[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Tester, and Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good morning.
On behalf of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I
would like to welcome you to the hearing on the fiscal year
2010 budget.
Unfortunately, both Senator Alexander and I have to leave a
little before 11 a.m. So, Ms. Kimbell, this will be necessarily
a short hearing. I don't think you would object to that, and we
will do what we have to do and do it efficiently, I hope.
I am very pleased to welcome you, as Chief of the Forest
Service, before this subcommittee.
I would like to start by saying that I think this is a very
good budget. It may need some changes around the edges to meet
certain priorities, but we can talk about that.
I would like to express my appreciation that the President
has requested $200 million in supplemental firefighting funds
for the Forest Service before the fire season begins in
earnest. That is a welcome change.
The recent fires in Santa Barbara showed it is likely that
we are in for another brutal, expensive fire season. And so, it
is my hope that these funds will help prevent the service from
borrowing from other programs to pay for firefighting needs
this year.
The President has requested $5.226 billion for the Forest
Service for 2010. That is a 10 percent increase, or $480
million over the 2009 enacted level.
The new administration recognizes that firefighting costs
are likely to exceed the 10-year fire suppression average and
has submitted a budget that reflects that reality. It requests
full funding in the 10-year average for a total of $1.128
billion and includes a new $280 million reserve fund that is
available for the Forest Service if its regular appropriations
run out before the end of the fiscal year.
It also invests in the Service's aging network of
facilities, roads, and trails. Overall, the Service's capital
improvement and maintenance program is funded up 10 percent, at
$557 million over the enacted level. And this includes $50
million to help address the Service's $5 billion backlog of
deferred maintenance and also to create jobs.
In particular, this budget proposes to reduce hazardous
fuels reduction programs by $13 million, and that is a 4
percent cut. And I must tell you, I have a problem with that.
In my view, this cut doesn't make sense. Particularly when we
are pouring money into firefighting programs, we have to begin
to manage our forests and remove hazardous fuels and be
prepared for fire, prevent fire.
I am also concerned that the request funds fire
preparedness programs at $675 million, equal to the enacted
level. This means that the Service will be forced to shift more
costs for firefighter salaries and equipment to the fire
suppression program, further driving up the 10-year average.
But in summary, a 10 percent increase in this time of debt
and deficit, is, indeed, a very good budget.
prepared statement
So that completes my remarks, and Mr. Ranking Member, I
would be happy to recognize you at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing on the fiscal
year 2010 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service.
I'm pleased to welcome Gail Kimbell, Chief of the Forest Service,
before the subcommittee.
I'd like to start this morning by saying that I think this budget
is a good first step toward meeting the needs of our national forests.
Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement,
because there certainly is. We'll talk about some of the priorities
that are left out of this budget. But the request lays a foundation
that this subcommittee can build on.
I'd also like to express my appreciation that the President has
requested $200 million in supplemental firefighting funds for the
Forest Service before fire season begins in earnest this year. That's a
welcome change from the position of the previous administration.
As the recent fires in Santa Barbara showed, it is likely that we
are in for another brutal, expensive fire season. It is my hope that
these funds will help prevent the Forest Service from borrowing from
other programs to pay for firefighting needs this year.
Turning to the particulars, the President has requested $5.226
billion for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2010, an increase of
$480 million over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. That's a welcome
10 percent increase.
Most importantly, I am pleased that the new Administration
recognizes that firefighting costs are likely to exceed the 10-year
fire suppression average--and has submitted a budget that reflects that
reality.
The budget request fully funds the increase in the 10-year average
for a total of $1.128 billion. It also includes a new $282 million
reserve fund that's available to the Forest Service if its regular
appropriations run out before the end of the fiscal year.
The budget also invests in the Forest Service's aging network of
facilities, roads, and trails. Overall, the Forest Service's capital
improvement and maintenance program is funded at $557 million, an
increase of 15 percent more than the enacted level. That includes a $50
million initiative to help address the agency's $5 billion backlog of
deferred maintenance and create jobs.
Finally, the budget request includes a $42 million boost to State
and private forestry programs, targeted specifically to protecting open
spaces through conservation easements.
These are all important priorities, and I am pleased to see them
funded. However, at the same time, I am also concerned that the budget
request shortchanges other priority needs to pay for these initiatives.
In particular, this budget proposes to reduce hazardous fuels
reduction programs by $13 million. That's a 4 percent cut to fire
prevention--at a time when we're pouring money into firefighting. This
cut just doesn't make any sense, and I won't support it. In fact, I
plan to increase funds for fuels reduction in the fiscal year 2010
Interior bill.
I am also concerned that the request funds fire preparedness
programs at $675 million, equal to the enacted level. That means that
the Forest Service will be forced to shift more costs for firefighter
salaries and equipment to the fire suppression program--further driving
up the 10-year average.
The request funds operating programs for national forests at $1.5
billion, also equal to last year. That means important programs like
forest products and law enforcement are being cut back. And other
cooperative programs face the chopping block, including a 6 percent cut
to State and local fire assistance and a 4 percent cut to programs that
fight insects and disease.
In short, I think these programs deserve more support--and I plan
to ensure that the rising tide of this budget lifts all of the agency's
programs, not just a select few.
Now I'd like to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Alexander, for
any comments that he wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Chief, it is nice to see you and to discuss the Forest
Service.
I completely agree with the chairman about fire. It is an
essential part of the Forest Service program, but we don't want
to see the U.S. Forest Service become the U.S. fire department.
And I am also glad to see that because of the chairman's hard
work especially, there is more money to deal with fires this
year.
In the East, we don't have as many public lands and Forest
Service lands as we do in the West. And most of the Forest
Service lands I notice, looking at the map, run up the
Appalachian Ridge. They start down in Georgia and run up
through in and around the Smokies, where I live, where you have
the Cherokee National Forest. But then there is the Blue Ridge
Parkway and on up through Pennsylvania and into the area where
you come from, with the White Mountains and the Green
Mountains.
So I have a couple of questions about renewable energy that
I would like to ask you, and then I would like to follow up,
ask you if you don't have the answers today to perhaps provide
me with the answers later.
And let me start with an opportunity I think I see, and
that is the use of biomass--wood products, wood chips--from
Forest Service areas to create electricity by burning them.
What are the opportunities that you see for biomass on Forest
Service lands that might--and what might that have to do with
reducing the danger of fire?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBALL
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Senator.
The Forest Service worked with a number of different
partners to produce what we call the ``million ton report,''
and that has been updated. And from forested lands in the
United States--Ron is going to produce here in a minute that
sheet that has the numbers, the millions of tons that are
available from sustainably managed forests across the United
States.
Senator Alexander. Oh, pardon me, Chief. I got carried
away. I had about finished my opening statement, and the
questions will come next. I was so enthusiastic.
Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
Senator Alexander. So I thank you for being here. Those
will be the two areas that I would like to explore. And why
don't we go now to the chairman, and then I will take questions
next.
Senator Feinstein. I am fine with you doing that, and I
will go after you. Go right ahead, please.
Senator Alexander. Are you? Well----
Senator Feinstein. I am. I wouldn't say it if I wasn't.
Senator Alexander. I think you would.
In fact, I know you would. That is a great courtesy. Excuse
me for doing that.
But go ahead with your comment on biomass.
BIOMASS
Ms. Kimbell. There is a biomass study that has just
recently been updated and will be published shortly. And where
it talks about forests in the United States being able to
provide about 40 million tons of oven-dried biomass per year
from sustainably managed forests.
So that assumes things like nutrient cycling, maintenance
of biodiversity, water quality, wildlife habitat. It assumes
sustainable management. So 40 million tons, and this could
produce the equivalent of about 4 billion gallons of biofuel.
And for Tennessee alone, Tennessee could produce 2.5
million tons, or 5 percent of the Nation's total of oven-dried
biomass from sustainably managed forests.
Senator Alexander. You would think of it as used for fuel
rather than electricity?
Ms. Kimbell. It could be--this report will actually lay it
out in a lot of different possibilities, but either for fuel or
for the generation of electricity.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Senator Alexander. Well, that is very helpful. I would like
to try to get that into some perspective, and that puts it
there. I mean, that sounds like a lot.
On the other hand, I believe I remember--I will have to
check my figures--that the new Southern Company's 100-megawatt
electric plant would take 1 million tons a year just to keep it
going of biomass. And that 100 megawatts isn't much. I mean,
that is about \1/12\ of 1 unit of a nuclear plant. But that
would be very helpful.
Now let me move to another part of the renewable, and then
that will be my other part of the question. I noticed on the
sheet that I got, and the chairman and I have talked about this
in general. This is the cover, Madam Chairman, of the Forest
Service summary of all of its activities. You selected a
beautiful view. And----
Senator Feinstein. It might be California.
Senator Alexander. Might be. It might be.
Or it could be the Appalachian Range, but let us say it is
California. And so, my concern is, and I will just speak for
myself, is that I would like very much for us to have in this
country as much renewable energy as we reasonably and
appropriately can. I think, for example, biomass may be
especially appropriate for Forest Service lands.
But on the other hand, when I think of wind turbines, for
example, they are three times as tall as the football stadium
the University of Tennessee has in Knoxville, and the blades
are as long as the football field, and you can see them for 20
miles. And in our part of the world, they don't produce much
electricity because the wind doesn't blow very much.
But my concern more is with the landscape. I mean, here is
a picture of Mars Hill, a big wind turbine right up on the
Appalachian Trail. And I think about the time when I was on the
Energy Committee, Madam Chairman, and someone pointed out that
the Yellowstone Park director put a big cell tower right in
front of Old Faithful.
And so, my question is what does viewscape have to do with
decisions, as you are making them, about the siting of
renewable energy facilities like wind facilities or along the
Appalachian Trail or solar facilities perhaps in the West,
where it might make a difference there?
Ms. Kimbell. The siting of any facility or any project on
national forest goes through the environmental analysis process
and can be documented in a number of different ways. But
certainly, visual quality is something that is assessed for
every project that is implemented on national forest.
So for the siting of a cell tower, the siting of a
windmill, the siting of a vegetation management project, the
visual characteristics and the visual impacts of that project
are taken into consideration in the environmental analysis and
certainly is discussed in the public involvement and public
input.
And as you point out, there are some things that stand out
more than others, and those things attract a lot of discussion
and attention through the public involvement process and are
considered very much in the decision to be made by the line
officer.
Currently, we have two proposals being considered on
National Forest System lands--one in Vermont on the Green
Mountain National Forest, one in Michigan on the Huron-Manistee
National Forest. There are other locations across the National
Forest System where there are considerations. There are permit
applications being considered to set up the towers that would
actually monitor wind energy and climatic conditions over a
period of 3 to 5 years before anybody would even submit a
permit to develop.
But the permits to develop are in--the permit applications
are in Vermont and Michigan, and there is public involvement,
public comment being taken on the project in Vermont right now.
And the forest supervisor will be considering all of that
public comment, along with the rest of the environmental
analysis in making a determination about whether or not there
will be turbines sited on the Green Mountain National Forest.
Senator Alexander. Thank you. I will come back with other
questions later.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
FIREFIGHTER RETENTION
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Chief, I wanted to ask you a couple of things. Let me do
the California material first, and that begins with the
firefighter retention challenge.
As I understand it, as of April 1, a CAL FIRE rank-and-file
firefighter earned $64,760, nearly 15 percent more than a
comparable Forest Service firefighter, which averages $56,096.
And disparities at the captain level were even greater and
reached $18,000 last year.
In the continuing resolution, you provided--or we provided
$25 million to address the problem. We then provided an
additional $3 million in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus and
required the agency to provide a spending plan for these funds.
Now since then, my understanding is that you have
implemented two main strategies--a 10 percent bonus for the GS-
5 to -8, the rank-and-file firefighters, and a conversion of
part-time firefighters to full-time status. As of January, you
had 4,205 firefighters onboard out of a total of 4,432.
Now I am concerned because I think this is going to be a
big fire year again in my State, and we need to have the
Federal service up to par. Can you tell us that it will be?
Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. The firefighting effectiveness of
the Forest Service will be up to par, is up to par for this
oncoming season. We have been fighting fire all year across the
South into the Southwest. And with the fire just recently in
Santa Barbara, it was very early season but tested the
responsiveness of the State of California, the local fire
departments and the U.S. Forest Service.
With the retention bonus that was provided to those grades
5 through 8, where we saw perhaps the greatest difference in
recruitment and retention between the Forest Service and the
State of California, that is where we focused that retention
bonus. And with extending tours of duty to be yearlong, it
allowed employees then to participate in things like health
benefits and retirement benefits yearlong rather than the 9-
month season or 6-month season that they might have been
employed.
It does add duties. They will be working on nonfire-related
activities when it is no longer fire season.
In looking at the number of firefighters in California, I
still have to consider the number of firefighters across the
border in Arizona, firefighters in Oregon, Nevada. When we do
have a fire event, we bring in trained, experienced
firefighters from all over the country. And certainly, we have
hosted folks from all over in California over the last couple
of years.
I would like to--I want to believe that we won't have that
kind of season this year, but the numbers certainly indicate
that it will be a long season.
NATIONAL FORESTS BORDERING LAKE TAHOE
Senator Feinstein. Both the Governor of Nevada and the
Governor of California have declared the Tahoe forests, the
three national forests around Tahoe, in a state of emergency. I
am very concerned. When I have been to the lake--which is rare,
I must say--but when I can go, I notice very little burning
activity.
I am told that this is done by contractors, and that
contracting, seems to me, is really not what it should be. Can
you respond to that? I mean, these forests have to get cleaned
out of dead, dying, and down. And they aren't being, and that
is just a fact.
Ms. Kimbell. I just recently had the opportunity to visit
with Terri Marceron, who is our forest supervisor in South Lake
Tahoe. She was in here in Washington, DC, and I believe she met
with staff from your office and with a number of other folks
here in Washington, DC.
And Terri shared a pretty unique program that she has
implemented there on the Lake Tahoe basin unit, where she is
working with two counties in California and with the prison in
Nevada to actually have woody biomass removed. So rather than
burning piles, we actually have crews that are packing those
piles out of the forest and hauling them to cogeneration
facilities.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I am going back to the same trail
that I broke my ankle on last year----
Ms. Kimbell. I think I have a briefing paper on that.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Again this year. And when I
last went, there had been some burning of piles. But there were
10,000 piles. And they have been there for 3 years now, and
they themselves are a fire hazard. And this is the Meeks Bay
Trail.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. So I am going to be watching. I am
terribly worried about these forests because we have got a lot
of bark beetle. We have got a lot of dead trees. We have had
one fire. And the winds are westerly. They come over the Sierra
Nevadas, and they blow right down into the homes and into the
lake. And so, I hope you will give this your attention.
I would like to talk to you for a moment about the MAFFS
units.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
MODULAR AIRBORNE FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM (MAFFS)
Senator Feinstein. Particularly the new MAFFS units. You
are way down in planes. I don't have it right now, but I did
have it. You have gone from something like 44 to 19 planes. And
these MAFFS units are vital. Where are they in the United
States, and are they available now, the big ones, the new ones?
Ms. Kimbell. The new ones, I think they are called the
MAFFS II units----
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Ms. Kimbell [continuing]. There are a number of them
available. Aero Union is doing the work on that. We expect to
have eight, a combination of the old MAFFS and new MAFFS units
in service for this fire season, but not all of the new units
that Aero Union has been developing, not all those units are
going to be online.
But we do expect to have eight MAFFS units online for
firefighting this season.
Senator Feinstein. And where will they be located?
Ms. Kimbell. They are based in California, Nevada, and
Wyoming and North Carolina are training on the original MAFFS
systems with the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. And
Colorado Springs is training on the MAFFS II systems.
Senator Feinstein. So there are two for each of these
bases, each where they are based?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Is that right?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes. So I misspoke. Nevada is not in there.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. How many are operational now?
Ms. Kimbell. Eight.
Senator Feinstein. Are operational now. The training is
done, and they can fly?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes, the training is ongoing because some of
these fire seasons aren't--even though southern California
started very early, we still have a lot of snow in the Rockies
and across different places in the country. So I am not sure of
the exact status of the training, but we could certainly get
that for you.
[The information follows:]
MAFFS training for 2009 is complete. We have eight MAFFS available
for 2009. Two MAFFS are stationed at each of the following locations:
California (Port Hueneme), Wyoming (Cheyenne), Colorado (Colorado
Springs), and North Carolina (Charlotte).
Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that. California is
now in a perpetual drought, and things are very dry. And many
of us are very worried about what this year will bring, and I
just want to say that to the head person.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. That I believe it does need some special
attention. We have lost 3 million acres in the last 2 years
from wildfire, and what we find is the Santa Anas are blowing
hotter. And as you know, in 2008, we had 8,000 lightning
strikes on a given day, which started some 2,000 fires.
I flew out with the President, flew over Shasta, and it was
like a moonscape. Everything was burned, all around the
reservoir. It was just--it was a horror to behold. And I think
we are on an increasing crescendo with respect to fire in this
State.
So I would very much appreciate and welcome your attention
to it.
Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. And Senator, if there is an
opportunity to visit the Meeks Trail together, I would love to
do that, and I hope that we do get the opportunity----
Senator Feinstein. This weekend?
Ms. Kimbell. Oh.
I guess it would be free of snow, wouldn't it?
Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Alexander, you had additional
questions?
BIOMASS
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
If I could go back to the discussion we were having before,
I want to make sure I understood what you said. I believe you
said your report showed that there would be 40 million tons of
biomass a year, is that right, in the entire Forest Service
lands?
Ms. Kimbell. That is all forest lands. Forty million tons
of oven-dried woody biomass would be available across the
country from sustainably managed forests.
Senator Alexander. Oven-dried woody what?
Ms. Kimbell. Woody biomass.
Senator Alexander. And that is all forests?
Ms. Kimbell. That is all forests.
Senator Alexander. Not just the national----
Ms. Kimbell. Not just national forests.
Senator Alexander. Forty million tons. And you said in
Tennessee, it was 2.5 million tons?
Ms. Kimbell. Two and one-half million tons.
Senator Alexander. A year?
Ms. Kimbell. A year.
Senator Alexander. All right. Now the questions--well,
would it help with fire prevention if this biomass were removed
from the forests?
Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. And this has been a major focus of
our hazardous fuel reduction over the last 10 years, and there
are many more acres that need treatment. The estimates have run
from 40 to 60 million acres. There are some estimates that are
much higher.
But there is definitely a need for treatment of acres
across national forests, BLM, private lands. Certainly, we are
doing a much better job today of working across landscapes than
we were 10 years ago, just given this issue with fire and fire
potential and the woody biomass that is on the ground. But
having a market for this woody biomass is really critical to
make this cost effective for the American taxpayer.
Senator Alexander. Now the 40 million tons is on the
ground. You are not talking about dead or dying trees?
Ms. Kimbell. Oh, no. That does include dead and dying.
Senator Alexander. It does include dead and dying trees. So
you would like to see some biomass plants that would take large
amounts of this oven-dried woody biomass and turn it into
either fuel or electricity? That would be a help to the fire
prevention and other aspects of your operation?
Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. Having a market for this woody
biomass is really critical to make it cost effective.
Senator Alexander. Can you tell me what size powerplant, in
your estimation--and maybe this is a question for the
Department of Energy--what size powerplant for electricity that
40 million tons of oven-dried woody biomass would operate every
year? You don't need to tell me now.
Give me some idea of the kind of roads and trucks that
would be involved in the hauling of all this stuff to plants.
And any sort of judgment about whether, in the end, that whole
process is carbon neutral?
Ms. Kimbell. And actually, we have a couple of research
projects that are going on, one in California, where we are
trying to assess just exactly that. And hopefully, we will have
results from that study. But, yes, we can provide you with that
information.
Senator Alexander. That would be very helpful to me because
I think it would give all of us a lot of good information. It
may be well worth doing even if it isn't carbon neutral, but if
it also is carbon neutral, that would fit into the national
debate.
[The information follows:]
The generating capacity depends on the facility design and
conversion technologies used and their associated efficiencies. Some
technologies have been proven for woody biomass through commercial
deployment and use, while others are in the research, development, or
testing stages. Based on conversion and efficiency factors for the
proven technology of stand-alone wood biomass fired steam turbine
system, and the Energy Information Administration, 40 million oven dry
tons available annually would support an estimate of approximately
4,550 MW generating capacity. Depending on facility design and
operating hours, the amount could be less.
The existing transportation infrastructure including roads and
highways, rail, and barge, would be expected to be involved in
delivering material to conversion facilities. It is important to
consider that the logging operations infrastructure must be healthy and
in place to enable sustainable harvest of the material. Life-cycle
analysis of the biomass energy supply chain is an active area of
research for the Forest Service and our partners. Results of forest
management and harvest lifecycle analysis in the Pacific Northwest and
Southeastern United States obtained to date indicate that greenhouse
gas emissions vary between 2.5 and 12.5 percent of carbon in the wood,
depending on management regime and transportation.
SITING WIND ENERGY TURBINES
Senator Alexander. And then my last questions have to do
with the mountaintops. And different regions of the country
have more appropriate renewable energy. Biomass may very well
be an appropriate one for the southeastern United States, which
is why the Southern plant south of TVA is building its 100-
megawatt plant.
In the West, it may be that large wind turbines are fine. I
know at Rocky Flats, they are down on the ground. But my
impression is that all of the class I wind areas in the Eastern
United States are on ridge tops. Is that your impression as
well?
Ms. Kimbell. And I have not studied that issue carefully.
No, I don't know.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is my impression. And so, we
would end up putting these massive machines on ridge tops in
many parts of the area where the wind doesn't blow very well.
So the questions I would like for you to try to answer for me,
which you did to some direction, is how will your directives
take into account the importance of protecting viewsheds?
I mean, in our part of the world, we buy houses and live on
roads that are named Scenic Drive and Lookout Mountain and Blue
Ridge Parkway, and not 500-foot, 50-story tower, ``wind tower
parkway'' with the flashing lights. How closely are you working
with the Department of the Interior on drafting your policy?
Should these decisions along the ridge tops of Appalachia
from Georgia to Maine all be made by individual park
supervisors, or should there be some review at the national
level? Would it make more sense to first study and review all
these lands and then come to some conclusion about what we do?
I think you can see my own personal view is I think it is a
preposterous idea to take land we have set aside for recreation
and scenic and other uses and clutter it with eyesores that
don't produce much electricity. Even if they did produce
electricity, I think the people of our region would not want to
see that.
I mean, we are spending up to $40 million, for example, to
acquire Rocky Fork in the Cherokee National Forest, and then
the very idea of coming and putting in 50-story towers with
long transmission lines seems to me to be a preposterous
notion. So I would like to find some way to get an intelligent
set of--a framework within which we can consider the
appropriate siting of renewable energy, such as wind, on the
Appalachian chain running from Georgia up through Maine.
What are those considerations, and how do we make choices
between biomass, which, in our region, seems to be a very
appropriate form of renewable energy, and wind turbines on
ridge tops, which seems to me not to be?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, I believe there are two things. I think
this whole address to energy and alternative energy is far more
complex than maybe we have all acknowledged yet. But just all
the different complexities with--that come with some of these
different alternative energy sources is something that we do
need a larger discussion about, more discussion as we talk
about energy independence in the country.
And yet there are still questions about where is it
appropriate to drill for oil? Where is it appropriate to put
out solar panel arrays? Where is it appropriate for wind
turbines? And when are public lands appropriate for any of
those? I think that is part of a much larger discussion that we
are going to need to have.
We have had some public discussion about transmission
lines, and yet still there needs to be discussion about all
these different energy independence opportunities.
For wind energy, the Forest Service in 2007 posted in the
Federal Register a proposed directive. It was to help our field
organization have some consistency for how they evaluated wind
energy proposals on National Forest System lands.
We received more than 5,000 comments. We have been
reviewing those comments. We are discussing those with the
Department of Agriculture. We have worked closely with the BLM
through this whole process of preparing this consistent
direction to provide to our field for evaluating wind
proposals.
But always those--any of those proposals would have to be
considered in the context of the forest plans, and those forest
plans lay out how sustainability will be addressed on that
particular national forest and always visual characteristics
are something that are considered with each proposal that comes
in as when it is evaluated for how well it meets the forest
plan.
So there needs to be this much larger discussion, and at
the same time, this directive for how to analyze wind proposals
on National Forest System land is something that we hope to
have clarified and to the field here very soon.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Before turning to Senator Tester, Chief, would you please
submit your statement for the record?
Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. And it will be included in the record.
Ms. Kimbell. And I do have a written statement and----
Senator Feinstein. That is what I am referring to, right.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you. And I would like to submit it for
the record. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, right. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege
to be here today to discuss the President's budget request for the
Forest Service in fiscal year 2010. I appreciate the significant
support this subcommittee has repeatedly demonstrated for the Forest
Service. Working together, this subcommittee and the Forest Service
have served the public good by addressing issues from loss of open
space to wildfire, from crime on national forestland to improving fish
and other aquatic organism passage. With your continued support we will
keep providing more of the things the American public expects and
wants.
With the new administration, the Forest Service advances its
mission to sustain the Nation's forests and grasslands through direct
stewardship of the 193 million acres of the National Forest System,
technical assistance to State and private partners, and science. The
Forest Service continues to manage the National Forest System to
provide diverse benefits to the public such as clean water, fish and
wildlife habitat, recreation, and forest products. The Forest Service
will make progress in its partnerships with other Federal agencies,
States, local governments, tribes, and private landowners to sustain
forests and address climate change and other issues across the
landscape. The Forest Service will continue to develop innovative tools
and provide understanding of complex forest ecosystems through its
unique research program. And the Forest Service will continue to
advance forest management across the globe in our International
Programs.
The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request for the Forest
Service totals $5.2 billion in discretionary appropriations, a 9
percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. As part of
the budget, the President is proposing three major initiatives for the
Forest Service in addition to maintaining essential funding levels for
critical program areas.
Before discussing the fiscal year 2010 budget further, I would like
to thank this committee for your support of our mission by providing
$1.15 billion to the Forest Service through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The Forest Service is using these
funds to create over 20,000 new private sector jobs and promote
economic recovery, especially in those areas which the recession has
impacted most. In addition to restoring jobs and revitalizing
economies, the Forest Service ARRA projects will restore the land and
improve facilities and infrastructure, augmenting critical mission
objectives for the agency.
presidential initiatives
The fiscal year 2010 budget for the Forest Service includes three
Presidential initiatives: responsibly budget for wildfire suppression;
conserve new lands; and Protect the national forests. This suite of
initiatives addresses the challenges we face, including the three
themes I identified before last year's budget hearings: climate change,
water supply and quality, and loss of connection to nature, especially
for youth.
Responsibly Budget for Wildfire
Fires in recent years have become larger and more difficult to
control due to a variety of factors, including climate change;
persistent drought and hazardous fuels conditions; and the increased
magnitude and complexity of the wildland urban interface. As these
factors extend fire seasons and escalate cost, annual fire suppression
expenditures have routinely exceeded the amount budgeted for
suppression. Since 2002, the Forest Service has used the authority
provided by Congress to transfer over $2 billion from other programs to
fire suppression to cover these costs. Even when the transferred funds
are repaid through supplemental appropriations, these transfers result
in significant disruptions in the agency's ability to deliver its
program of work.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposes a strategy to responsibly
budget for wildfire that centers on three main tactics: fully fund the
10-year average suppression costs, establish a discretionary
contingency reserve account, and ensure fire management resources are
used in a cost-effective manner in high-priority areas. The budget
provides additional fire management resources for fire suppression that
reduce the likelihood or magnitude of transferring funds from other
critical Forest Service activities should fire costs exceed the 10-year
average for suppression costs.
The request to increase the fire suppression budget by $135 million
over fiscal year 2009, to fully fund the 10-year average for
suppression costs of $1.1 billion, represents a significant shift in
budgeting policy. In recent years, the Forest Service budget request
reduced funding for nonfire programs to maintain funding for the 10-
year average for suppression costs, to meet an overall budget cap. This
approach was in place even as the 10-year average cost for suppression
rose by nearly $600 million between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2008. The approach proposed in the 2010 budget preserves funding for
the Forest Service's nonsuppression programs despite rising fire costs.
In addition, the fiscal year 2010 President's budget proposes a
discretionary wildland fire contingency reserve of $282 million. The
fund would be available to the Secretary, subject to a Presidential
finding of need, once the suppression appropriation is exhausted and as
long as suppression is fully funded at the 10-year average. The fund
would enable the agency to respond to wildfires which threaten lives,
property, and resources on more than 210 million acres of agency-
protected lands, while minimizing the potential for the transfer of
funds from other Forest Service programs to suppression, ensuring that
resources for other critical Forest Service activities are available.
The request for the Department of the Interior includes a similar $75
million proposal.
Along with fully funding the 10-year average and the wildland fire
contingent reserve fund, the Forest Service will continue to deploy
analytic support tools to improve fire incident and program
decisionmaking, cost containment, and agency accountability. A number
of wildland fire decision support systems, such as FSPro, which models
fire behavior, and RAVAR, which models values at risk from fire,
provide real-time support to fire managers implementing risk-informed
management.
The projects accomplished through ARRA will augment these budgetary
efforts by restoring forests to a State in which they are less prone to
catastrophic fire. The bill provides $500 million for hazardous fuels
reduction, forest health protection, rehabilitation, and ecosystem
improvement. These funds will be evenly divided between Federal and
non-Federal lands. Up to $50 million of the $500 million are available
for wood-to-energy grants. These grants are being coordinated with
hazardous fuels treatments to maximize biomass available for energy
creation. We anticipate using these funds for hundreds of hazardous
fuels reduction, forest health, and ecosystem restoration projects
while creating jobs in economically distressed areas.
Conserve New Lands
While Americans can take great pride in our existing National
Forest System and other public lands, there are many landscapes and
ecosystems at risk. Fifty-seven percent, or 430 million acres, of our
Nation's forests are privately owned. Family forest owners and other
landowners are facing increasing pressure to develop their land, which
fragments ownership and converts environmentally important forests to
nonforest use. Conservation across a landscape is essential to address
large-scale conservation issues such as adaptation to climate change,
conservation of water resources, reduction of wildfire risk, and
protection of at-risk species.
The budget includes a $34 million Presidential initiative to
conserve new lands through the forest legacy program funded from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Funded at $91 million for
fiscal year 2010, the forest legacy program protects forested lands
under significant development pressures through acquisition of
conservation easements and fee-simple purchases. The easements acquired
protect air and water quality, provide access to national forests, and
provide habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife and fish. This
budget proposes spending $119 million of the LWCF through the Forest
Service as part of broader effort to conserve land by increasing LWCF
appropriations for the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to
$420 million.
Protect the National Forests
The national forests face significant challenges to both protect
new investments and sustain older infrastructure. Ecologically
sustainable investments in roads, trails, and facilities made through
ARRA require resources to protect those new assets through maintenance.
The National Forest System has a transportation system that is not
suited to its modern needs and requires realignment to ``right-size''
the system for the future. A number of Forest Service facilities have
urgent health and safety maintenance needs that, if not addressed,
could result in those facilities' closure.
The fiscal year 2010 President's budget augments the work to be
accomplished via the ARRA by including a $50 million Presidential
initiative to protect the national forests by extending and enhancing
those investments. This initiative demonstrates the Forest Service's
commitment to maintaining a healthy environment by addressing critical
maintenance and operational components of the Forest Service. These
funds will be a cornerstone for sustaining a healthy environment, and
will be focused on three priorities which will: protect the investments
made through the ARRA; implement travel management plans with an
emphasis on decommissioning unnecessary roads; and address urgent
health and safety needs at facilities. These strategic investments will
reduce the agency's overall maintenance and operational costs in future
years, result in infrastructure that is more energy efficient, and
reduce potential harm to the environment.
focal points for the forest service
Climate Change
Forests and grasslands produce many ecosystem services on which our
Nation relies: clean water, clean air, wildlife habitats, biological
diversity, recreation, and forest products. However, research shows
that climate change is currently stressing the Nation's ecosystems and
their ability to provide those services. These effects are very likely
to accelerate in the future, in some cases destabilizing these forests.
Disrupted ecosystems could have a decreased ability to provide the
services upon which Americans rely. Many of the most urgent forest and
grassland management problems of the past 20 years, such as wildfires,
changes in water quality and quantity, and expanding forest insect
infestations, have been driven, in part, by changing climate. The
effects and magnitude of climate change vary across the country, but we
must act now to be able to address these issues as they arise.
The Forest Service will use the best available science to assess
the influence of climate change on the Nations forests and grasslands.
We will focus on how climate change affects the forests and grasslands
as well as how land management can influence the reduction in global
greenhouse gases. Climate change will be integrated into land
management plans by describing desired conditions, objectives and
standards. The Forest Service will also continue research and
monitoring efforts to improve our understanding of climate change.
The budget continues support for key programs that enable the
agency to achieve these goals. The forest and rangeland research
request includes $27 million for research programs on climate change.
The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $25 million for revising land
management plans and $26 million for conducting land management plan
assessments, which enable national forests to address climate change in
forest planning. The fiscal year 2010 budget maintains a steady $653
million for wildlife and fisheries management; vegetation and watershed
management; and forest products. These programs endow the agency with
the ability to adapt to climate change's effects on National Forest
System lands, ensuring resilient ecosystems. In fiscal year 2010, the
Forest Service will build on a fiscal year 2009 investment of $825,000
to promote sustainable operations in order to reduce the agency's own
environmental footprint.
Water
Our society requires adequate supplies of clean freshwater as a
source of drinking water and as an engine for both agriculture and
industry. While freshwater is a renewable resource, it is also a
limited resource that requires careful stewardship to ensure it will
meet the needs of present and future generations. In the last few
years, we have seen the threats of drought to drinking water, forests,
and agriculture throughout the country, from California to Wisconsin to
Georgia. With the importance of this vital resource, we must act to
ensure we are prepared to address the increasing scarcity of clean
water.
The Forest Service plays a significant role in management of our
Nation's water, given that 58 percent of our water supply originates as
precipitation on forest lands, both on State and private lands and on
National Forest System lands. Our agency maintains partnerships that
address nearly 560 million acres of forested watersheds on non-Federal
lands that provide drinking water to over 138 million people. Another
70 million people get their drinking water from national forests and
grasslands.
To ensure that National Forest System lands can continue to be a
source for clean water, the Forest Service will conserve, maintain, and
restore watersheds to sustain the ecosystems they support and the
services they provide; secure water of sufficient quantity and quality
to sustain aquatic and terrestrial life; develop and advance knowledge
and shared learning central to managing forest and grassland water
resources and watershed conditions expected in the future; and
facilitate watershed-based partnerships to foster conservation and
citizen stewardship.
Currently, we are finalizing an inventory of the issues affecting
National Forest System water resources, identifying actions that we can
take to meet this crisis head-on, and developing materials to share
with the public and our partners.
The Forest Service supports key programs that position the agency
to address water-related challenges. The fiscal year 2010 budget
includes $57 million for managing aquatic habitat and $60 million for
maintaining and improving watershed conditions. These programs provide
the base for efforts integrated across many other programs that secure
ample supplies of clean water.
Kids in the Woods
As our Nation and especially our Nation's children develop more
sedentary or more urban habits, we risk being disconnected from our
environment. Being active in nature establishes healthy habitats and
creates personal connections to nature, fostering a conservation ethic.
Our Nation's urban and rural forests offer the setting for those active
outdoor experiences, elucidating the contribution that the Forest
Service can make to the national movement to bring children to nature
and nature to children.
The Forest Service budget maintains funding to engage children in
outdoor activities that will establish a meaningful and lasting
connection to nature. The Forest Service has been active in youth
contact programs for decades and is active in communities throughout
the United States. The fiscal year 2010 budget continues a $500,000
investment for the More Kids in the Woods cost-share award program. In
fiscal year 2008, the program, in its second year, leveraged a 3:1
ratio of funds on 16 projects that engaged 20,000 youth with nature.
Beyond the work done through the More Kids in the Woods cost-share
program, the budget provides $29 million for urban and community
forestry and $5 million for recreation research, programs that support
this effort. The budget continues steady funding levels for recreation
of $280 million and wildlife interpretation and education of $9
million, forming a base of work for this effort on national forests. In
fiscal year 2010, the Forest Service will emphasize delivery of
conservation education programs to underserved communities in urban and
rural settings.
conclusion
The Forest Service presents its fiscal year 2010 budget positioned
to fulfill its mission of sustaining the health, diversity, and
productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
of present and future generations. The budget supports the priorities
of responsible budgeting for wildfires; of proactively addressing
infrastructure needs to protect Forest Service facilities, roads, and
trails; of conserving new lands; and of responding to climate change.
This suite of monetary and management emphases enable the Forest
Service to adapt to future challenges while continuing to conduct
ground-breaking research, provide vital assistance to landowners and
resource managers, and sustainably steward national forests and
grasslands. Thank you and I look forward to our dialogue today.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And it is good to have you here, Gail. I appreciate the
opportunity to visit with you a little bit about what is going
on.
HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT
And I know that Senator Feinstein talked a little bit about
fire, and I am going to probably spend a little more time on
that. Real quickly, looking at the budget, there is a 14
percent increase in fire suppression. There is a $218 million
suppression contingency amount. There is about $2.5 billion of
the $5.2 billion budget that is going to go for wild land fire
management.
In Montana, and I think fair to say in a lot of other areas
in the United States, we are experiencing a lot of disease, a
lot of beetle kill. I flew up from Salt Lake to Great Falls
here a month ago, looked down. That forest is dead. It is
primarily a different color of green than what you see, and
that is not a good thing.
Are those kind of dollars adequate, and I am not talking--I
think a lightning strike and a good wind, and you are not going
to have enough money to fight anything. It is going to burn.
But are those kind of dollars adequate not only to take
care of regular fires, but also, more importantly, deal with
the forest management that has to be done in our national
forests?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, I probably need to preface that with
thanking the subcommittee for your support to the Forest
Service for including us in the ARRA and the $250 million that
is focused on hazardous fuel reduction work on National Forest
System lands. That will be a tremendous help through 2009, 2010
in addressing some of those hazardous fuel loading on National
Forest System lands.
This budget, the 2010 budget, though, is a far better
starting point than I have been able to present to you in my
whole tenure as chief. It does hold vegetation management flat.
It does hold all of the National Forest System programs
essentially flat.
So it doesn't increase the level of activity in forest
management work, active management work on the ground, though
the $250 million from ARRA will be a tremendous help.
Senator Feinstein. We may just change that, Senator, and
increase it.
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
Senator Tester. Okay. And I would say this--and this is no
reflection on you, Gail. The bar was pretty low on some of
these previous budgets. I would just tell you that.
So I will shift gears a little bit because I know Senator
Feinstein has the same issues with fire in the forests that we
do in Montana, in California, and there are other areas, too.
I want to talk a little bit about collaborative
partnerships and how the Forest Service views groups like
Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Quincy Library Group (QLP), Yak, and
Blackfoot. How do you deal with those? Do you have a set of
operating procedures to deal with collaborative groups that
want to help, but yet you have the job, they don't?
Ms. Kimbell. Every one of them is different because of the
local needs, the local interests, the local energy that people
bring to it. We encourage all folks considering in pulling
together a collaborative group to make it as diverse as
possible to include the diversity of interests in those public
lands. We really welcome the energy that comes with those.
One that happened in Montana was the group that has been
meeting to develop restoration guidelines for Ponderosa Pine in
western Montana, and it was a very difficult and yet fabulous
exercise in bringing people together from all different
interest areas to put together a common set of restoration
guidelines. It has been fabulous work and very, very helpful.
Senator Tester. Are you able to utilize--I mean, I think
these folks are an asset, from my perspective, but I don't sit
in the chair you are sitting in. Are you able to utilize when
they do get collaborative groups together and come up with an
agreement? How do you utilize those recommendations?
Ms. Kimbell. The greater the diversity in the group, the
more useful the information. So that if a group has worked to
include the breadth of interests that we need to include when
we consider different activities on national forests, it makes
it more readily transferable.
STIMULUS PROJECTS CONTRACTING
Senator Tester. I wanted to ask just a little bit on the
stimulus jobs recovery monies. Away from the fire management
for a second, then we will get back to it. But if my time has
run out, we can come back.
Senator Feinstein. Please, go ahead.
Senator Tester. Okay. We can come back to this. But those
monies are there for two reasons. Number one, it is to get
people employed in areas where there is high unemployment and
depressed economic conditions. And the other thing, in your
particular case, is to get the forests cleaned up.
Is there any assurance that, for instance, there is a fair
amount of money that is going to be heading up to the area
around the Yak and Libby. Can you give me any assurances that
those jobs for cleanup, those chainsaws that are going to be in
the forests that are going to be doing the hazardous fuel
reduction will actually go to anybody from that area?
Ms. Kimbell. All of these projects that are contracted will
be contracted using the Federal acquisition regulations. And
so, there aren't special regulations that apply to these ARRA
projects. We expect that given places like Libby, Troy, and
Yak, that there are a lot of people trained in those different
kinds of activities who can compete for those jobs. But there
is no guarantee, no, that they will go to local people.
Senator Tester. How is the Forest Service--how are they
letting local residents know? I mean, the people who typically
contract, they know all the rules. They know all the hoops to
jump through. The guy that is trying to feed his family with a
chainsaw sitting in his hand doesn't have a whole bunch of the
bureaucratic experience, number one, and, number two, maybe
doesn't even have the time because he is probably working--or
she is probably working--several other jobs.
So how is the Forest Service reaching out in these local
communities to let people know how to be a part of the puzzle?
Ms. Kimbell. And I can probably get for you something far
more specific because what I could give you today would be
anecdotal.
[The information follows:]
ARRA legislation requires that we, to the maximum extent possible,
award contracts on a competitive basis. In doing so we cannot predict
nor directly control who is the successful bidder. We do, however,
award based on best value, and part of the best value evaluation is the
economic impact on small local communities. This impact can be as a
result of direct employment, subcontracts, and purchase of supplies
from local sources.
On March 10, 2009, the Director of the Forest Service Acquisition
Management Staff sent a letter to Forest Service leadership asking that
they be innovative in preparing projects for contracts, grants, or
agreements funded by the Recovery Act. The letter stated the following:
``The Forest Service is in a unique position to focus our spending
in communities near public lands, which are unlikely to receive funding
from other agencies. Many of these communities have high poverty rates
and chronically high unemployment rates. The closure of just one or two
businesses in these areas can spike local unemployment rates.
I encourage you to be innovative in your approach to project design
and layout, project packaging, solicitation methods, and awarding of
grants and agreements in order to maximize economic benefit for the
hardest hit communities.''
Senator Tester. That would be fine.
Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
Senator Tester. That would be fine. I just want to make
sure that they have a shot. Sometimes the best-laid plans end
up going--and I agree you have to be competitive--but if you
don't know how to get through the door, you can't be
competitive. That is all.
And I am not saying that is the case here at all. I just
want to make sure that they get a shot at it.
Ms. Kimbell. Well, my focus with ARRA from the beginning
has been jobs, jobs, jobs. And I know that at the local level,
our rangers, our forest supervisors, our people in the local
communities have been talking to people and even putting
together their project submittals and all, looking at the
capacity in the community and really working to play to that
capacity.
Senator Tester. I really appreciate that. I will tell you
in the area I am talking about, you are talking unemployment up
16 percent and above.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Senator Tester. And these folks are skilled, but the wood
products industry has tanked. You know that.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Senator Tester. And so that we could not only put people to
work doing good work, but these folks are used to working hard
and they are used to working with their hands.
So thank you.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Senator.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
I would like to ask one last question on a subject that I
have had a good deal of conversation with of your forest
supervisors, and that is the Quincy Library Group, which has
been a very frustrating exercise.
You know, Quincy was supposed to be about collaboration. We
had terrible fires up in the Lassen and the Plumas forests. And
you had the environmentalists on one side, and you had people
who own property, who were business people on the other. And
so, they went to the only place where they couldn't yell at
each other, and that was the Quincy Library. And for years,
they worked to collaborate and work out an agreement.
And the agreement was based on putting in firebreaks in
areas that were critical, where you could get some timbering
from those firebreaks but, at the same time, prevent the kind
of catastrophic hot fire, which was now built up by the
nonnative growth down below and really taking out the canopies
of old growth, as well as any endangered species that happened
to reside in those canopies. And they came up with a project,
and now it has been lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
So I met with some of your supervisors--interestingly
enough, all women--and it was very interesting for me and
wonderful to see in San Francisco recently. And we went over
how there was effective collaboration in at least two of the
forests and, I think, some problems in the third.
But the bottom line was that the Forest Service has
provided my staff yesterday acreage targets having to do with
the Lassen, which runs around 22,000 acres; the Plumas, which
is about 7,000 acres to be treated; and the Tahoe, which is
about 3,900 or 4,700 acres. And yet there are a number that
still need to be agreed upon.
And I would like to ask for your oversight in seeing that
that gets done. Again, the worry is that we have another
catastrophic fire, and this has been years and years of trying
to work this out.
Ms. Kimbell. And Senator, last year, I had the opportunity
to be there on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and then on
the Plumas during that great big fire event following the June
21 lightning storm. And I got to be in one of those areas where
the Quincy Library Group had struggled for so long to come to
agreement as to how it might be managed, and it had finally
made it through all the legal process and then got caught up in
one of those fires and burned hard. Burned very, very hard.
I was there with the forest supervisor and the district
ranger, and that was----
Senator Feinstein. So if we had done it 10 years ago, when
we tried to do it?
Ms. Kimbell. The fire may not have been as big as it was or
as hot as it was, and the damage that it did to the watershed.
So this year, we are expecting to treat overall with Quincy
Library Group 30 projects, 18,000 acres, and there is the
potential for more if there are some things that can work
through the collaboration. And we are very hopeful.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you, is that enough to keep a
mill alive and the jobs or not?
Ms. Kimbell. It is 150,000 million board feet. That is a
lot of wood, and yet given the market conditions across the
country, it is still very difficult to keep a market alive when
the Random Lengths Index is so very low. And with all the
announcements that have been coming from California and from
Montana about the competitiveness in the world, it really makes
it hard to keep a mill open in the United States.
Senator Feinstein. I just want to say I very much welcome
your oversight and trying to push people. You know, there is an
effort at collaboration. There is an effort at compromise.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And it seems to me that unless--if this
fails, the only alternative is for us to go ahead with very
stringent legislation like a categorical exemption, which
nobody wants to do. But that is all we are left with if these
fires keep happening, and you have got the collaboration
between the environmentalists and others to try to solve the
problem and they can't solve the problem.
Ms. Kimbell. And we very much want QLG to be successful, as
well as a number of other collaborative groups. These are
people giving their own time, coming together weekend after
weekend or Tuesday night after Tuesday, drinking bad coffee
to--well, I don't know. Maybe they drink good coffee?
Senator Feinstein. I have spoken to Senator Tester about
this, and he has the same issues in his State. There, he really
believes that collaboration is going to work, and I hope that
is true because there are so many problems in these forests.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes, and having the social license to be able
to do the work we need to do to be able to avoid this kind of
catastrophic damage that we have been seeing over the last 10
years from wildfire is very, very important. We need to have a
market that will be able to use these materials that we remove,
and we need to have the social license to be able to remove
those materials.
And these collaborative groups have been a tremendous help
in moving some of that forward.
Senator Feinstein. That is right. Thank you.
Senator, do you have additional questions?
If I may, I am going to turn this hearing over to you----
Senator Alexander. And I will be right behind you.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And then if you have to
leave?
Senator Alexander. Jon, do you have any other questions?
Senator Tester. I don't. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I have to go to the floor. So----
Senator Alexander. Well, I don't really have another
question. I think you have been very helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. May I say thank you, Chief, very, very
much. I have come to watch you and know you over the years and
really believe you are doing a good job.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. And I want to thank all of your staff
and people for this. American forests are very important to us,
and the work you do is very much appreciated.
So thank you, and thank you very much.
Ms. Kimbell. Thanks so much, Madam Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
fuels
Question. Since 2006, more than 3 million acres have burned in my
home State of California alone. It's clear that more progress must be
made to treat hazardous fuels in order to deal with the dead, dying,
and downed trees on our national forests. How many high-priority acres
does the Forest Service have nationwide that require treatment? How
much progress has the agency made toward treating these priority acres?
Answer. The LANDFIRE project will provide a national appraisal of
vegetative conditions and provide information which will allow the
agency to make an informed assessment of the number of high-priority
acres that need to be treated to mitigate the wildfire situation.
Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, the Forest Service treated more
than 17.6 million acres of hazardous fuels nationwide across National
Forest System lands. Treatments were conducted in high- priority areas
to create or maintain conditions that are at a reduced risk of
catastrophic fire. Additional funding has been provided to the States
to reduce fire hazard on State and private lands.
firefighter retention
Question. As you know, the subcommittee provided $28 million this
fiscal year to fund recruitment and retention initiatives for areas
like California that face staffing shortages. I have not yet received
the final spending plan for these funds required by the 2009 Interior
bill. What are the details of how the money will be used? How are you
using these funds to ensure your firefighting corps is fully staffed,
and why did you select the initiatives you chose? What evidence do you
have that these initiatives are working?
Answer. The Forest Service appreciates the patience of the
Appropriations Committee in allowing the agency to develop a
comprehensive recruitment and retention plan. The regional forester
implemented a process across the State with line officers and employees
to identify integrated elements for retention within his authority in
four areas: mission related to fire suppression, workplace improvement,
fire facilities, and pay. The approaches taken are expected to improve
firefighter retention within the region and will be monitored to ensure
their effectiveness. The region's efforts include:
--Fire Suppression Mission.--The regional forester has reiterated the
Agency's fire suppression focus for National Forest System
lands and his commitment to agency policy, and the 2008
Wildland Urban Interface Operating Principles. Additionally,
the Regional Forester has reiterated the Agency's role in ``all
risk'' missions based on Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 5, including the expectation that Agency
participation in medical response should be by exception, and
not the rule.
--Workplace Improvement.--The regional forester will implement a wide
range of actions including increased opportunities for
leadership training at all levels, authorizing additional
administrative and technical support personnel at local units,
authorizing the promotion of apprentice employees to GS-5
within the program, and authorizing permanent, seasonal tours
for firefighters outside of the Apprentice program to be
adjusted to permanent full-time tours (for those employees
wishing to do so).
--Fire Facilities.--A list of projects that would have an impact
toward improving health, safety, and mission capacity has been
developed. Once funding is available, the regional forester
will provide direction to implement these projects. In the long
term, the regional forester will direct the region to complete
the strategic facility master plan, which will allow fire
facility needs to be analyzed on a regional scale instead of
the forest-by-forest process currently in place.
--Pay.--The regional forester has taken actions within his authority:
--Firefighter Seasonal to Permanent Full-time Tour Conversion.--On
March 4, 2009, the regional forester authorized forest
supervisors to convert permanent seasonal firefighter
positions to permanent full-time. Permanent seasonal
firefighters are those employees who normally work 6-9
months per year and are in a nonpay status for the balance
of the year. Approximately 1,555 positions are eligible for
the conversion, but more than 700 of those positions are
currently vacant and reserved for apprentice firefighters
who are ineligible for conversion. Apprentices will be
placed into those vacancies as permanent full-time
firefighters upon completion of their training. In fiscal
year 2010, the region estimates that approximately 780
formerly seasonal positions will have been converted to
full time resulting in an increased cost to the region of
about $9.5 million. In future years, as employee retention
levels increase and apprentices graduate into current
vacancies, the number of formerly seasonal positions that
have been converted to full time will increase annual costs
to the region. The potential increased costs to the region
could rise as high as $21.5 million a year if all 1,555
positions are eventually converted. However, these
employees will be available to perform project work in
ecosystem restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, biomass-
to-energy, and other important agency priorities.
--Firefighter 10 Percent Retention Incentive.--On March 1, 2009, a
10 percent retention incentive for GS-5 through GS-8
firefighters was authorized. Thirteen hundred (1,300)
firefighters received the benefit, which will continue to
be reflected in employees' paychecks. The current
authorization is for 1 year (26 pay periods). The retention
incentive will be reviewed prior to expiration in 2010 to
determine if it is having an effect on attrition patterns.
The additional cost for the 10 percent retention incentive
for 1 year is approximately $7 million.
In addition, the agency is assessing the options of a new wildland
firefighter series and a special salary rate for California. Both of
these options will require Office of Personnel Management approval. The
agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment and retention
plan actions with two metrics. First, the region will assess vacancy
rate trends in GS-6 through GS-8 positions. Second, agency will monitor
the resignation trends of firefighters.
Question. Does the Forest Service plan to renew retention efforts
in California for the coming fiscal year, fiscal year 2010? Your budget
request didn't include funds to continue retention initiatives and, in
fact, flat-lined the fire preparedness budget at $675 million. If the
Forest Service plans to continue these efforts, how do you propose to
pay for them?
Answer. The agency will assess the effectiveness of the regional
recruitment and retention actions at the end of the fiscal year. The
actions taken this year will increase annual baseline costs. We expect
that any actions will be funded through regional program funding
allocations along with carryover from the original earmark of $25
million to cover the costs of renewing the 10 percent retention
incentive and the projected promotion of permanent seasonal employees
to permanent full-time status.
Question. It is my understanding that the Forest Service is also
continuing to look at other potential, long-term retention strategies,
which include a special pay rate, a firefighter GS series, and a
portal-to-portal pay system. Please provide me with specific updates on
what steps you are taking to consider each of these strategies,
including a timeline for review and decisionmaking for each. Please
include any information that is available on current cost projections
for implementing each of these strategies.
Answer. The agency is looking at several long-term strategies.
--Firefighter Series.--The agency is nearly finished assessing
options and estimating the workload necessary to develop a
proposal for a new wildland firefighter job series. The
assessment requires an extensive job analysis to determine job
requirements and is a Service-wide effort being coordinated
with other wildland fire agencies in the Department of the
Interior. Once the job analysis and proposal is completed,
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will make the final
determination. Completing the analysis and gaining approval
from the OPM will take time.
--Special Salary Rate.--The Forest Service currently has a special
salary rate for wildland firefighters in certain southern
California counties. For most GS grades (GS-3 through GS-9),
the special salary rate is slightly above the locality pay for
these areas. For GS grades starting at the GS-10, the locality
pay is actually higher than the special rate in both the Los
Angeles and San Diego area. The agency is currently analyzing
the effect of the current special salary rate and whether a
special salary rate for the rest of California would affect
recruiting and retaining firefighters. The analysis will
consider effects from the 10 percent retention incentive.
Similar to requirements for a new firefighter series, the OPM
requires a rigorous analysis and justification for any new
special salary rate. The analysis will take time for the agency
to prepare and work with the OPM.
--Portal-to-Portal Pay.--This option is not being considered by the
agency at this time.
The cost for each of these is not known.
marijuana enforcement on national forest lands
Question. Over the past 3 years, I've worked to increase the Forest
Service's law enforcement budget by $25 million to fight marijuana
cultivation on national forests. I'm extremely concerned that
cultivation sites continue to be a danger to public safety, as these
gardens are often guarded by armed drug traffickers. What progress have
you made in eradicating these marijuana gardens? Please provide
relevant statistics, both nationally and for California only, to
support your response (i.e., number of plants eradicated, number of
arrests made, number of prosecutions, etc.).
Answer. The Forest Service has made the following progress in
eradicating the marijuana gardens both nationally and for California as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Nationally 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana plants eradicated..................................... 1,221,989 2,050,368 3,295,870
Sites eradicated................................................ 497 462 714
Sites tended by foreign nationals............................... 216 256 245
Felony drug arrests............................................. 327 319 424
Firearms seized................................................. 249 274 330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Region 5 (California) 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana plants eradicated..................................... 1,060,114 1,878,589 2,655,916
Sites eradicated................................................ 250 328 437
Sites tended by foreign nationals............................... 197 241 208
Felony drug arrests............................................. 78 78 198
Firearms seized................................................. 37 71 154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I am very concerned about natural resource damage caused
by marijuana gardens. I believe that efforts to clean up these sites
will require dedicated funding. In fiscal year 2009, I provided a
$500,000 increase to your budget specifically to clean up national
forest lands after drug eradication operations. How will the funds be
used? Did you continue these funds in your budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act earmarked
$500,000 for rehabilitation of drug cultivation sites. This earmark was
distributed in the final allocation based on each region's percent of
cultivation sites identified in the LEIMARS database. The following
regions received additional funding for restoration of drug cultivation
sites: region 3--$10,000; region 4--$15,000; region 5--$310,000; region
8--$140,000; and region 9--$25,000. Regions were also provided
direction that additional vegetation and watershed management program
funds may be utilized for rehabilitation of drug cultivation sites,
based on regional watershed restoration objectives and priorities. In
addition to these funds, regions should utilize minerals and geology
management program funds for the clean-up of sites contaminated with
hazardous materials.
The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request increased funding
for watershed restoration activities from $57.1 million in fiscal year
2009 to $60.2 million in fiscal year 2010. Accomplishment of drug site
restoration would be prioritized along with other watershed restoration
needs, including those generated by wildfire and other natural events.
Watershed restoration needs in high- priority watersheds, such as
municipal watersheds will receive priority for available restoration
dollars; and this will include treatment of drug cultivation sites with
the potential to impact water quality in these watersheds.
Question. How much additional funding is needed to clean up
remaining cultivation sites, both nationally and in California?
Answer. The agency will address reclamation and restoration with
available funding on a priority basis. Cost for individual site
reclamation will vary greatly, and a comprehensive assessment of these
costs has not been completed. These sites create extensive resource
damage, such as terraced soils, access trails; stream diversions;
vegetation and timber removed, hazardous chemicals and buried
irrigation systems.
firefighting aviation needs
Question. The Forest Service primarily depends on an aging fleet of
old military P2-V and P-3 aircraft to serve as air tankers for initial
attack on wildfires. The Forest Service is currently contracting 18 air
tankers to fight fires--that's down from a peak of 44 aircraft in
2002--and I am very concerned that you continue to lose more aircraft
each year to accidents and airworthiness concerns. How long will the
rest of your air tanker fleet be able to fly safely? Please provide
specific data for both types of aircraft.
Answer. The P-3 is currently supported by the manufacturer,
Lockheed Martin, which provides service life extension programs for
these aircraft as they approach retirement. The P2-V, however, is not
supported by a manufacturer. We anticipate that P2-V fleet could be
expended as early as 2022. Aircraft accidents continue to reduce
airtanker numbers by approximately .5 aircraft per year.
Question. What role will the Modular Airborne FireFighting System
(MAFFS) II units need to play as the Forest Service's air tanker fleet
ages?
Answer. The MAFFS program has traditionally provided additional
capacity for the Forest Service and our interagency partners. The MAFFS
II is a significant improvement in design and operational
effectiveness. We are looking forward to continued partnership with the
military and the MAFFS II tanks. At this time we do not anticipate
needing additional MAFFS units to support the wildland fire program.
Question. In 2005, the subcommittee directed the Forest Service to
review its fleet and analyze future firefighting aviation needs. I
understand that effort led to the development of a new firefighting
aviation strategy, including recommendations that pertain to the future
of the Forest Service's air tanker fleet. You have not yet made this
strategy public. What is the administration's timeline for the release
of this strategy? When will you make a copy of this strategy available
to the subcommittee and to the public?
Answer. The Forest Service, in cooperation with our interagency
partners, has completed an extensive Interagency Aviation Strategy
calling for replacement of critical firefighting assets. This document
has been forwarded to the Acting Deputy Undersecretary for Natural
Resources and Environment, USDA for discussion. Once discussion and
review is complete we anticipate a decision.
cabin user fees
Question. What is the total annual cost to the Forest Service for
administering the recreation residence program for each of the past 5
fiscal years, including projected costs for fiscal year 2009? How many
full-time employees (FTE) does the program require? Please provide the
basis for how the costs were calculated, and separate out direct and
indirect costs.
Answer. The Forest Service accounting system does not distinguish
the cost of performing recreation residence permit administration from
the cost of processing and administering recreational permits overall.
In fiscal year 2009, the total for the administration of recreation
special use authorizations is estimated at $43.1 million and 338 FTEs.
Of that planned amount, approximately $6.7 million are indirect costs
or about 15.5 percent. The fiscal year 2009 estimate for administering
recreation special uses overall is based on regions' capability data.
The indirect cost estimate is based on fiscal year 2008 actual
expenditures and that same indirect cost percentage is applied to
fiscal year 2009 planned levels.
Question. What are the real and projected costs to the Forest
Service for implementing the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000
(CUFFA) for the past 5 fiscal years, including fiscal year 2009? How
much is budgeted for fiscal year 2010? Please separate direct and
indirect costs.
Answer. The cost of implementing the CUFFA is reflected in the
direct appraisal costs estimated at $7 million from fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2012 and an additional $1.3 million in indirect
costs. CUFFA did not result in a significant increase in direct
appraisal costs per appraisal cycle, but by requiring appraisals every
10 years as opposed to the previous policy of every 20 years, CUFFA
effectively doubled these costs. Indirectly, CUFFA resulted in a
significant amount of time and money devoted to the writing of
regulations, meeting with interested parties, and responding to the
controversy generated by its implementation. The agency does not
separately track these costs, as it is part of overall recreation
permit program costs.
Question. Specifically, what are the costs of new appraisals to
implement CUFFA in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009? What appraisal
costs are budgeted for fiscal year 2010? What is the expected total
cost of an entire appraisal cycle for all forests? Please explain how
the overall CUFFA implementation costs and the appraisal costs were
determined.
Answer. Costs of new appraisal are spread out from fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2012. Our accounting system does not split out
these specific costs, but the agency has developed the following
estimates based on known direct contract costs and review appraiser
costs, and then projecting forward. An estimated additional $1.3
million over fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2012 is estimated for
indirect costs.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Indirect
Fiscal year estimate estimate Total estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................................ 1,600 300 1,900
2008............................................................ 1,800 300 2,100
2009............................................................ 1,600 300 1,900
2010............................................................ 1,000 200 1,200
2011............................................................ 600 100 700
2012............................................................ 400 100 500
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 7,000 1,300 8,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much revenue did the Federal Government receive from
the fees paid for recreation residence permits in fiscal year 2008?
Under current law and policies, how much revenue is the Federal
Government projected to receive from fees paid for recreation residence
permits in each fiscal years from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2014?
Answer. In fiscal year 2008, revenue received was $14.6 million.
Assuming there is little change in fees from second appraisals and
assuming the increase indicated from the completed appraisals is
representative for the whole, the agency projects $40 million in annual
fees upon full implementation. The last appraisals will be reviewed in
fiscal year 2012 and will begin a 3-year phase-in in fiscal year 2014.
Breaking out the increase over the intervening years would indicate the
following estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2009........................................ 20
Fiscal year 2010........................................ 22
Fiscal year 2011........................................ 24
Fiscal year 2012........................................ 26
Fiscal year 2013........................................ 32
Fiscal year 2014........................................ 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Question Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
forest legacy program
Question. As you know, in the East, we feel very strongly about the
need for funds to help us leverage purchases to protect land, and the
Forest Legacy program is a vital part of that. The administration's
fiscal year 2010 budget includes $1 million for a new, Community
Forests Program within Forest Legacy. Is the Forest Service committed
to ensuring robust funding for the Forest Legacy program and also
ensuring that funding levels for successful existing programs, such as
Forest Legacy, will not be adversely impacted as a result of funding
for new programs?
Answer. Both the Forest Legacy and Community Forests programs are
important conservation tools that the Forest Service uses to conserve
important open space and forest resources. In addition to the $1
million for a new Community Forests program within the Forest Legacy
program, the President's budget also included $34 million for the
President's ``Conserve New Lands'' initiative. This new initiative
reflects the administration's priorities in land conservation. The
commitment to the program is also reinforced through the participation
from States; in fiscal year 2010, 44 States submitted 87 projects with
a value of $194 million. While the Forest Service is dedicated to all
of its programs, it is explicitly committed to fulfilling the
President's goals with respect to this new effort.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. The hearing is recessed.
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., Wednesday, May 20, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]