditional airdrop retardants, and those are the anti-
corrosion chemicals currently required for direct contact with 
cartons. And this is because the CAFFS-based alternative does 
not require the liquid payload to come in contact with the 
aircraft. This CAFFS benefit, also significantly, by orders of 
magnitude, reduces the post-mission maintenance costs and 
downtime on aircraft that is currently required in order to 
clean off the retardant residue after each mission.
    H.R. 3389 provides an opportunity for the latest aerial 
firefighting technology like CAFFS to be evaluated, and the 
operational protocols to be updated based on the results of the 
evaluation.
    California has a long history of large wildfires, which is 
why the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 
has the largest and most advanced wildfire fighting operations 
in the nation, and yet they are still having to make the tragic 
decision as to which homes and communities to save and which 
are left to the ravages of a wildfire.
    H.R. 3389 would provide fire crews with new wildfire-
fighting technologies like CAFFS, thus providing a rapid surge 
response as they are able to battle to save lives, homes, and 
businesses while battling to stop the awful destruction of our 
forests and the environment.
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of 
this Subcommittee, I am thankful for this opportunity, and look 
forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goddard follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Mr. Rick Goddard, Managing Director,
                          Caylym Technologies
                              on H.R. 3389

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3389, 
the Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023.
Introduction

    I currently serve as the Managing Director of Caylym Technologies, 
a veteran owned California-based company that has developed an aerial 
delivery system to fight the ever-increasing destruction of wildfires 
globally. Prior to joining the civilian business community, I served as 
an Officer of Marines specializing in aviation and particularly the 
close air support and air defense missions.
    California-based Caylym is helping minimize the destruction of 
wildfires across the world. Our innovative technology and strong 
public-private partnerships have proven successful in mitigating 
catastrophic wildfires in several countries, but unfortunately, we 
cannot help in fighting wildfires here in our own back yard in 
California and the United States due, I believe, to bureaucracy and 
red-tape.
    Caylym has made many efforts to introduce and share the immediate 
benefits of Containerized Aerial Fire Fighting Systems (CAFFS) to the 
United States Forest Service (Forest Service) and to top elected 
officials as an additional tool for firefighters but was told by the 
Forest Service that their ``current capabilities align well with 
[their] requirements and modernization strategy.'' We are here today 
advocating for adding another tool in the toolbox for combatting and 
preventing the mass destruction we experience from wildfires. CAFFS has 
already been adopted across the globe including Romania, Peru, Greece, 
Uruguay, Bulgaria and Israel, but because of the Forest Service's 
refusal or inability to complete necessary evaluation, it is not 
currently approved and used in the United States.
Background

    Here in the U.S., we are all witness to a terrifying trend--the 
fact that wildfire seasons are now year round and more catastrophic. 
With this year's heavy rainfall leading to high yield of vegetation 
growth, that will fuel this year's wildfire season, we are looking at 
another brutal potentially deadly year. Just look at the situation up 
in Alberta and British Columbia Canada now. They have lost millions of 
acres already and it is not even summer yet. In California we have 
already seen high 90 degree temperatures this past week.
    The Forest Service alone does not have the necessary resources to 
handle what's to come. They are severely understaffed, and pending a 
court decision in FSEEE v. USFS, Forest Service could lose their 
ability to deploy aerial fire retardant altogether until the EPA issues 
a Clean Water Act permit, which could take years. If the Forest Service 
cannot deploy an aerial fire retardant, state agencies like CAL FIRE 
will be spread far too thin to be effective.
    The result of this delay of potential aerial firefighting payload 
delivery alternatives would be so catastrophic it is hard to let your 
mind go there, but in order to protect lives, property, businesses, and 
our beautiful land, it is imperative that we do so. If the Forest 
Service cannot deploy retardant from aircraft, this will leave state 
agencies alone in the skies and wildfires will burn longer and hotter. 
vCommunities will be ravaged by flames just like we witnessed happen in 
Paradise California, in the deadly Camp Fire. Families will have empty 
seats at their dinner tables because those vulnerable and less mobile 
will struggle to evacuate before it is too late. People, especially 
children, will suffer from asthma due to the incredibly poor air 
quality as a result of prolonged smoke exposure. This will have a 
generational climate impact. Mr. Chairman, the list goes on, but my 
time is limited.
    As we stare down the barrel of the next wildfire season, state and 
federal fire agencies need better technology and private support now 
more than ever.
    In 2015 the United States Air National Guard released a report 
highlighting the domestic-response equipping priorities forged across 
the Air National Guard. They emphasized the need for a robust domestic-
response capability to support homeland emergency operations. From 
their lessons learned in California Wildfires in 2008, 2010, and 2012, 
particularly the Yosemite Rim Fire in 2013, there was a clear need for 
new technology to allow for around the clock capability to directly 
attack and extinguish wildfires and expand the number of air assets 
fighting wildfires.
    The United States Air National Guard highlighted and recommended 
the use of a Container Delivery System (CDS) based capability which 
today they call CAFFS. They noted that the airdrop capable disposable 
containers with liquid payloads for aerial firefighting ``dramatically 
increases the number of airlift assets available to respond to wildfire 
emergencies''.
    Our team has found that countries such as Romania, Peru, Uruguay, 
Bulgaria, Greece and recently Israel are committed to a 24/7 rapid 
response or surge in aerial firefighting capability and have adopted 
CAFFS because of that commitment. If available for domestic use, these 
additional resources would provide our ground crews and the Incident 
Commanders with more resources and tools to protect communities, the 
environment and put out wildfires more swiftly.
    In 2021, the EU and Mediterranean basin experienced the 2nd worst 
fire season since 2000 with 2.7 million acres burned across 39 
countries, 25% of which were agricultural lands. I raise this aspect of 
the global nature of what we are dealing with regarding wildfires as 
this problem is not unique to the United States. We have found that 
predominantly the European and Latin American view is that almost any 
major wildfire could have been prevented with a bucket of water if you 
were there fast enough.
H.R. 3389--Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023

    This legislation provides an opportunity for the latest aerial 
firefighting technology, including CAFFS, to be evaluated, and 
deployment protocols to be updated based on the results of the 
evaluation. With the continuous escalation of wildfires as our new 
reality, the need for increased investment in new firefighting systems 
that provides Incident Commanders with the ability to respond to the 
ground crews calls for air.
    Technologies such as CAFFS enable scores of additional aircraft to 
come alongside and be responsive to wildland firefighters. Providing a 
rapid surge of the full spectrum of payloads as a direct attack on the 
active wildfire. This helps attack the wildfires at early detection, 
even in remote areas. Using these types of systems, aircraft can 
operate and drop payloads from higher altitudes and in higher wind 
conditions without sacrificing safety or accuracy.
    CAFFS can be dropped from any rear-loading cargo aircraft, 
transforming the thousands of cargo planes currently in our inventory 
into firefighting platforms. A commonly used cargo aircraft, the C-130H 
& J, can carry 16 CAFFS boxes which totals over 4,000 gallons of 
firefighting payload onto the target. With no aircraft modifications 
needed, these systems are an affordable and immediately available tool 
that effectively supports California's and our country's ability to 
fight wildfires.
    The CDS based CAFFS went through and passed a 2-year evaluation by 
the Air National Guard at Yuma Proving Grounds Arizona. Allowing 
agencies to utilize CAFFS through the standardized and proven US Air 
Force CDS protocol would drastically increase the number of planes 
available to combat wildfires safely and effectively.
    It is important to note that using a CAFFS based system eliminates 
the need for potentially the most harmful chemicals in traditional air 
drop retardants. That is the ``anti-corrosion'' chemicals currently 
required. This is because the CAFFS based alternative does not allow or 
require the liquid payload to come into contact with the aircraft. This 
CAFFS benefit also significantly, by orders of magnitude, reduces the 
post mission maintenance costs and downtime on the aircraft that is 
required to clean fire retardant residue from the aircraft.
Conclusion

    It's well known that California has a history with destructive 
wildfires, which is why the California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection, as well as the Forest Service have some of the largest and 
most advanced firefighting operations in the nation. And yet, they are 
still having to make the tragic decision as to which homes or 
communities to save and which are left to the ravages of the wildfire.
    While their dedication to this vital mission is unmatched, their 
available resources have been stretched so thin that fire officials are 
still being forced to make this choice. Regrettably, more and more 
often the urgent calls from ground crews for aerial support are unable 
to be filled due to lack of air resources.
    According to federal data, two of California's largest wildfires in 
2021 cost fire agencies more than $500 million each to suppress, and a 
third of these fires cost more than a quarter-million dollars each to 
fight. This doesn't include the costs in personal losses, the cost to 
rebuild or the long-term costs to our environment.
    H.R. 3389, the Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act of 2023 
would provide the evaluation path and timeline for new technologies 
like CAFFS to our firefighters and incident commanders. Thus, providing 
fire crews with dependable cover from the air, providing a rapid surge 
response as they battle to save live's, homes and businesses, and the 
prevention of the profound and awful destruction of our forests and 
environment.
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you again for the invitation to appear today. I 
look forward to your questions and the continued partnership to address 
the pressing crisis of out-of-control wildfires.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Goddard.
    And will the gentlelady from Colorado introduce our next 
witness?
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to 
introduce the President of Colorado Association of Ski Towns 
and former Mayor of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Jonathan Godes.
    Thank you so much for being here today.
    As a mayor, he and I worked together on several issues to 
address challenges with living in the Western Slope, from 
securing emergency funding after a mudslide in the Glenwood 
Springs Canyon that closed interstate I-70 to supporting the 
South Bridge project, and today discussing the critical housing 
needs for firefighters and other communities containing Forest 
Service land.
    I am excited to continue to work with now-President Godes 
in his new role, along with the gentleman and Ranking Member 
from Colorado, to find creative solutions to address community 
housing needs like the Forest Service Flexible Housing 
Partnerships Act.
    And I am also thrilled that today's legislative hearing 
includes numerous pieces of legislation to advance active 
forest management.
    Mr. Mayor, Mr. President, I am so honored that you are here 
in Washington, DC with us today, and thank you so much. You are 
now recognized for your 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN GODES, PRESIDENT OF COLORADO ASSOCIATION 
OF SKI TOWNS (CAST), GLENWOOD SPRINGS CITY COUNCILOR, GLENWOOD 
                       SPRINGS, COLORADO

    Mr. Godes. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Boebert. Good 
afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members 
of the Subcommittee. My name is Jonathan Godes, and I am the 
President of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns, 
representing 41 municipalities and counties that are largely 
dependent on tourism and the ski industry. I am also the former 
Mayor and current City Councilor of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 
I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to be here today to 
share the Association's robust support of the Forest Service 
Flexible Housing Partnership Act.
    Colorado's mountain communities such as Steamboat Springs, 
Vail, Breckenridge, and my community of Glenwood Springs have 
long been known for their natural beauty, unparalleled outdoor 
recreational opportunities, and vibrant tourism industry. A 
decade-long housing crisis threatens all sectors of our economy 
and workforce, including seasonal and permanent employees of 
the United States Forest Service.
    Many essential workers, including outdoor recreation 
industry professionals, healthcare workers, teachers, 
firefighters, and service industry employees struggle to find 
housing. This forces large proportions of our workforce to far-
flung bedroom communities up to 90 miles away, requiring long 
daily commutes over high mountain passes, often during major 
snowstorms, resulting in increased traffic congestion, 
decreased quality of life, and a diminishing sense of 
community. Businesses of all sizes and sectors struggle to fill 
a long list of open positions, and high turnover depletes 
public and private sector organizations of critical talent as 
employees relocate elsewhere in search of an affordable place 
to raise their families.
    Our housing crisis is driven in part by lack of private 
land available for residential development. Federal lands make 
up more than 80 percent of our region's land mass. Forest 
Service parcels located in or adjacent to town centers have the 
potential to serve as incredibly valuable re-development 
opportunities in our mountain communities. The reauthorization 
of the enhanced leasing authority in the Farm Bill would allow 
for continued partnership among local governments, private 
industry, and the Forest Service as we work together to cut red 
tape on very complicated but much-needed workforce housing 
projects.
    For example, Steamboat Springs, Routt County, and the Routt 
National Forest are exploring residential development options 
for vacant administrative parcels that could be home to 100 
units of affordable housing. The town of Dillon and Summit 
County, Colorado are making progress on the re-development of 
an under-utilized and dilapidated work center into a 163-unit 
housing project. In Eagle County, there is the potential to 
build an additional 300 affordable housing units over six 
parcels.
    Projects like this are critical to our ability to address a 
severe shortage of labor that threatens the profitability of 
our small businesses and large ski industry partners alike.
    They would furthermore provide sorely-needed housing 
options for the U.S. Forest Service, where unfilled positions 
hinder important work related to wildfire mitigation, natural 
resource protection, and the administration of recreational 
permits by private businesses.
    For CAST member communities to pursue affordable housing 
projects under this Act, in partnership with the U.S. Forest 
Service, there are two elements of particular importance I 
would like to speak about.
    (1) and probably the most important, is the ability to do a 
100-year lease term. Given the extremely high cost of 
development in resort communities, this time frame on the lease 
term is very necessary to secure the financing required by the 
developers.
    And then (2), to allow credit for off-site accommodation of 
U.S. Forest Service needs. As an example, for a U.S. Forest 
Service site in Aspen, construction of a warehouse, workshop, 
visitor center, and administrative offices would be 
incompatible with residential neighborhoods. The needs could be 
better met on separate land owned by project partners, 
potentially outside city limits. By receiving credit for making 
these improvements for the Forest Service through a mutual 
lease, the partners would have greater flexibility to develop 
multiple parcels in the most efficient and effective ways.
    We request that the local communities be granted the 
ability to bring non-Federal lands to the table, and that 
credit for U.S. Forest Service use of those lands be included 
in the calculation of the local community contributions.
    The Forest Service manages dozens of administrative sites 
in Colorado that are vacant, under-utilized, neglected, and in 
need of significant capital improvements for the purposes of 
employee housing. By pursuing this renewed leasing authority, 
we hope to better utilize Federal lands to address a crisis 
that hobbles the public and private sector employers throughout 
the region.
    We respectfully request the Subcommittee's support in the 
Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnership Act of 2023.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Godes follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Jonathan Godes, President,
                   Colorado Association of Ski Towns;
               City Councilor, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
  on H.R. ____, ``Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 
                                 2023''

    Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
members of the subcommittee. My name is Jonathan Godes and I am the 
President of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns, representing 41 
municipalities and counties that are largely dependent on tourism and 
the ski industry. I am also the former Mayor and a current City 
Councilor of Glenwood Springs Colorado. I am sincerely grateful for the 
opportunity to be here today to share the association's robust support 
for the Forest Service Flexible Housing Partnerships Act.
    Colorado's mountain communities, such as Steamboat Springs, Vail, 
Breckenridge, and my community of Glenwood Springs, have long been 
known for their natural beauty, unparalleled outdoor recreational 
opportunities, and vibrant tourism industry. A decades-long housing 
crisis threatens all sectors of our economy and workforce, including 
seasonal and permanent employees of the United States Forest Service.
    Many essential workers, including outdoor recreation industry 
professionals, healthcare workers, teachers, firefighters, and service 
industry employees, struggle to find housing. This forces large 
proportions of our workforces to far-flung bedroom communities up to 60 
miles away, requiring long daily commutes over high mountain passes, 
often during major snowstorms, resulting in increased traffic 
congestion, decreased quality of life, and a diminished sense of 
community. Businesses of all sizes and sectors struggle to fill long 
lists of open positions, and high turnover depletes public- and 
private-sector organizations of critical talent, as employees relocate 
elsewhere in search of an affordable place to raise their families.
    Our housing crisis is driven in part by a lack of private land 
available for residential development. Federal lands make up more than 
80% of our region's land mass. Forest Service parcels located in or 
adjacent to town centers have the potential to serve as incredibly 
valuable redevelopment opportunities in our mountain communities. The 
reauthorization of the enhanced leasing authority in the Farm Bill 
would allow for continued partnerships among local governments, private 
industry, and the Forest Service as we work together on very 
complicated but much-needed workforce housing projects.
    For example, Steamboat Springs, Routt County and the Routt National 
Forest are exploring residential development options for a vacant 
administrative parcel that could be home to 100 units of affordable 
housing. The Town of Dillon and Summit County, Colorado, are making 
progress on the redevelopment of an underutilized and dilapidated work 
center into a 163-unit housing project. In Eagle County, there is the 
potential to build an additional 300 affordable housing units over six 
parcels. Projects like these are critical to our ability to address the 
severe labor shortages that threaten the profitability of our small 
businesses and large ski industry partners alike. They would 
furthermore provide sorely needed housing options for the U.S. Forest 
Service, where unfilled positions hinder important work related to 
wildfire mitigation, natural resource protection, and the 
administration of recreational permits by private businesses.

    For CAST member communities to pursue affordable housing projects 
under this Act in partnership with the USFS, two elements are of 
particular importance:

  1.  A 100-year lease term. Given the extremely high cost of 
            development in resort communities, this timeframe on the 
            lease term is necessary to secure the financing required by 
            developers.

  2.  Allow credit for off-site accommodation of U.S. Forest Service 
            needs. As an example, for a USFS site in Aspen, 
            construction of a warehouse, workshop, visitor center, and 
            administrative office would be incompatible within a 
            residential neighborhood. These needs could be better met 
            on separate land owned by project partners. By receiving 
            credit for making these improvements for the Forest Service 
            through a mutual lease, the partners would have greater 
            flexibility to develop multiple parcels in the most 
            efficient and effective ways. We request that local 
            communities be granted the ability to bring non-federal 
            lands to the table, and that credit for U.S. Forest Service 
            use of those lands be included in the calculation of local 
            community contributions.

    The Forest Service manages dozens of administrative sites in 
Colorado that are vacant, underutilized, neglected, and in need of 
significant improvements for the purpose of employee housing. By 
pursuing this renewed leasing authority, we hope to better utilize 
federal lands to address a crisis that hobbles public- and private-
sector employers throughout the region. We respectfully request this 
subcommittee's support of the Forest Service Flexible Housing 
Partnerships Act of 2023.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Godes.
    And next, Mr. McClintock, will you introduce our final 
witness?
    Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very 
honored to introduce Laurence Crabtree, who has devoted 50 
years of his life, fully a half a century, to the U.S. Forest 
Service.
    He has a forestry degree from the University of Idaho, with 
additional courses in advanced forest ecology from UC Berkeley. 
He has worked in line positions as District Ranger in Nevada 
and California, as Deputy Forest Supervisor, and as Forest 
Supervisor in California. He has held every conceivable 
position: Firefighter, Dozer Boss, Felling Boss, Logistics 
Section Chief, Incident Commander, and was an Agency 
Administrator on some of the largest fires in California.
    I will simply say this: It was my pleasure to work with him 
when he managed the El Dorado National Forest in California, 
and he is the best damned forester I have ever met. Just 
saying.
    [Pause.]

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE CRABTREE, U.S. FOREST SERVICE (RETIRED), 
                       BIEBER, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking 
Member Neguse. I will try to make comments that substantiate 
some of those warm introductory comments.
    I did submit a written testimony, and I think I am just 
going to try to visit for a bit. And if that gets a little too 
difficult, I am going to tell some fire stories that I think 
will illustrate the point I am trying to make.
    For me, it isn't that hard to believe that we should be 
putting out fires. I started doing that in 1971, and I pretty 
well stuck with it for the next 50 years. I understand the need 
to introduce fire into the forests. I have a solution for that. 
My message is now is not the time to play around with fires. 
And I am serious about saying that. I worked and lived in 
California for many years, but I have also fought fire in many, 
many other states, including some here in the East.
    So, I think I need to say this, too. In preparation for 
coming here I talked to a number of people both inside the 
agency and outside the agency. And I think that is why I am 
glad I am not a decision-maker here, I am a witness. This is a 
kind of a divisive issue.
    If you talk to a lot of Forest Service people, particularly 
in the fire service, oh, we have to have all the tools, we 
might need to make a resource decision here to let this fire go 
until we get in a place where we can deal with it. I understand 
that. But if I talk to people who are outside the forest 
boundary, who maybe own land, or cabins, or ski areas, or power 
lines, they are not so down with managing a fire for resource 
benefits, and not even sure what that means, but it means that 
we are not suppressing it.
    And it wasn't that hard to do. I was doing it in the 1970s, 
when I was a Forest Supervisor on the El Dorado. We met and 
said with our partners, our Cal Fire partners, ``We are going 
to put fires out on this forest. We have enough smoke in the 
air in California. We have contributed enough carbon. We are 
going to put fires out, all of them.'' And even with that, we 
weren't entirely successful. So, I think that is an important 
point.
    My other point is there are people in the agency, and it 
came up here earlier, ``Well, the Forest Service owns this 
land.'' And part of my experience with the Congressman is it is 
not Forest Service land, we manage it for the people. And if 
you have that in your mind, that it isn't ours as a Forest 
Service official, yes, we have responsibility, a lot of 
responsibility on what to do there. But we have to keep our eye 
on the people who own it around us. And right now, I haven't 
talked to many people that think, oh, we will use alternative 
suppression tactics and you might be at risk, we hope not. We 
are successful 99 percent of the time. Well, we have a lot of 
fires. One percent of a whole lot of fires isn't a good number.
    So, what I am going to conclude with here really is now is 
not the time to do anything but suppress fires, at least in the 
West, I think. And if you want to have a resource benefit from 
burning, then you can do the planning for it, and you can tell 
the public why you are doing it, and you can tell the public 
where the money is coming from to do it, and then you can have 
a prescribed fire.
    This idea that you would let a lightning strike decide 
where on your forest was a priority is really hard for me to 
grasp. And after 50 years of service, I should understand why 
that is important. I think it is because it is natural, and the 
forests really respond well to natural things like lightning. 
And I am going to say that the forests aren't natural right 
now, and this isn't the time to choose alternative strategies.
    That is, I think, what I really wanted to say.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Crabtree follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Mr. Laurence Crabtree,
                     Retiree, USDA Forest Service,
           President/Owner Crabtree Forestry Consulting, LLC
                        on H.R. 934 and H.R. 188

Introduction

    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse and members 
of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify regarding federal 
wildland fire suppression reform and Forest Service, and forest 
management, specifically fuel reduction and thinning in California.
    I serve as President/Owner of Crabtree Forestry Consulting LLC and 
am a retired Forest Supervisor.
Body of the Testimony

    I fully support H.R. 934 as it provides a clear message from the 
elected officials in this body to the agencies regarding the urgency 
and appropriateness of suppressing all wildfires. I can share numerous 
examples of wildfires I was personally involved in where we chose to 
allow the fires to burn under Control/Containment Guidelines. In most 
cases these fires burned as planned, but in other cases they did not. 
When fires escape their control lines the risk is transferred to 
surrounding properties and the additional men and women who are 
assembled to fight the, now larger, wildfire. I submit the following 
eight points for support for this bill:

  1.  Firefighting resources are limited and valuable. Committing 
            personnel to monitoring fires that are not being actively 
            suppressed is unwise at this time.

  2.  Fires are more extreme across this country than has been 
            historical. Often I heard ``I have never seen wildfire 
            behavior like I saw on this fire''. Things are different 
            now. It is now particularly important now to put out 
            wildfires when they are small.

  3.  Fire behavior and prediction models are being refined but in some 
            cases did not accurately predict the observed behavior. 
            This is not the time to be managing unplanned ignitions.

  4.  I am very aware that at times this bill would put a burden on 
            firefighting resources.

  5.  The forests have had fire excluded for many decades. The 
            condition of the forests, particularly in the West is very 
            different than it was when the Forest Service began 
            managing public land. Many stands are overstocked and 
            contain numerous dead trees. This is not a reasonable place 
            to manage unplanned ignitions when in CA 8 of the 20 
            largest fires have occurred since 2020.

  6.  This bill simply directs the Forest Service to do what they used 
            to do, to direct resources to suppress wildfire and to do 
            prescribed burning with a higher level of planning.

  7.  Line officers can find themselves trying to find a balance 
            between the desires of forest fire restoration advocates 
            and fire suppression when there may not be the time and 
            information necessary to make a reasoned decision. I have 
            been in that position and I fully understand the importance 
            of returning fire to the landscape. It is essential.

  8.  The agencies have used many terms and phrases to communicate what 
            they are doing is exhausting and confusing. Fire Use, 
            Alternative Containment strategy, Confine/Control, Managed 
            for Resource Benefits are all used to describe to the 
            public what is going on. It may appear to most people that 
            the fire is being ``let burn''.

    I fully support H.R. 188 as it provides a clear message from the 
elected officials in this body to agency officials regarding the 
urgency and appropriateness of fuel treatment. The bill is fully 
supportive of the mission of the Forest Service. I submit the following 
four points for support for this bill:

  1.  The agency appears to be struggling to deliver fuel treatment 
            expectations even though they have received millions of 
            dollars from Congress. This bill will provide additional 
            encouragement by giving them expanded use of Categorial 
            Exclusions.

  2.  It is critical that the work of fuel treatment be pursued 
            aggressively. Wildfires are depleting the public's fiber 
            resources and putting the agency's mission at risk.

  3.  The condition of the nation's forests is in urgent need of fuel 
            treatment and thinning. It is especially critical where 
            public lands are adjacent to communities and private lands, 
            particularly industrial forest lands.

  4.  Requiring the agency to consult with impacted parties, 
            representatives of local governments and interested 
            entities should not be an excessive burden to the agencies.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Crabtree. You are going to have 
some questions here, so I would like to recognize Mr. Westerman 
for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you 
to the witnesses again.
    And Mr. Crabtree, I just want to follow up with a hearty 
amen on what you just said, from one forester to the other. 
There is a proper time and place for fire, but it is not when 
your forests are overgrown, overstocked, dried out, and bug-
infested. And I think that the data shows we are in that 
situation, especially in California and in a lot of the dry 
forests.
    And, unfortunately, the thing the Forest Service needs to 
be doing is putting these fires out as soon as they start. We 
have seen a lot of data where this is not only destroying 
Forest Service property, it is also burning private property, 
as well on backfires that they set.
    But Ms. Duncan, good to see you again. And kind of in light 
of what I was just saying about Mr. Crabtree's testimony, I 
think we all want to see better pay for our wildland 
firefighters, but we also want to see our forests managed 
better. We want to keep these firefighters safe, and the best 
way to keep them safe is keeping them from having to fight so 
many fires. So, can you please talk about why it is important 
for us to comprehensively address the challenges that wildland 
firefighters face, including better pay, but also better 
management on the ground?
    Ms. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. Yes, a lot of 
the things we are talking about today, a lot of people have 
left out the wildland firefighters on the ground who are doing 
the difficult work. And I want to thank Congressman Neguse for 
once again reintroducing Tim's Act that has a comprehensive 
package to take care of our Federal wildland firefighters who 
show up every day.
    Federal pay has lagged far behind much of the 
municipalities and state agencies in the West, some in the 
East, as well, and certainly even private, like PG&E and some 
insurance companies are luring away Federal wildland 
firefighters for better pay and benefits. So, in order for us 
to retain and recruit Federal wildland firefighters, we really 
need to look at comprehensive reforms in pay, housing, 
benefits, both mental health benefits and physical health 
benefits, that we are talking about here today. So, thank you 
for that question.
    Mr. Westerman. In your opinion, has the Forest Service been 
transparent about its hiring practices with wildland 
firefighters?
    Ms. Duncan. Yes, we struggle sometimes with them providing 
their numbers of actually who has been onboarded, because they 
tend to look at how many offers are made. But because the 
system takes so long to onboard people, a lot of them give up 
and take positions other places because it just takes too long 
and they need a job. So, anything we can do to streamline and 
expedite Federal hiring will greatly affect recruiting new 
firefighters into the workforce.
    Mr. Westerman. And it is embarrassing that I even have to 
talk about this in this Committee, but you may be aware that 
the Committee passed legislation last week that would allow the 
use of aerial fire retardant. It is hard to imagine that we 
live in a world where people want to outlaw aerial fire 
retardant. As a former firefighter, can you please talk about 
the importance of aerial fire retardant as a tool in protecting 
the health and safety of wildland firefighters? And you can be 
brief on that one.
    Ms. Duncan. Currently, I am an emergency hire. I still go 
out and fight fires. It is a valuable tool in the toolbox. I 
know there are concerns with some of the issues in the 
retardant that can affect aquatic animals, but firefighters 
take those into account, and we still need every tool in the 
toolbox, and it does help keep firefighters and communities 
safer.
    Mr. Westerman. And Mr. Crabtree, as a former Forest Service 
official, how far behind is the Forest Service in treating our 
forests at the pace and skill necessary?
    Mr. Crabtree. They are way behind. It is going to take 
millions and millions of dollars, which are now coming into the 
agency. I don't know in a number of years how far behind, but 
it took 100 years to get where we are at, and I am not going to 
say it is going to take 100 years to get out of it, but it is 
going to take a while.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes, and it really took probably the past 30 
years to get in the more devastating position that we are in. 
But I agree with you, it is going to take time to undo the 
damage that has been done. But it is possible to do it, if we 
can just let the forestry professionals do their job.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your questions. I would like to 
recognize the Ranking Member now for his questions.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be brief.
    I know votes were called, so I will skip the questions that 
I had planned and just simply say, first, thank you to Mr. 
Godes for being here, for your support of the Forest Service 
Flexible Housing Partnerships Act of 2023 and, of course, for 
the work that you do at the Colorado Association of Ski Towns.
    And as a Representative who represents many of the 
communities, of course, that are members of your organization, 
and home, in my view, the 2nd District, to the best ski resorts 
and ski resort communities in the country, it is a pleasure to 
be able to have you before this Committee.
    And this bill, I think, couldn't be more important for the 
reasons that you stated during the course of your testimony. 
The ability to provide affordable housing options for our 
Forest Service workers, for our wildland firefighters, for 
first responders is very important, and I think this bill is a 
common-sense way to accomplish that, and a way for us as a 
Congress on a bipartisan basis to support those efforts at the 
local level. So, proud of the bill, and again, grateful for you 
being here.
    And then, to Ms. Duncan, thank you for being here. It is 
wonderful to see you again. Certainly, we are grateful for the 
work that you are doing on behalf of wildland firefighters. And 
I couldn't agree with you more in response to Chairman 
Westerman's question. We all know there is a serious pay cliff 
approaching. The clock is ticking, we have limited time to 
address it. And I have been beating the drum here in Congress, 
of course, for years with respect to the comprehensive reforms 
that I think we need to get done, as described and articulated 
in my bill, the Tim's Act, that we have spoken about and, of 
course, you all have advocated for.
    But in addition to that bill, we have to get this pay cliff 
resolved. And I just hope that we can work on a bipartisan 
basis, Mr. Chairman, both within this Subcommittee, within the 
larger, Full Committee, and of course, with our partners in the 
Government Oversight and Reform Committee to get this done, 
because a lot of wildland firefighters across the country who 
bravely sacrifice so much on our behalf are counting on us to 
get it done, and to get it right.
    So, no questions. But again, I just want to thank you, Ms. 
Duncan, Mr. Godes, and all of the witnesses for their 
testimony.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would like to recognize Mr. McClintock for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Crabtree, you are familiar with the Tamarack Fire in 
the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. How difficult would it 
have been to put that fire out during the 10 days that it 
smoldered on a quarter acre?
    Mr. Crabtree. I couldn't quite hear that.
    Mr. McClintock. Oh, I am sorry. How difficult would it have 
been to put out the Tamarack fire during the 10 days that it 
smoldered on a quarter acre?
    Mr. Crabtree. So, I wasn't there, and it is kind of hard 
for me to say, but I would say it wouldn't have been that hard.
    Mr. McClintock. How much do you think it would have cost?
    Mr. Crabtree. A few thousand dollars.
    Mr. McClintock. For a helicopter drop or two.
    Mr. Crabtree. Bring a couple of people in.
    Mr. McClintock. What is the cost of fighting a 17,000-acre 
fire, which is what the Tamarack became?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, yes, it is going to be millions.
    Mr. McClintock. Obviously, what would be cheaper, restoring 
the 10 a.m. Rule and applying resources to put out a lot of 
small fires immediately, or waiting until one of those fires 
explodes out of control?
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes, I think that is the issue here is the 
risk is not high. The probability of an escape is not high. But 
the risk can have a very, very significant price, particularly 
for people and property owners outside the agency boundaries.
    Mr. McClintock. Right. What role do local fire departments 
have in combating incipient fires on Federal lands?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, we try to have agreements up front and 
before the season starts to sort of match their capabilities 
and their, I guess, interest in attacking fires.
    But in California, there is a local closest responder kind 
of rule. We will send the closest resources, normally, to the 
fire that are available. And that should mean, if it is a Cal 
Fire engine closest to the fire and it is on the forest, they 
will send a Cal Fire engine.
    Mr. McClintock. Have you heard of instances when local 
firefighters were warned off initial attacks on fires on 
Federal lands?
    Mr. Crabtree. I have heard stories like that. But I can say 
from my background, I can say no specifics that I know about 
that that happened.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, we heard about that on the Tamarack 
fire. We heard about that on the Dufur Fire, which preceded it 
in the same area by 20 years. And I have had local firefighters 
make bitter complaints about that, not in the El Dorado 
National Forest, but in others.
    You tried for years to get the trestle project completed. 
What obstacles did you face?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, it is almost difficult for me to go 
back and visit the trestle fire because a few days ago I 
visited the aftermath of the Caldor Fire, and it is just 
sobering to see that much country, very productive timber land, 
some of the most productive timber lands in California, and 
there won't be a forest there for 400 years at least. And it is 
as far as you can see. I mean, it is really unbelievable.
    Mr. McClintock. And the trestle project would have 
prevented that, would it not?
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, it would have definitely--what it would 
have done is given firefighters a more likely chance to be 
successful. That is how I like to put it.
    Mr. McClintock. And what obstacles did you face in trying 
to get that----
    Mr. Crabtree. Well, one of the obstacles of the trestle 
project that took years to get through was it was one of the 
hotspots or highest densities area for California spotted owls. 
So, if you are an agency decision maker, you don't want to 
start making decisions that lead a species toward being 
endangered, so you want to leave the habitat----
    Mr. McClintock. How is that spotted owl habitat today?
    Mr. Crabtree. That is the thing. It is gone, and----
    Mr. McClintock. Along with the town, I mean, I was there in 
the downtown section. There is no point of reference. 
Everything is leveled to the ground. Even folks that have lived 
there their entire lives tell me they don't know their way 
around because they can't find a single point of reference to 
orient.
    Mr. Crabtree. I agree. It is----
    Mr. McClintock. Let me just very quickly put one final 
question to you that I did to Mr. Heithecker. Why is it that 
private landowners make money keeping their forests in healthy 
condition, and today the Forest Service ends up losing money 
and our forests are in terrible condition?
    Mr. Crabtree. Oh, gosh, that is a difficult question.
    Let's say the Forest Service can't harvest any tree over 30 
inches in diameter is an example, without a lot of rationale 
behind it. And that is just one thing that comes to mind.
    Mr. McClintock. So, they don't have the freedom that 
private landowners have to properly manage their lands because 
of the laws that we have passed. Is that essentially it in a 
nutshell?
    Mr. Crabtree. It is, but I like to say also the Forest 
Service has a little bit different mission than the private 
landowners. They can harvest and make money and then turn that 
land into something else, which is not uncommon. Our mission is 
future generations.
    Mr. McClintock. Right.
    Mr. Crabtree. The needs of current and future generations. 
So, we are just going to be a little different. Maybe we should 
be a little closer together.
    Mr. McClintock. Yes, well, I mean, we used to make a lot of 
money on Federal timber auctions and keep the forest healthy 
and resilient for generations to come. And, as you point out, 
nature doesn't mind waiting centuries for a forest to regrow. 
We mere mortals don't have that luxury.
    Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I just have a couple of 
questions, then we have to break. All of us have to get down 
and cast a vote.
    Mr. Goddard, you referenced the smoke that is coming. I 
live in the upper Midwest. And boy, we are seeing it all over 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
    The Forest Service, in the previous testimony, I had the 
impression they expressed reservations about CAFFS. What is 
going on there?
    Mr. Goddard. Well, quite frankly, I would say what is going 
on is they don't want to take the time to evaluate the system. 
Certainly, we have experienced great success overseas. The 
question about safety was answered in probably the most 
detailed form by the Israeli Air Force.
    I recall that back in 2018, tragically, we had a 
firefighter killed from an air drop, a low air drop, and it 
caused a revamp of all of the safety parameters for BLAT air 
drops, or the large tanker air drops. And what we found is with 
the CAFFS systems, less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the drop 
zone is considered risk, whereas 100 percent of the drop zone 
is considered risk with the tankers. And that is because the 
payload is moving laterally by 80 to 100 miles an hour. So, the 
CAFFS system is falling like rainfall, and you do have the 
containers that come down, but they are well within the drop 
zone area.
    So, the great question is, why don't you want to look at it 
if other countries around the world are using it, it is 
produced in California? Why don't you just want to take a look?
    Mr. Tiffany. Some of us think that there is this movement 
to not suppress fire. Might that be part of it?
    Mr. Goddard. Yes, sir. That is a great question. When I was 
interviewed down in South America for Defensa, which is a large 
defense magazine that covered our system going to Peru and 
Uruguay and now into Chile, they asked that question. They 
said, ``You make it in California. Why aren't you using it?''
    And the commander that was with me said, ``Oh, I have that 
answer. It is because we want to put fires out, and we want to 
put them out quickly.'' And that was one of the aspects of our 
system is a rapid response 24 hours a day, converting either--
--
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you are selling these around the world, 
but not in California.
    Mr. Goddard. Correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. And not in the United States.
    Mr. Goddard. Correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. I just want to ask one final question.
    Mr. Crabtree, you received the ultimate compliment when Mr. 
McClintock said, ``You are the best damn forester.'' I used to 
be a dam man. I used to think of myself as the best dam man 
managing the Willow Reservoir in northern Wisconsin. So, I have 
a little bit in common with you.
    I can only take about a minute here. What has changed? I 
always view 1988 as a watershed year for the United States 
Forest Service and Federal Land Management. What happened? What 
changed?
    Mr. Crabtree. OK, I think the culture changed in the 
agency, the climate has changed, and the public's tolerance for 
forest management has changed. And now maybe that is going to 
shift, but that is my answer to your question.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, in other words, as a result of saying we 
are going to make all these changes, now the American public 
has, as so often happens, the pendulum swings, and as a result 
we have seen these devastating fires. You said 400 years before 
we are going to see forest back there.
    Mr. Crabtree. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that just the sterilization of the ground?
    Mr. Crabtree. No, it is 400 years before you see a forest. 
You will find trees there in 100 years. Forests are 
complicated, and they have large trees and small trees. And 
there are a lot of things going on in a forest. When I think of 
a forest, it is not just a row of pine that is 80 years old.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sure.
    Mr. Crabtree. I mean, that was what I was thinking there.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. We have to wrap this up. I would like to 
thank all the witnesses.
    Thank you so much for taking the time to come here. We 
really appreciate it.
    Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 
for you, and we will ask that you respond to those in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
May 26. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business 
days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]