[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:33 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 TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On
behalf of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing on the fiscal year
2011 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
I am pleased to welcome Tom Tidwell, the new Chief of the
USFS. Chief, this is the first time you have had the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee, so I want to
say we are all looking forward to your testimony and to working
with you. Given all the changes in your proposed budget
request, it is clear that we have a good deal to discuss.
The President's request provides $5.38 billion for the
USFS. That is an increase of $61 million, or 1 percent. Despite
the constraints reflected on this budget, there are a number of
important programs that receive increases.
In particular, the budget request provides a total of $2.64
billion for all wildland fire activities. That is an increase
of $129 million over the enacted level. That is 5 percent.
Within that amount, hazardous fuels reduction activities are
funded at $349 million, roughly equal to this year's level.
The budget also proposes $1.59 billion to fund operations
for the Nation's forests and grasslands. That is a 2 percent
increase. And State and private forestry programs receive a 4
percent increase, for a total of $321 million. Land
acquisitions increase by 16 percent, for a total of $74
million.
Now, there are also a number of program cuts. Funding for
construction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trails
is cut by 21 percent for a total of $438 million. Road
construction and maintenance is cut by 31 percent, for a total
of $164 million. And this cut comes despite the fact that the
service reports a $3 billion backlog in road maintenance as
part of its budget request.
And finally, funding for State and volunteer fire
assistance is cut by 29 percent, a total of $57 million.
I would like to speak for a moment about two major changes
that are part of the request. One is the proposal to combine
several of the agency's land management programs into a new
integrated resource restoration account. We spoke about this
yesterday. The other is a major restructuring of the agency's
fire preparedness and suppression accounts.
Let me begin with the wildland fire programs. The budget
requests a total of $1.5 billion for fire suppression. That is
an increase of $90 million, or 6 percent. It includes $1.2
billion as part of the fire suppression account and $333
million that has been shifted to the preparedness account.
For years now, the USFS has been charging a portion of its
preparedness costs to the fire suppression account, hiding the
true cost of the agency's readiness needs. So I am pleased to
see this shift to properly pay for those activities within the
preparedness account, which is where they belong.
All told, the budget requests $1 billion for firefighter
salaries, training, and equipment. That is a 49 percent
increase compared to 2010.
Now, I support the level provided in this budget for fire
suppression, but I am concerned that the request divides
firefighting funds into three overly complicated accounts. Now,
this is account one, $595 million for base fire suppression.
Two, $291 million for the Federal Land Assistance, Management
and Enhancement (FLAME) Fund, which was instituted by Congress
last year to cover the cost of fighting large wildfires, and
$282 million for a third account, the Wildland Fire Contingency
Reserve, which is a reserve fund that can only be accessed by
Presidential declaration. I do not understand the need to have
three separate fire suppression accounts, and I hope you will
explain that.
An even more significant change is the proposal to merge
three National Forest System programs to create a new $694
million line item called the ``Integrated Resource
Restoration'' program.
Now, the administration has proposed this initiative to
provide flexibility to fund restoration work it plans to do on
the ground. I am concerned that this budget request leaves a
lot of questions unanswered.
First, why the administration feels such a significant
restructuring of the budget is necessary to accomplish your
restoration goals. I am concerned that collapsing three
programs into one huge, new account reduces transparency and
accountability regarding how these program dollars are spent,
and I think others share that concern with me.
I would also like to discuss how the USFS proposes to
allocate funds for this initiative, particularly how the agency
plans to implement a new $50 million priority watersheds and
jobs stabilization initiative to fund large-scale restoration
and create jobs in rural communities.
And finally, I would like to discuss the impact that these
changes will have on the availability of timber supply from
national forests. Chief, I am hoping you can provide some
clarity on how much timber the USFS plans to produce in fiscal
year 2011 and how you plan to implement such a large increase
in the use of stewardship contracting.
These are important questions and they concern a number of
Senators, and I hope you and your staff will help us work
through this as we begin the process of drafting a bill.
Now I would like to turn to my ranking member, Senator
Alexander, for any comments that you may care to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Chief, welcome. Glad to have you here.
I am glad to see Rocky Fork included in the USFS land
acquisition fund. We are getting close to finishing that. It is
your number one-ranked project, and it is a tremendous piece of
property for the Cherokee National Forest.
You are mostly a westerner, and we have a pretty good
balance on this subcommittee. We are all interested in the
whole country, but I used to think President Reagan had asked
me to be chairman of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors in the mid-1980s, and after going through that for a
couple of years, I thought we probably ought to have two
different environmental and conservation policies, one for the
West and one for the East, because the issues were so different
so much of the time. For example, in the West, so much of the
land is owned by the Federal Government, but in Tennessee,
North Carolina, in our area, very little is owned by the
Federal Government. In our area, the Great Smoky Mountains and
the Cherokee National Forest, which is adjacent to it on each
end, are about it for us. So we have a completely different
attitude toward the presence of a Federal Government. Even the
conservative Republicans in the area where I live and have
grown up are big fans of managing the Great Smokies as if it
were a wilderness area and of protecting and encouraging the
Cherokee National Forest.
So we have those different attitudes, and they are
represented here. I look forward to working with you on them,
and I thank you for making the Cherokee National Forest a
priority.
Both the chairman and I have been interested in the impact
of what some conservation groups have called the ``renewable
energy sprawl'' on treasured landscapes. It makes no sense for
us to spend $40 million buying the Cherokee National Forest and
then sticking a bunch of 50-story wind turbines on top of it.
You know, we do not want to destroy the environment in the name
of saving the environment. So there are appropriate places for
large wind turbines and solar thermal plants and biomass
enterprises that use huge amounts of wood. But there are also
inappropriate places.
Several of us, including the chairman, have asked you and
Secretary Salazar to do a report on how you plan to look at
this so it does not happen in some haphazard way and so we do
not unwittingly set in motion damage to our treasured
landscapes. One example could be through history, looking at
the abandoned land mines that we are struggling with. There are
thousands of them in California and many more across the
country. With a little foresight, we might not have had so
many, and with the proper foresight, we might have our
renewable energy projects in the right places instead the wrong
places.
You are an important steward of public land. For example,
in the Eastern United States, the wind does not blow very much
and the large wind turbines only work best on ridge tops. Well,
we really do not--I do not, anyway--and I think most of us do
not want to see 50-story wind turbines along the 2,000 mile
Appalachian Trail vista, much of which is in national forest.
So I have brought a letter with some suggestions. One I
gave to Senator Salazar. One I will give to you with some
suggestions about what you might consider for your report. And
I will get back into during the question time.
The other areas in which I will be interested are biomass
harvesting, which I think is a good idea for getting dead pine
trees out of the forests, a bad idea if we cut down too many
trees; invasive species, which is very important in our area,
as it is in other areas in the country; and of course,
firefighting. That is not just a western concern, it is an
eastern concern. I am told that 85 percent of the employees in
the Cherokee National Forest spend some of their time fighting
fires. So we are all interested in that. And the chairman has
been a real leader in trying to separate the firefighting
costs, urgently important, from all the other costs so we do
not just have a national--the USFS does not become only a
national firefighting agency. I know of your distinguished
background in that area, but we want to keep it in balance.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Madam Chairman, those are my concerns. I look forward
to the opportunity to ask questions, and I welcome the Chief.
Also, Senator Cochran couldn't make it today, but would like to
offer a statement for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Forest
Service Chief, Tom Tidwell, to the subcommittee this morning. Mr.
Tidwell, thank you for joining us today to speak about the Forest
Service's (USFS) initiatives for fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Tidwell, I would also like to thank you for your hard work
ensuring that our national forest system is maintained in a manner that
allows for proper use of our Nation's forests and provides the needed
resources to protect forest health.
I have one comment I would like to make about the Center for
Bottomland Hardwoods Research (Center) headquartered in Stoneville,
Mississippi. This unit is part of the Southern Hardwoods Research
Station. In 1996, the USFS research units in Mississippi, including the
Southern Hardwoods Lab in Stoneville, the Forest Hydrology Lab in
Oxford, and the Seed Biology Lab in Starkville merged to function as a
research center with a common mission focus.
The research that these units conduct is vitally important to both
my State and the Nation. The good work that these researchers have
undertaken has positively impacted national and State forests, as well
as privately owned forest land.
I was happy to request additional funding for this Center in
previous appropriations bills and hope that the USFS will continue to
focus its resources on the important work that Center is doing.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, and I look
forward to the testimony.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you so much, Senator.
Chief, would you like to proceed?
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you. Madam Chairman, members of
the subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss
the President's budget for the USFS. I appreciate the support
this subcommittee has shown the USFS in the past, and I look
forward to working with the subcommittee to provide more of the
things that the American people need and want from the Nation's
forests and grasslands.
The President's budget request is designed to support the
administration's priorities, Secretary Vilsack's priorities,
for maintaining and increasing the resiliency of America's
forests. The USFS is taking an all-lands approach. We want to
work across boundaries and ownerships to address the critical
issues that are facing the Nation's forests.
The budget supports these priorities through five key
objectives.
The first is to restore and sustain forests and grasslands
by increasing the collaborative efforts to build support for
restoration activities that are needed to increase the
resistance and resiliency of these ecosystems. The budget
requests full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Fund. It also proposes an integrated resource
restoration budget line item which would align our budget
structure with the restoration work that needs to be done on
the landscape. It will facilitate an integrated approach to
developing project proposals that will optimize multiple
benefits.
The second objective is to increase the emphasis on
protecting and enhancing water resources and watershed health
with a request for $50 million for a new Priority Watersheds
and Job Stabilization Initiative. This is a pilot program that
would fund large-scale projects that will focus on watershed
restoration and job creation. We would use the statewide
assessments and our own watershed assessments to look at the
jobs that could be created or maintained and the opportunity
for biomass utilization for the selection criteria.
The third objective is that we will manage landscapes to be
more resilient to the stressors of climate change by applying
the science that is developed by the USFS research and
development to increase the adaptive capacity of ecosystems. We
want to use science to determine how our management needs to
change to increase the ecosystems' resistance to the increasing
frequency of disturbance events, such as fire, insect and
disease outbreaks, invasives, flood, and drought.
The fourth objective is that the budget request provides
for full funding for wildland fire suppression, which includes
a level of preparedness to continue our success to suppress 98
percent of wildland fires during initial attack. It provides
for a realignment of preparedness and suppression funds that
more accurately displays the true costs. It provides for a
FLAME Fund to increase the accountability and transparency for
the costs of large fires and provides for a contingency reserve
fund that will significantly reduce the need to transfer funds
from other critical programs to fund fire suppression during
the very active fire season. And it also increases the emphasis
on hazardous fuel projects to reduce the threat of wildfire to
homes and communities by doing more of the work in the
wildland/urban interface.
The last objective is to create jobs and increase economic
opportunities in rural communities with the proposed Priority
Watersheds and Jobs Stabilization Initiative, doing more work
through stewardship contracting to build off the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act projects that encourage biomass
utilization, continuing to work with the States to use the
State and private forestry programs to address conservation
across all lands, and through our job development with our 28
Job Corps centers and our partnership with the Department of
Labor. Our goal is to increase collaborative efforts to build
support for science-based, landscape-scale conservation, taking
an all-lands approach to conservation, to build a restoration
economy, which will provide jobs and economic opportunity for
communities across our Nation.
I also want to clarify that we will continue to use timber
sale contracts when a timber sale contract is the best tool for
us to be able to get the restoration work done and the forest
health work done. It will be used whenever it is the best tool,
and the decision will not be based on the revenue that is
produced off of any individual project.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I am going to be somewhat parochial in my questions. We
discussed the Quincy Library Group (QLG) proposals, and it is
my understanding that a Federal judge has lifted the
injunction. So many of the projects are ready to go ahead. Are
you on track to meet or exceed your initial target of 20,000
acres in 2010? And what will be the number scheduled to meet
the 40,000-acre minimum target in 2011 called for in the QLG
legislation?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for
the leadership that you have provided over the years and
especially with the QLG.
We are on track this year. In fact, the region has told me
that they actually believe that they will be able to treat
maybe 25,000 acres this year. With this budget request, we will
be able to maintain the same level of funding for 2011 and a
similar target accomplishment.
Senator Feinstein. So $26 million for 2011?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I was hoping you could go to 40,000
acres.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we will see. Based on what we are able
to get done this year and as we move forward with the program
of work for 2011, we will get back to you if the region feels
that they can actually increase that to get closer to 40,000.
TIMBER SALES AND STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Feinstein. All right. I do intend to follow that.
Now, your budget would eliminate the use of below-cost
timber sales in fiscal year 2011, and there are only a handful
of forests nationwide and only one forest in California, the
San Bernardino, that had timber programs that turn a net
profit.
So what impact would this have on your ability to get
forest management work done in my State?
What percentage of your timber sales are considered below-
cost and would be affected by this change?
And what impact would this prohibition have on the agency's
ability to get the work done on the ground?
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, thank you for the question. I
want to clarify that with the subcommittee. We will be sending
up a letter to clarify that we will not be restraining timber
sale contracts based on the revenue that is produced. We want
to look at the work that needs to be done on the landscape and
then choose whichever is the appropriate tool, whether it be a
stewardship contract or a timber sale contract. We do not even
track which timber sale contracts actually produce a positive
net revenue. We focus on doing the work, the things that need
to be done on the landscape, and using the appropriate tool. So
there will not be any restriction on using a timber sale
contract or a stewardship contract.
We do want to increase the use of the stewardship
contracting. I think in many cases it is often----
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. I have an urgent call right
outside. I am going to turn it over to the ranking member for a
moment. You continue on and he will fill me in. I will be right
back. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Please go ahead, Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. To follow up with stewardship contracting, I
do believe that it is a better tool in many situations. But we
are going to use whatever tool is better. If a timber sale
contract is the best tool to get the work done, we will use
that, otherwise we will use a stewardship contract.
It has been my experience that by using a stewardship
contract, we can accomplish several different things. One, it
is a more efficient business operation for the USFS. Instead of
having multiple contracts to do various things on the
landscape, we can have one contract. Stewardship contracting
authority allows us to retain the receipts of any of the
merchantable material and to use that to offset the costs of
restoration.
It has also been my experience that it helps build support
for the work that we need to do across the landscape. When
folks can see that we are not only dealing with the forest
health concerns, dealing with hazardous fuel reduction
concerns, but at the same time we are addressing the needs to
improve wildlife habitat, to increase fisheries habitat, to
provide for a better road system, to replace culverts, and we
can put all this work together, it builds more support for the
restoration work that needs to be done, and I think it provides
more assurance that we are not just going to be doing the
biomass removal. So, it is one of the things we are going to
focus on in 2011, increasing the use of stewardship
contracting.
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Chief.
I will go ahead and ask my questions now, and when the
chairman comes back, she will continue hers or we will go on to
Senator Tester's.
Not long ago, BP Alternative Energy notified the Huron-
Manistee National Forest it is planning to withdraw its
application to build up to 22 wind turbines, each 420-feet
tall, on Federal land. It would be a 75-acre parcel near the
Lake Michigan coast. It would have required the development of
5 miles of permanent new roads in the forests, the installation
of more than 40 miles of underground electrical wirings or
above ground, and several miles of above-ground transmission
lines.
To take another example--well, in that case, it has been
said to me that it would be perfectly appropriate to put wind
turbines in the middle of Lake Michigan or in the middle of
Lake Huron where the wind blows better and you cannot see them.
They do not interfere with the landscape. As I understand USFS
policy, those decisions are simply made on an ad hoc basis by
the local USFS manager based upon wind applications.
To take another example, the Appalachian Trails runs for
2,100 miles from Georgia to Maine. It runs through eight
national forests. Those ridge tops are where the wind blows
best in the East. So I guess under current USFS policy, we
would leave it to each of the USFS managers whether it was a
good idea to destroy the vista.
I remember another example a couple or 3 years ago where in
a national park, which is not your area, in order to get the
money for it, whoever was managing Old Faithful allowed a big
cell tower to be put up right next to the Old Faithful geyser,
which is sort of a brain-dead decision in my opinion.
These new renewable energy projects are massive in scale.
The chairman has talked about the solar energy plants that are
3 miles by 3 miles on the Mohave Desert, a biomass plant that
produced just 100 megawatts, which is one-tenth of a nuclear
plant--I figured out you would have to--well, to equal a
nuclear plant, you would have to continuously forest an area
the size of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.
So what are your plans? We have asked you and Secretary
Salazar to give us your ideas about your policies for that. I
have a letter for you with some ideas. But tell me what the
USFS's attitude is, for example, toward large wind turbines on
scenic ridge tops in the Cherokee National Forest or the White
Mountain or other scenic forest ridge tops in the Eastern
United States.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you, Senator. I look forward to
seeing your letter. We are in the process of finalizing our
policy regulations as far as dealing with wind energy, and that
will be the policy that will help our line officers, our forest
supervisors, address applications. We do have a responsibility
to do what we can for renewable energy, to address the Nation's
needs. On the other hand, we also have a responsibility to
address the environmental effects of any type of energy
development, whether it is renewable or not.
So, when it comes to wind turbines, one of the things that,
when we have an application, we will look at and factor in, are
the environmental effects to see if this is actually a good use
or the right use for the national forests and grasslands. One
of the things that we always do look at is if there are other
lands that are available for this type of use.
So far we have not received very many applications. I do
think that there may be certain places in the country that this
may be an appropriate use, but so far we have just received a
few applications.
Senator Alexander. Let me ask this. In the case of oil and
gas exploration, do you not have certain zones where you say it
is permissible and certain other zones where it is not?
Mr. Tidwell. We do go through a leasing analysis with oil
and gas, and then----
Senator Alexander. But you do not just allow an oil or gas
company to come in and apply to drill anywhere you might want
to in the national forest. Do you?
Mr. Tidwell. If it is an area that is available for
leasing, yes. And it is one of the things we need to look at as
far as with wind turbine----
RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS LANDS
Senator Alexander. Or solar plants. Would it not be wiser
to establish zones or areas and say these are appropriate
places, rather than just let entrepreneurs who might be
attracted by a 3 cent per kilowatt hour Federal subsidy to come
in and build a big turbine and then sell the tax credit off to
some banker in New York or Chicago who then subdivides it like
a real estate loan and sells it around the world? That is what
actually happens with this stuff.
I mean, four Democratic Senators just held a press
conference and talked about $2 billion in the stimulus package
that went for wind turbines, and 80 percent of the jobs were in
China and Spain.
So I am not even so concerned about wind versus nuclear,
wind versus solar, or the stimulus package. I am more concerned
about a rational policy for protecting treasured landscapes as
we move in appropriate ways to take advantage of renewable
energy so that we do it on the front end, not on the back end,
and so that we do not find ourselves 20 years from now with an
abandoned land mines situation where we have got a lot of mines
that looked like a good idea when they were started, but years
later they have become not just an eyesore but an expensive
problem that needs to be cleaned up.
My time is up. I will look forward to talking with you more
about this, and I imagine the chairman would like to finish her
questions.
LAKE TAHOE BASIN--FIRE HAZARD FROM SLASH PILES
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. I
appreciate that.
We also spoke about the Tahoe Basin, which has been a big
priority for me. So I want to ask a question that specifically
relates to the Lake Tahoe management unit. On February 9,
Malcom North of the USFS's Pacific Southwest Research Station
reported to researchers at a conference that he found high
rates of tree mortality after the Angora fire because hand-
thinning treatments were piled and left unburned, which is a
real problem in the area. He stated that if you have unburned
piles throughout a treated area, it is almost like you did not
do the treatment at all.
My question is how will the Lake Tahoe Basin management
unit reduce the number of unburned piles after treatment?
Now, I walk a trail every year and see the piles, and I
have commented on them and some have gotten burned and some
have not gotten burned. But what I have always been told is,
well, it depends on the burn days. And so it is a burn day and
nothing is happening anywhere. So I ask why, and the question
is answered, well, we cannot get the contractors. And then I
find out that a lot of the work is done by prison inmates and
you have to bring them all the way up to the lake, which takes
3 hours, back which takes 3 hours, and the limited workday.
So the question comes, how do you develop the contracting
units that are on the spot and working 8 hours a day on these
piles and creating the piles and then a year later burning the
piles? What I have noticed is that the State park there has
done a much better job, at least on the west side of the lake,
than our people have done, and I wonder why.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for the
question.
I do not know why, in this case, the State has been more
effective than we have. I do know that we will finish up the
last piles that need to be burned just as soon as we can get in
there this spring and early summer.
When we talk about the Lake Tahoe Basin, the long-term
solution has to be something besides just piling this material
and burning it. The number of days that we have where we have a
clearing index so that the smoke will disperse and we also have
conditions where we feel confident we can burn piles is very
small. We then have to leave piles that are adjacent to trees,
and if we get a wildfire like you referenced, then we will
suffer mortality in those trees.
The better solution is to find a way to make use of this
material, to be able to use this residual material that needs
to be removed and find some way to convert it to another use.
Currently, we are struggling because I think the closest
facility is about 75 miles away. Economically that does not
work out. We have to find a way to develop additional
infrastructure. I think the infrastructure needs to be closer
to the areas where we have the fuel, and we need to make sure
the material is the right size so that we can have a facility
that we can haul this material to so we are not so dependent on
the weather and only having certain days to burn.
I can assure you that when we do have those days and we
have the clearing limits we can burn. You have been up there in
the basin on those beautiful summer days and people see a bunch
of smoke. They often comment about it. That is not what they
are usually coming to the basin for.
So we will continue to have to do some burning, but I want
us to be able to move forward and hopefully develop some
additional infrastructure.
LAKE TAHOE BASIN--BIOMASS INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Feinstein. I think that is right. I think you hit
the nail on the head actually. And I do think there are places
where you can locate a biomass facility such as in the South
Lake Tahoe area right off of Highway 50 there. There is space.
It does provide jobs for people. I think the question is a
system that makes some sense economically that can be set up
and perhaps you could do that. I mean, I think that would be a
great contribution to getting some of the dead, dying, and
downed stuff out that is going to really fuel another forest
fire of major proportions.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. That is one of the things I know that the
basin is working on with one of the counties to see if there is
interest in maybe building a new facility that is scaled
appropriately for the amount of material that we need to
remove, not only in the basin but maybe from one or two of the
adjacent national forests too.
Senator Feinstein. The thing is that you do not have to
take the stuff over the mountains, which you do when you leave
the lake proper area. It is all surrounded. So you have got to
go up and then down with it to Placerville or someplace like
that, and that is a distance and it is a hard pull. So you
really need to do something, I think, in the basin itself.
Anyway, that is my view. It is, I think, of significant
importance. We have just submitted the second Lake Tahoe
restoration plan, and it is really the crown jewel because it
is one of two clear lakes in the world remaining. And a major
forest fire just will desecrate it. So it is an important thing
to do.
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, I want to also thank you for
your support over the years for the Lake Tahoe Basin. We are
making a difference there not only reducing the sediment that
in the past has gone into the lake, but also making a
difference in reducing the threat of large fires. Even with the
Angora fire, we had situations there when that fire did burn
into treated areas, that the suppression crews were able to get
in there----
Senator Feinstein. No question. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. And they were effective.
Senator Feinstein. No question. So it did work. I mean, we
know that forest management works if we do it. The question is
to do enough of it. So I thank you very much for that and
appreciate it.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Chairman Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Montana comes to life.
Senator Tester. Ah, yes.
Senator Feinstein. Not that we are going to be parochial,
but we will in my case.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION LINE ITEM--ACCOUNTABILITY
Senator Tester. Thank you for being here, Tom. I really
appreciate the work you have done in Region 1 previous to this
job, and I appreciate your vision here in the position you
have.
Secretary Vilsack has a new vision for the USFS. In Montana
just a few days ago, the Secretary talked about how a bill that
I happen to have, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, provides
the tools the USFS needs to achieve that goal. He and I both
believe, as I think the chairwoman does, that timber production
and restoration are tools to create and save jobs in our rural
communities and ultimately save those rural communities. I can
see this vision in this budget.
Unfortunately, what I do not see in the budget is the
accountability to manage the money. For example, in my bill
there is a mandate to make sure that the work on the ground is
completed and that it is done at a time certain.
What is the USFS doing to make sure that the funds are
accounted for and spent wisely and restoration, timber harvest,
and watershed management are all still completed in this new
budget?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, thank you for the question, and
also I want to thank you for your leadership and your support
for us to be able to do more restoration work on the landscape,
to provide more jobs, and also with your legislation, to add
additional areas to the wilderness preservation system. I want
to thank you for that leadership.
Also, thank you for that question. With our budget
justification, we do plan to provide additional information to
the subcommittee that will not only show the number of acres
that will be restored with this budget request and the number
of watersheds that will be improved, but also we will provide
you with a list of all the other outputs that will be
accomplished through this work. That will include in excess of
2.4 billion board feet of timber sold, the number of acres of
wildlife habitat that will be improved, the number of miles of
fishery streams improved, and the number of acres of noxious
weeds treated. We want to be able to show you that by restoring
the number of acres that we are proposing with this budget
request, that it equals this set of accomplishments. We want to
be able to show you that there is a direct connection so that
we can be held accountable for not only improving the overall
watershed conditions, but also to be accountable for this set
of outputs. That is very important that we are able to provide
those.
So, I look forward to being able to bring that up and sit
down with you and the staff and work with the subcommittee to
address your concerns. I recognize that is missing in our
budget request, and we need to get that up to you so you can
see that.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
I guess the next question would be, to follow up, is how
often do you plan on giving the subcommittee the kind of
analysis that you just spoke of?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we will continue to work with the
subcommittee to address your concerns. Throughout the year, we
are more than glad to come up at any time to be able to show
the progress that we have been making on accomplishments. I
would like to reference what we were able to do in 2009. If you
look at 2009, it was probably the toughest market that we have
had with the timber and integrated wood products industries.
However, we were still able to accomplish close to 97 percent
of our timber target in 2009. We also exceeded our wildlife
improvement targets and our hazardous fuel improvement targets.
Senator Tester. We appreciate that work. And quite
honestly, I appreciate your openness about getting the
information to us so that we know as appropriators that the
money is being spent wisely and efficiently.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
In November 2008, the Government Accountability Office
produced a report about the use of stewardship contracting in
the agency. That report recommended three things: better plans
for long-term stewardship contracting, better collection of
data about stewardship contracts, and improved accounting for
services received for products sold.
What is the agency doing about addressing those management
goals?
Mr. Tidwell. First, we have changed our accounting system
so we are now able to track the outputs for stewardship
contracts and also the revenues and the cost of that work. We
will now be able to include that in our automated timber sale
statement of accounting. Each year we will be able to produce
that report that will show all the accomplishments.
We have also provided a stewardship agreement template that
we can use across the country so that every region and every
forest is using a consistent stewardship agreement.
We are also in the process of completing a new stewardship
contract that I refer to as a blended contract. In the past, we
have had two contracts, one was an integrated timber sale
contract and one was a service contract, and we had to chose at
the start of the project which way to go with that. This new
contract combines them so that we are able to use the same
contract and not have to be worried so much about the market
conditions. I believe that will help facilitate the work. It
will make it easier not only for our employees, but definitely
for our purchasers. I believe that will be a significant
improvement and will help us to move forward and use this
authority more.
Senator Tester. Okay. Well, thank you, Chief Tidwell.
Madam Chair, I have got to slip out for a bit. If the
hearing is still going on, I will come back, but if it is not,
we will submit the questions in writing.
SUNRISE POWERLINK
Senator Feinstein. Good. Thank you very much, Senator.
I wanted to ask questions, if I may, regarding the Sunrise
Powerlink in California. This is really a very big deal. San
Diego Gas and Electric has sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack.
They are cautiously optimistic the forest supervisor will not
require further environmental review of and beyond the multi-
year review by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
California Public Utilities Commission.
The governor has called Secretary Vilsack twice and the
White House once in order to try to get the USFS to act on the
project. The Imperial County Board of Supervisors has written a
letter, which is here, to Secretary Vilsack requesting issuance
of the record of decision stressing that the county has 27
percent unemployment and this is a big employment facility. The
Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation is hosting a
renewable energy summit, and there is expected to be
considerable frustration that Federal permitting stands in the
way of economic recovery.
The record of decision would enable construction of a $1.7
billion power line that would put 400 to 500 people to work.
I can give you all the correspondence on this, if you would
like.
But here there are two infrastructure projects which await
USFS decisions. One is the Tehachapi transmission line from the
Tehachapi wind resource area into Los Angeles County, and the
second is the Sunrise Powerlink from Imperial County to San
Diego. Both have their State permits and have had the other
Federal permits for more than a year. After all these years of
permitting, both await only the USFS.
So here is the question. Would you give priority to the
permitting needs? Now, this is a privately funded
infrastructure project to essentially help us obtain the job
goals.
And the second is, by what date can you assure me that the
USFS will complete its review of both the Tehachapi and Sunrise
transmission lines, which are in an area identified by the
Department of Energy (DOE) as national interest electric
transmission corridor lines?
It is a big deal in southern California, and the only thing
awaiting its go-ahead is actually you. So you have a chance to
really break this gridlock and move these two projects along.
How do you feel?
Senator Feinstein. That is meant to be heat.
Mr. Tidwell. Madam Chairman, I can assure you that both of
these projects are a priority for us. We recognize how
important it is for us to get our part of the analysis done.
On the Tehachapi, it is my understanding that the company
is moving forward and that they realize it is going to take a
little more time for us to finish our analysis and our section
7 consultation. It is my understanding that they are okay if it
takes a little more time for us to finish that analysis.
On the Sunrise, I understand that is a more urgent need for
us to complete our analysis. We are looking at the analysis
that was completed by the BLM for this project and we are
evaluating that to see if it does cover all the issues that
have been raised about having a line placed on the Cleveland
National Forest. Based on that analysis, we will let you know
if we feel we can go forward and use the existing analysis or
if we need to supplement that.
As far as a date, I will need to get back to you and
provide you a specific date when we will have this
accomplished.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. If you would give me a specific
date, I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
As of April 15, 2010, the Forest Service is finalizing review of
existing environmental analysis documentation on Sunrise Powerlink, and
anticipates making a determination within a couple of weeks on next
steps.
SUNRISE POWERLINK
Senator Feinstein. Let me just read one part of the letter
from the chief operating officer of San Diego Gas and Electric.
``The delays associated with the unprecedented level of
review of Sunrise jeopardize the timely completion of a crucial
energy infrastructure project for southern California in an
area that has been identified by the Federal Government as
having critical and persistent electricity congestion.
``Sunrise is located within a designated transmission
corridor on BLM and USFS lands pursuant to the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. Its location will not only help modernize the grid
in this congested region and increase reliable electric service
to consumers, it will also do so while facilitating the
development of renewable energy at a lower cost to consumers.
``Additionally, at a time when spurring economic
development has become critically important, Sunrise would
directly inject nearly $2 billion into the economy and create
over 400 green jobs with potentially thousands more that would
be employed in constructing the wind, solar, and geothermal
energy facilities that will benefit from this new line.''
So as you can see, this is really a mega-project for us in
that it then produces what is necessary for the wind and solar
energy to transmit. So the longer you guys hold it up, the less
renewables we have in an area that is a heavy consumer of
electricity.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Madam Chairman, I will follow up with
the region later this week in fact. I am going to be down in
southern California, and I will follow up. Based on that letter
you have just shared, that is some different information than
what I have been shared.
Senator Feinstein. Can I give you this?
Mr. Tidwell. I would appreciate that.
Senator Feinstein. It has, I think, all the notes. It has
got the San Diego letter. It has got the Board of Supervisors.
I think it has what you need to understand the alacrity with
which people are looking at this. And as far as I know, there
is no opposition, which is unusual.
Mr. Tidwell. That is also encouraging. Based on my inbox, I
have received quite a few emails from folks that actually are
concerned about the project, which is often the case.
Senator Feinstein. Well, could you tell me the nature of
the concern? You know, in California, you get a suit over
almost anything.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
[The information follows:]
The comments received in the Chief's e-mail inbox in relation to
the Sunrise Powerlink have been almost unanimously against the project.
As of March 30, 2010, the Chief has received only one comment in favor
of the project. In addition to these e-mails, public meetings on the
project have generated attendance in the hundreds, with overwhelming
opposition being voiced. Many of the concerns expressed in the e-mails
are centered around health issues, viewscapes, and impacts to wildlife.
There are also concerns about the fire danger the Powerlink may pose.
There is concern about the fact that there is only one road in and out
of the El Monte Valley, which would lead to difficulty fighting fires
that might result from the Powerlink. Additionally, some people believe
there are better and safer ways for power to be generated in the area,
or that this is really not a renewable energy project at all, and that
it will, in fact, be linked to unregulated fossil-fuel energy from
Mexico, causing enhanced pollution in southern California. There have
been concerns expressed about the ``greed'' of Sempra, and that the
company should not be allowed to market itself as ``green'' when it
really is not. This is based on Sempra's refusal to abide by a written
agreement guaranteeing it would carry only renewable energy. Hang
gliding and paragliding enthusiasts oppose the project because of the
danger the lines pose to people who enjoy their sport. Additional
concerns pertain to increased vehicle traffic and removal of live oak
trees that some people believe will be cut down for the project.
Senator Feinstein. But we have to find out what is the
public good and move with the public good. And renewable power
because I do not think there are any flora or fauna or real
environmental problems that I know of, and my staff, I think,
has looked at this rather carefully. So I think it is unlike
other areas where you do it in the middle of desert tortoise
habitat or bighorn sheep or something like that.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we will review the analysis, and if it
is adequate to address the concerns, we will be able to move
forward. If we do need to do a supplemental analysis, we will
let you know.
The last thing that I would want us to do is----
Senator Feinstein. Could I just say one other thing? My
staff handed me this note, just so you know. There is local
opposition by NIMBY groups fully considered and dismissed by
BLM and the California Public Utilities Commission. So I mean,
you have to bear that in mind.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. If we are going to get this done, we
need to do it.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. You were going to say something?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the last thing we would want to do is go
forward with a decision that lacked adequate analysis and thus
we find ourselves in court. I would much rather make sure we
have the adequate level of analysis so that we can implement
the project. That is one of the things we will be looking at.
We will take a very careful look at it, and either way we will
do everything we can to expedite this.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Senator Alexander.
ENERGY CORRIDOR SITING
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I wanted to move to ask about invasive species, but I
enjoyed listening to Senator Feinstein. The problem with
renewable energy for this country is the one of scale. For
example, if we were to have 20 percent of our electricity from
wind, we would have to build 19,000 miles of transmission
lines, and where will those transmission lines go? Well, the
easiest place to put them is not through somebody's suburban
backyard, but through the national forests or some conservation
easement land that we worked for 50 or 60 years to protect.
So I know that, on the one hand, the need for energy is
going to cause the DOE to say, well, here is a national
transportation corridor we want Congress to approve. But I
think at the same time we need to have the countervailing
policy from the USFS and the national parks to say, but wait a
minute, we have got some treasured landscapes that we want to
protect and we do not want to just override that for a little
bit of intermittent wind power or even intermittent solar power
for an area as large as southern California.
I know nothing about this project and have no comment on
it, but it illustrates the need for a good, rational policy for
what is basically a new phenomenon in our country. We did not
really have these issues to consider 20 years ago.
Senator Feinstein. Would you yield for 1 second?
Senator Alexander. Oh, I will yield for more than 1 second.
Senator Feinstein. How dare you to see a more difficult
permit process than the State of California has anywhere. It
goes on and on and on. And I guess my point is it has made its
way through every permit process, every evaluation. That is
pretty good because it does not happen many times.
Senator Alexander. No. But it is possible today--let me
just move it to the East--for someone to come build a--get a
bunch of Federal subsidies and build a big wind park right
outside the Cherokee National Forest in east Tennessee and then
say, okay, we want to run the transmission lines through the
national forest to get to Knoxville when it is a puny amount of
power that only works one-third of the time and we would not
want our vistas destroyed. We would not have thought of that
before.
So I do not have any comment on the southern California
issue. I am just saying that the chairman and I both would like
to introduce into the discussion the larger issue of how we
deal with renewable energy sprawl as it deals with deserts,
national forests, national parks.
INVASIVE SPECIES
But if I may, I would like for you to say something about
invasive species and what you are doing about that. That is a
big problem for us. The Great Smoky Mountains, for example, and
the Cherokee National Forest have more species of trees, for
example, than Europe, but we are about to lose all of the
hemlock trees. The gypsy moths have penetrated our whole
region. Our University of Tennessee is trying to do some
research work in the area, and we have some on-the-ground ways.
I have been there myself to see if you put beetles to try to
deal with the woolly adelgids that are destroying that are
destroying the hemlock trees. Your budget is cut for on-the-
ground treatments and research, I am told.
So what is your attitude about priority for invasive
species and research to try to find better ways to deal with
that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, thank you for the question.
When it comes to invasives, we approach it both through our
research and also through management. We continue to need to be
able to do the research. As you mentioned, with this predator
beetle on the hemlock woolly adelgid, it does show promise as
potentially a control for the adelgid, and it is one of the
things that our research scientists have been working on. We
also want to continue to look for other ways to suppress the
adelgid, and it is essential that we are able to continue our
research.
But, at the same time, it is also essential for us to then
have management to see if there are some things that we can do
out on the landscape that will help slow down this spread and
increase the resistance of the hemlocks to this adelgid. So
that is how our research and management work together.
We also work very closely with universities with our
research and then also the States. Our State foresters are a
key partner as we address invasives. It is a perfect example of
this all-lands approach; invasives do not care. They do not pay
attention to the boundary on the map or the property ownership.
They are going to go wherever the host is. It is essential that
we work together with the private landowners and also with the
national forests as we take on these issues, so we can find a
solution across the entire landscape.
Senator Alexander. I would simply like to encourage you to,
wherever appropriate, work in partnership with universities in
States like the University of Tennessee or the State of
Tennessee or other States and universities to maximize our
bucks on this. You know, 40 years ago, the chestnut was our
major hardwood tree in the forests of the Eastern United
States. It is gone. The hemlocks appear to be going unless the
predator beetle or something else makes a difference.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. I thank you very much.
Mr. Tidwell, let me just say that I think this subcommittee
is very interested. You are a new Chief. That is always an
exciting time. I mean, we look forward to your innovations,
your initiative. We all know that there is a place for that and
good management, and hopefully the USFS is going to thrive
under your management and we would like to be as much help to
you as we can. So please feel very welcome, despite our
questions, which were actually very mild questions.
[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
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
Question. Your budget contains significant restructuring and policy
changes to the National Forest System (NFS) account, including a
proposal to merge three existing programs into this new ``Integrated
Resource Restoration'' program. Why is such a major budget
restructuring is necessary? Why do you think your current budget
structure does not allow you to meet your restoration objectives?
Answer. The Forest Service's (USFS) focus on forest landscape
restoration is the basis for the proposal to establish the Integrated
Resource Restoration program by combining the NFS--wildlife and
fisheries habitat management, forest products, and the vegetation and
watershed management budget line items (BLIs). In addition, the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLRF) previously
funded under the Wildland Fire Management appropriation is included
within this BLI because it shares a similar primary purpose to restore
forest landscapes. The NFS programs and the CFLRF all share similar and
complementary objectives to sustain and restore aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. Restoration and maintenance of sustainable landscapes and
watersheds requires a holistic approach and our ability to sustain
healthy watersheds will be facilitated by having a single BLI.
Combining the NFS budget line items is clearly a logical grouping that
enhances the USFS's ability to focus on integration.
TIMBER SUPPLY
Question. I have received a letter from 14 Senators, including a
number of Senators who serve on this subcommittee, expressing serious
concern that this budget request creates uncertainty about the
availability of timber from public lands at a time when communities
that depend on the forest product industry for jobs can least afford
it. An adequate and predictable timber supply is critical to maintain
our existing forest products infrastructure. I am hoping you can
provide some clarity on exactly how much timber you plan to produce.
How many board feet of timber do you plan to produce in fiscal year
2011 with the funding level proposed by your budget?
Answer. The USFS proposes to sell 2.4 billion board feet of timber
with the proposed budget in fiscal year 2011.
Question. If we provide the USFS flexibility to spend your funding
on multiple restoration objectives, how can we be certain you will
actually produce that amount?
Answer. As identified in the budget justification, given the budget
proposed, the USFS intends our resource management and restoration
activities to generate a sale volume of 2.4 billion board feet. The
USFS will continue to track and report on our volume accomplishments.
Stewardship contracts and agreements will be USFS's primary means of
managing natural resources; this includes a focus on existing, new, and
emerging markets for wood removal and utilization. These tools provide
the USFS with the ability to exchange the value of the timber (goods)
for the cost of services, such as the nontimber harvest activities.
They also allow the USFS to supplement the value of the timber with
appropriated funding or retained receipts as necessary to accomplish
the specified nontimber harvest work.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Question. The success of your proposed restoration initiative
relies heavily on the use of stewardship contracting authorities.
However, even though stewardship contracting authorities have existed
for more than a decade, the USFS has not made widespread use of them.
You treated 88,000 acres in 2009 using these contracts, and I
understand that you plan to treat 121,000 acres this year. Yet your
fiscal year 2011 budget sets a target of restoring 600,000 acres using
stewardship contracts--a five-fold increase. How can we be confident
that you will be able to meet this aggressive target? What specific
steps do you plan to take to implement such a large increase in the use
of these contracts?
Answer. The USFS already has 10 years of experience in successfully
implementing stewardship end-results contracts. During this 10-year
period, our partners, cooperators, and employees have gained
considerable experience and have overcome numerous obstacles. To expand
the use of stewardship end-results contracting, we are finalizing the
development of a simplified single contract instrument. This contract
will focus on achieving the end results identified through the
collaborative process, facilitate best-value contracting, and protect
the interests of our stakeholders and the Government. Utilizing this
contract of choice, as another tool to implement stewardship end-
results contracting, the USFS will have an increased capacity to
accomplish more good work for national forests.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
Question. Within your new Integrated Resource Restoration program,
you propose $50 million for a ``Priority Watersheds and Job
Stabilization'' initiative to fund a number of long-term stewardship
contracts to improve watershed health and create jobs. How do you plan
to select projects under this initiative, and how many projects do you
expect to fund in 2011?
Answer. Selection criteria will be based, in part, on needs and
opportunities associated with restoration, partnerships, public use,
and ecological significance. Watersheds will be funded in a variety of
areas across the country but the number of projects will not be known
until proposals are evaluated and project selection is made. Priorities
will be informed by identification in the State forest assessments,
watershed condition, costs, and input from local communities.
The watersheds identified as most important to the public will be
brought forward for a more comprehensive evaluation. Proposed projects
will be evaluated through a national prioritization process with final
selections by the Chief of the USFS. Selection of biomass projects will
favor proposals that are coordinated with other Federal and State land
management agencies, as well as tribes; accomplish management
objectives with regard to forest function and health; create jobs or
contribute to job stability; and create or maintain traditional forest
products or biomass/renewable energy development. Nontimber, forest
jobs will be prioritized using the proportion of non-Federal matching
funds and the number of jobs for youth that will be generated. Creating
job opportunities for youth in rural areas will be an important
component of this initiative.
BIOMASS UTILIZATION
Question. Your budget request states that you will conduct an USFS-
wide biomass assessment to help prioritize and support the development
of biomass utilization facilities. I've been very concerned about the
lack of biomass infrastructure in areas like the Lake Tahoe basin,
where the cost of transporting biomass can be prohibitive and the USFS
is still forced to depend on piling and burning to dispose of much of
its forest waste. How will your budget proposal specifically increase
biomass utilization?
Answer. One of the underlying concerns in the development of a
woody biomass utilization facility is assuring a reliable and
predictable supply of biomass. Any investment in infrastructure will
require a long-term supply of raw material (excess woody biomass).
Instead of piling and burning of this excess biomass, the USFS-wide
biomass assessment identified in the fiscal year 2011 budget
justification will help to prioritize and support the development of
bio-energy facilities and other biomass utilization facilities.
One example includes the Kings Beach area of North Lake Tahoe,
California, where the USFS is currently working with Placer County to
establish a 3-megawatt combined heat and power facility. Woody biomass
comes from forest health restoration projects on the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit. The project used one of the biomass assessment tools,
the coordinated resource offering protocol (CROP) study, to assess the
availability of woody biomass in the next 5 years. The project is
moving forward at this time.
The USFS is integrating biomass utilization efforts with partners
(Departments of the Interior, Energy, Defense, and Commerce, as well as
USDA and EPA), including implementing new fiscal year 2008 farm bill
authorities such as the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, and
coordinating with communities, State foresters, and tribes. The EPA is
working directly with the Department of Energy on 49 new bioenergy
facilities to pilot and demonstrate wood-to-energy technologies.
In fiscal year 2011, $20 million is targeted to farm bill programs
that encourage market development for biomass materials removed from
the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Forest Biomass for Energy
Program (section 9012), administered by USFS research and development,
is funded at $15 million, and the Community Wood Energy Program
(section 9013) is funded at $5 million. Since 2005, the USFS awarded a
total of $24.5 million (98 grants) to help improve NFS hazardous fuel
reduction activities.
In addition, the USFShas identified 20 CROP study areas capable of
providing a sustainable woody biomass resource. The USFS will continue
to expand on the number of CROP study areas, and to provide available
biomass information for these study areas to potential investors.
COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION ACT
Question. The subcommittee provided $10 million to begin funding
Restoration Act projects this year and asked you as part of the fiscal
year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act to provide a list of projects you
plant to fund by March 1. Unfortunately, we have not yet received that
list from you. When do you expect to have this year's projects
selected? What criteria will be used to choose the final recipients?
Answer. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 requires
proposals to be reviewed and recommendation for selection made by an
advisory panel. The advisory panel is subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The FACA process is fairly lengthy, but the
notice of intent to establish the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration (CFLR) Advisory Committee and call for nominations was
published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2010. Committee
member selection is anticipated no later than April 30, 2010. Upon
selection of prospective committee members, a background check for each
will require approximately 3 weeks to complete. The USFS anticipates
that the CFLR Advisory Committee will be in place by June 2010 and is
currently soliciting CFLR proposals from the field.
The request for proposals, sent to the regional foresters on
February 24, provides guidance to ensure that the proposals are
responsive to CFLR requirements and are organized to allow efficient
evaluation by the CFLR Advisory Committee. Proposals are due May 14,
2010 and projects will be selected in July 2010. The following
criteria, as required in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
will be used in the selection: the strength of the proposal and
strategy; the strength of the ecological rationale; the strength of the
collaborative process; the ability to reduce long-term wildfire
management costs; the ability to reduce costs through the use of woody
biomass; and, the ability to leverage non-Federal investments. The CFLR
Advisory Committee may add additional criteria.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP (QLG)
Question. I understand that there has been some confusion regarding
how much the USFS plans to spend to implement QLG activities in fiscal
year 2010. Could you please confirm for me exactly how much you plan to
spend this year on QLG projects?
Answer. The USFS has allocated $26.2 million for QLG activities in
fiscal year 2010.
Question. How much is in your budget for QLG projects for fiscal
year 2011? Can you assure me that the funding for QLG is not going to
get cut, given the proposed changes to your restoration budget?
Answer. The USFS does not propose any reductions for QLG. The
fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $26.2 million for QLG
projects, the same level as fiscal year 2010.
Question. I have been very concerned that the USFS continues to be
unable to meet the 40,000-to-60,000-acre annual treatment target set by
the legislation authorizing QLG. Last year at this hearing I discussed
these targets with Chief Kimbell. She testified that the USFS planned
to treat approximately 18,000 acres in 2009 and 20,000 acres in 2010.
Did the USFS meet your 2009 acreage target?
Answer. No, the USFS treated 14,370 acres in fiscal year 2009.
Appeals and litigation have greatly reduced the ability to implement
the pilot project, which, along with the economy, has resulted in the
project area losing forest product industries. The Sierra Pacific
recently closed their QLG small log sawmill. The USFS plans to treat
25,476 acres in fiscal year 2010.
Question. How many acres do you plan to treat in the QLG area in
2011?
Answer. The USFS plans to treat more than 21,000 acres in fiscal
year 2011.
federal land assistance, management and enhancement (flame) act
Question. Last year the subcommittee enacted the FLAME Act of 2009,
which required a number of firefighting budget and accountability
reforms. As you know, one of the major changes under this new law was
the creation of a $413 million appropriations account, the FLAME Fund,
to fund large wildfire incidents this year. I understand the USFS has
been working your Department to set up this new account. How will the
USFS ensure that the FLAME Fund is up and running so that funding will
be seamlessly available to the field for firefighting needs this year?
Answer. The USFS is confident that implementation of the FLAME Fund
will be seamless and not affect the availability of funds for
firefighting needs. All fire expenditures will be made out of the
wildfire suppression account, which current has sufficient funds to
carry the USFS through most of the existing fiscal year due to
carryover funding from last year and depending on the severity of this
year's fire season. We are finalizing our procedures for implementation
of the FLAME Fund.
The FLAME Act funds will be available to the Secretary of
Agriculture to be transferred into the suppression account when the
suppression account is nearly exhausted and/or certain objective
criteria are met.
The fund will help address the challenges of budgeting for fire
suppression and enable the USFS to respond effectively during highly
variable fire seasons.
Question. I'm pleased that you've provided $1.2 billion for fire
suppression appropriations, including $595 million for base fire
suppression programs and $291 million to continue the FLAME Fund in
2011. However, I'm concerned you've also created additional bureaucracy
by adding on a third fund, the Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency
Reserve Fund, on top of your two other firefighting appropriations. Why
do you need three separate firefighting appropriations? Why is it
necessary to create this Contingent Reserve Fund?
Answer. The Presidential Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve Fund
will help address the challenges of annual budgeting for changeable
fire suppression needs and enable the USFS to respond effectively
during highly variable fire seasons. Upon forecast of FLAME fund
depletion, a Presidential declaration can authorize transfer of funds
from the Presidential Contingency Fund. A Presidential declaration for
use of these funds is to be based on an analysis of risk decisions made
for type 1 and 2 fires. An approved Presidential declaration, in
effect, indicates that the USFS is worthy of accessing this fund due to
effective and accountable operations.
This special contingency account will provide a backstop for the
unpredictability of fire seasons and ensure that other key USFS
programs are not disrupted if fire transfer would otherwise have to be
employed to meet firefighting funding needs in years of above average
fire activity/costs.
HAZARDOUS FUELS
Question. Your budget proposes $349 million for hazardous fuels
reduction, roughly equal to the level provided by Congress for this
fiscal year. Within that amount, you propose a number of changes to
your program of work, including an increased emphasis on treating acres
in the WUI and $20 million to fund two new biomass utilization grant
programs. How many acres do you plan to treat in 2011, and how you will
select those acres?
Answer. The USFS proposes treating 1.6 million acres in fiscal year
2011. The USFS will focus on treating the more expensive high-priority
wildland urban interface treatment acres and areas that have completed
a Community Wildfire Protection Plan or an equivalent plan.
BIOMASS UTILIZATION
Question. How these new biomass utilization grants would be used?
Why do you think funding for these grants is a better investment than
funding additional fuels reduction work on the ground?
Answer. As part of title IX of the 2008 farm bill, 2 new biomass
grant programs were established. The Community Wood Energy Program
(section 9013, Public Law 110-246) creates a new program to support
State, Tribal, and local governments in developing community wood
energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood energy systems for public
facilities. Eligible public facilities are those owned or operated by
State or local governments which use woody biomass as the primary fuel
which have or could install single facility central heating, district
heating, combined heat and energy systems, and other related biomass
energy systems.
To ensure wood energy systems match the available fuel supply a
community wood energy plan will be required before program funds are
used to acquire equipment. Support will be for systems that are smaller
than 5 million Btu per hour heating and/or 2 megawatts for electric
power production as directed by statute. The plans will be required to
address potential air quality impacts of the proposed systems and
compliance with applicable air quality rules and performance standards.
State foresters and many other groups interested in forest health,
hazardous fuels reduction, and renewable energy have expressed interest
in supporting and participating in this new program.
The Forest Biomass for Energy Program (section 9012, Public Law
110-246) will be a research and development program to encourage use of
forest biomass for energy. The grant program priorities are fully in
line with the bioenergy and bio-based products research and development
program. The creation of a sustainable bioindustry producing biofuels
and bioproducts on a significant scale is critically dependent on
having a large, sustainable supply of biomass with appropriate
characteristics at a reasonable cost; cost-effective and efficient
processes for converting wood to biofuels, chemicals, and other high-
value products; and useful tools for decision-making and policy
analysis. If the program is funded, Forest Service Research &
Development will administer grants.
Energy security, development of renewable energy, combating global
climate change, and wildfire risk reduction are national priorities,
and the utilization of woody biomass plays a role in each, as well as
in the management of long-term forest health. Energy from biomass has
the potential to contribute significantly to meeting the Nation's goals
for domestic energy production and reducing carbon emissions. There is
a national desire to ensure that expansion of wood-based bioenergy does
not result in negative consequences like forest degradation and loss of
ecosystem services. USFS has also raised significant concerns and
challenge regarding the air quality impacts of small wood fired boilers
and heaters. Issues of sustainability include overall quantities of
biomass that can be produced without negative impacts, effects at both
the landscape scale (e.g., overall land use change) and site scale
(local impacts from harvest or facility development).
The new biomass programs can help the USFS and partners address
issues of scale, environmental impacts, social acceptance, public lands
management, and rural economic development. The new grants, as well as
the continuation of the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program, will
continue to link benefits to NFS forest health, watershed, and habitat
objectives as well as achieve sustainable, biomass utilization to the
States and local communities.
AIRTANKERS
Question. At this hearing last year I expressed serious concern
about the declining number of firefighting air tankers available to the
USFS. Since 2002, you have lost almost 60 percent of your fleet to
safety and maintenance issues. Your own Inspector General confirmed in
a July 2009 report that your remaining 19 aircraft will start reaching
the end of their service life in 2012. This subcommittee asked the USFS
to present an aviation strategy that lays out a plan to address your
air tanker shortage as part of our 2010 Interior bill. Nearly 5 months
have passed since we asked for this plan and we have still not heard
how the USFS intends to respond. When will the USFS share its
recommendations with the subcommittee for upgrading its air tanker
fleet?
Answer. The USFS recognizes the need for an overall airtanker
strategy to plan for a future airtanker fleet and will work closely
with the subcommittee to develop an acceptable strategy to deal with
the rapidly aging airtanker fleet. The USFS and our interagency
partners are also working on the cohesive strategy, as directed by the
Congress, which will provide strategic insights for balancing wildland
fire response, fire-adapted human communities, and landscape
restoration.
STATION FIRE
Question. Last August, the Station Fire destroyed 160,000 acres in
the biggest fire event in the history of Los Angeles. At the time there
were many questions raised about the appropriateness of the USFS's
response. Some still believe that these questions have not been
answered. Did the USFS's incident commanders call for firefighting
airplanes on initial attack? And were they fully utilized?
Answer. Yes, the USFSdid order and use a full complement of
aircraft for initial attack on the Station Fire. Air resources
mobilized on the first day of the fire included two air tankers, seven
helicopters, one lead plane and two air attack planes. The lead and air
attack planes are used to manage air traffic over the fire and
coordinate with firefighters on the ground.
Air resources on the second day of the Station Fire included six
air tankers, seven helicopters, two lead planes, and three air attack
planes. Aircraft were provided through USFS contracts, and Los Angeles
County and Los Angeles City cooperating agreements. These aircraft were
part of an aggressive initial response to the Station Fire which also
included 13 fire engines, 9, 20-person hand crews, 3 water tenders, and
2 patrol units.
After the Station Fire, USFS Chief Thomas Tidwell commissioned a
review of the initial suppression actions (first 48 hours). A panel
consisting of members from the USFS, the Los Angeles County Fire
Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE released a report on November 13, 2009 concluding
that incident managers from the Angeles National Forest acted in
accordance with accepted wildland firefighting practices. It determined
that fire mangers had clear intent from their leader and that they
deployed fire suppression resources only in those conditions where they
would be safe and effective.
Question. In the wake of the Station Fire, State and local
officials have expressed concern that USFS firefighting policy is not
as aggressive as it could be. This sentiment is best expressed in a
letter I received from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
that notes ``U.S. Forest Service fire suppression policies limit . . .
the use of State and local government personnel, equipment and aircraft
for early attack and suppression of fires within the Angeles National
Forest.'' Local officials believe that current USFS policy is allowing
fires to burn from Federal lands onto their jurisdictions, and they
believe that these policies must be changed. Can you please tell us how
the USFS plans to work with State and local fire departments to ensure
that all available resources are utilized in the most aggressive manner
possible to keep fires from burning into heavily populated areas?
Answer. The Pacific Southwest Region has a strong track record of
working with cooperators on aggressive Initial Attack and often
establishes joint or unified command on fires.
The USFS did not hold back any firefighting resources in fighting
the Station Fire. In fact, resources not immediately being used on the
nearby Morris Fire were rerouted to assist in suppression efforts on
the Station Fire.
In October 2009, Chief Tidwell commissioned a review of the initial
suppression actions (first 48 hours) on the Station Fire. The resulting
report in question 17 was released on November 13, 2009 and is
available on the USFS homepage at www.fs.fed.us.
This report includes assessments of several key factors such as
topography, weather, vegetative (``fuel'') conditions, and threats to
both communities and natural resources. It does, in fact, also discuss
decisions made on the ground by fire commanders and what the impacts of
those decisions were in suppressing the Station Fire. There have been
no changes in operating protocol as a result of the findings of the
Station Fire Initial Attack Review.
NIGHT-TIME FLYING
Question. Night-time aerial firefighting operations have the
potential to double the amount of time that full-fledged fire
suppression activities can take place. Several jurisdictions in
California, including Los Angeles County and the city of San Diego,
have authorized, equipped and trained their fire aviation fleets to
operate at night and other low visibility conditions. While I
understand that the USFS is reviewing the feasibility of flying at
night, the USFS's official position is that this activity still that is
too unsafe to authorize. What is the status of your internal review on
night flying, and when do you expect it to be completed? Will you
provide the subcommittee with an update once the review has been
completed?
Answer. The review of night-time helicopter operations is underway
and the evaluation is being led by staff at the San Dimas Technology
Center in California, with support from contractors and NASA. Efforts
have been focused to understand the mission more completely; review the
history of the programs, review current programs employed by counties,
Federal agencies, and the military, reviewing current and emerging
commercial technology, studying risk associated with night operations,
integration issues with our existing aviation and ground operations
program and benefit/cost analysis. The USFS anticipates completing this
review in fall of 2010 and will provide the subcommittee copies of the
final report as soon as they are available.
Question. If you determine that night-time aerial firefighting can
be done safely, will you provide this subcommittee with an assessment
of expected costs and potential benefits?
Answer. Yes.
FIREFIGHTER RETENTION
Question. I have been concerned about firefighter vacancies on
national forests in California, as well as reports that the USFS has
had difficulty retaining experienced firefighters because of pay
disparities and morale issues. As you may know, I supported $28 million
in prior-year funding to develop and implement retention strategies to
keep firefighters in Federal service. I understand that the USFS used
this money to provide a 10 percent retention bonus to certain
firefighters and used the rest of the money to convert seasonal
employees to full-time, year-round staff. Have there been improvements
in firefighter retention in my State since these incentives were
implemented?
Answer. Yes, the USFS has seen improvements in firefighter
retention since the incentives were implemented. The graph ``Permanent
Firefighter Resignations in Region 5'' displays those improvements.
The overall attrition rate for calendar year 2009 is below 8
percent from a high of 13 percent in 2007. The resignation rate dropped
from a high of more than 7 percent in 2007 to 3 percent in 2009. The
graph, ``Permanent Firefighter Resignations by Grade in Region 5,''
below, demonstrates declines in resignation rates across all grades,
suggesting that incentives have helped to improve retention rates.
Question. If so, what percentage of these improvements can be
attributed to the retention strategies and what percent can be
attributed other factors, such as State and local hiring freezes?
Answer. It is difficult to quantitatively determine what portion of
the employees did not leave as a result of the implementation of the
retention strategies or because of hiring freezes by State or local
fire departments. The below table displays the percentage and number of
the resignation rates attributed to employees leaving to California
State, county, and local fire departments, pre- and post-retention
incentives. This information shows a significant decrease in these
resignations since the retention incentives were implemented.
RESIGNATION OF REGION 5 FIREFIGHTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Percentage of
employees resignations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-retention 3/1/08 thru 2/28/09: CA 44 33
State, county, and local fire
departments............................
Pre-retention 3/1/09 thru 2/28/10: CA 8 19
State, county, and local fire
departments............................
-------------------------------
Change............................ -36 -15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many firefighters will your agency field in
California this year?
Answer. The graph ``Permanent Fire Employees in Region 5'' displays
the history of fire employee populations along with the attrition rate
for those time periods. The USFS in California has more than 2,100
permanent fire employees. In April, Region 5 is conducting another
round of hiring for key permanent firefighting positions GS 06-10. At
this time the USFS is planning for almost 4,300 permanent, apprentice
and temporary employees, plus 52 Organized AD and Contract Hand crews
made up of an additional 1,040 call-when-needed firefighters.
Question. Can you assure me that the USFS will employ an adequate
number of experienced firefighters in my State for fire season?
Answer. Yes. As the previous questions indicate we are doing a
better job of retaining experienced fire personnel.
ENERGY
Question. I do not support a first-come, first-serve approach to
permitting renewable energy development on Federal lands.
Unfortunately, it appears that the USFS is taking such an approach. I
believe that the Federal Government should plan the development in a
manner that is in the best interest of the public. That is why I have
proposed in the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 that the USFS
conduct a development planning process, known as a programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for wind, solar and biomass
energy. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is doing such an EIS to
bring order to the solar permitting process, after it took development
applications for years on a first-come, first-serve basis without
regard to where development belonged. Does the USFS intend to initiate
a planning process, mirroring that now going on at BLM, to assure that
renewable energy development on USFS land is consistent, considers the
public interest, and is focused on the land best suited for this use?
Answer. Renewable energy production and transmission is an
important consideration in the comprehensive management of the 193
million acres NFS land. Early coordination among all interests is a key
element in properly locating energy production and transmission. Each
energy resource has unique characteristics guiding its proper location
within the NFS.
The USFS and the BLM recently prepared a comprehensive evaluation
of geothermal energy within BLM and NFS lands. The results of the study
are used to guide the location of future geothermal energy production.
The USFS and the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) completed a 2005 study, Assessing the Potential for
Renewable Energy on National Forest System Lands, to assess the overall
potential for such development on NFS land. This report will assist
forest planners and resource managers in identifying NFS lands that
have the highest potential for industrial development of wind and solar
energy.
To date, requests for the use of NFS land for wind and solar energy
production have been rather modest, fewer than 15 inquiries in total.
No solar facilities have been requested and only one wind energy
facility is under study for authorization. These studies and the
relatively low interest in wind and solar production on NFS land
indicate that additional evaluations of these energy sources are not
appropriate at this time. Should a competitive interest occur, the USFS
will issue a prospectus, ensuring that the public's best interests are
addressed (36 CFR 251.58(c)(3)(ii)).
______
Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
LAND ACQUISITION
Question. I understand that the Forest Service (USFS) has recently
modified its ranking criteria for land acquisition projects. Could you
tell me a little about that ranking process?
Please include in your response some specifics on how a project
might be a top priority one year and not be ranked at all the
subsequent year. This was the case for a project in my State. Land
acquisition in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest ranked high in
the President's fiscal year 2010 budget and received Federal funding
that year, but didn't make it on the regional priorities list for
fiscal year 2011, even though it was only partially funded and needs
additional monies to be completed.
It is my understanding that projects which received prior-year
funding, and are not yet completed are usually considered a Department
priority. Is that no longer the case?
Answer. The USFS land acquisition list is a national listing of the
administration's proposed priority acquisitions. The criteria used to
evaluate and rank projects were based on resource attributes, achieving
administration conservation objectives, and advancing the goals of the
USFS's strategic plan. The nine criteria used to evaluate and rank
projects were: healthy watersheds; wetlands and riparian habitat;
diverse habitats for threatened and endangered species; adaptation to
the effects of climate change; conserving forests for landscape
restoration; recreational uses and improved public access; cultural and
heritage resources; projects situated within congressionally designated
areas (e.g., wilderness, wild, and scenic river); and increased
management efficiency.
Each region applies the above criteria to projects submitted by
individual national forests to evaluate and rank projects for
consideration by a national review panel composed of several
individuals representing different parts of the USFS. The panel
considers the regions' ranking, along with other factors, such as a
region's capacity to complete the acquisition, the level of local
support for the acquisition, and achieving a national distribution of
projects across regions and landscapes. The new criteria includes
consideration of a project's prior-year funding, but past funding is
not a guarantee that a project would rank sufficiently high to be
included in the President's budget submission.
The USFS is reviewing its project ranking and selection process to
consider revisions for fiscal year 2012 and is aware of the additional
funding needs for projects where remaining parcels are to be acquired.
Should the Eastern Region submit a land acquisition project on the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for fiscal year 2012, the national
panel will carefully evaluate it for consideration of funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST
Question. The total planned volume sold in the fiscal year 2011
President's budget request is 2.716 billion board feet (bbf), down from
2.909 bbf in the fiscal year 2010 budget request. What effect will a
reduction in the national program have on the Black Hills National
Forest? How much additional funding would be required to raise the
national volume to 3 bbf annually?
Answer. There is some confusion in the budget justification tables
that show the sold volume proposed for accomplishment in fiscal year
2011. The total sold volume for fiscal year 2011, 2,400 million board
feet (MMBF) shown under the forest products program, is a unified
accomplishment level. This total is made up of 2,000 MMBF of green
timber, 250 MMBF of salvage volume, and 150 MMBF in the K-V authority.
The salvage and K-V volumes are included in the total and thus are not
additive. Thus, to produce 3,000 MMBF of timber volume sold,
appropriated funding for an additional 600 MMBF would be needed. It is
estimated that an additional $92 million would be required to produce
this volume. The production of this volume is dependent on finalizing
the National Environmental Protection Act decision on the project and
the timber market at the time of proposed sale.
Nationally, in fiscal year 2009, the Forest Service (USFS) sold
2,508 MMBF and has targeted the sale of approximately 2,546 MMBF in
fiscal year 2010. The USFS anticipates that the fiscal year 2011
projected program will result in a reduction on the Black Hills
National Forest.
Question. In the fiscal year 2010 budget allocation, Region 2
received an additional $40 million to address bark beetle epidemics,
Montana received $20 million to address a bark beetle epidemic, and
Idaho received $14 million to address a bark beetle epidemic. Those
funds, while tremendously important and appreciated, are far short of
what is necessary. The fiscal year 2011 budget is silent on how, or
whether, to pay for the enormous costs associated with addressing the
bark beetle epidemics. Does the President's budget request include
sufficient funding to address the bark beetle epidemics for fiscal year
2011? If not, what is your strategy for identifying and requesting
those funds?
Answer. Addressing the spread and effects of the bark beetle
epidemic will require a multi-faceted and multi-year approach, and the
USFS's fiscal year 2011 budget request reflects this approach and need.
Specific funding and programs addressing the bark beetle epidemic are
described below.
The USFS will continue to fund management action to reduce forest
susceptibility to beetle outbreaks and protect high-value trees. In
coordination with partners and stakeholders, the USFS will direct funds
to the areas that have been experiencing tree mortality as a result of
beetle infestations both to ensure public safety and to reduce the
impact on forested ecosystems.
National Forest System management will prioritize treatments to
restore health and resilience of forested ecosystems to facilitate
adaptation to the stresses created by climate change through landscape
restoration projects. This includes implementing projects to treat
forested landscapes that are highly vulnerable to bark beetle
infestations. The expanded use of stewardship contracting will increase
opportunity to leverage commercial thinning opportunities to accomplish
additional treatments to enhance forest resiliency by exchanging the
value of forest products generated for additional restoration
treatments.
The forest health management request includes funding to meet the
highest-priority prevention and suppression needs on forests managed by
the USFS, other Federal agencies, tribal lands and non-Federal lands.
Forest health management programs provide for detection, monitoring,
evaluation, prevention and suppression of bark beetles on the Nations'
forested lands.
The Eastern Forest and Western Wildland Environmental Threat
Assessment Centers--in partnership with Government agencies,
universities, and nongovernmental organizations--provide national
leadership in developing knowledge and tools to respond to emerging
issues and threats associated with new and potential bark beetle
infestations.
USFS research scientists will continue to evaluate potential future
effects of climate change in order to identify natural resource
vulnerabilities and prioritize management actions to enhance resilience
of natural systems. This includes development of a cohesive, coherent
model to help land manager predict the interacting behavior of fire and
bark beetles under selected climate change scenarios.
Question. Virtually the entire Black Hills National Forest timber
sale program is geared to reducing fire hazard or mountain pine beetle
risk. Further, most of the recent NEPA decisions have included new road
construction. How will eliminating all funding for road construction/
reconstruction affect implementation of the Black Hills National Forest
forest plan, reducing fire risks, thinning the forest, and addressing
the pine beetle epidemic?
Answer. Fuels management and vegetative treatments needed for
control of the pine beetle epidemic will focus primarily on areas where
new road construction and upgrades to existing roads are not required.
The elimination of the road improvement activity will have little
impact on the Black Hills National Forest timber sale program. Any new
road construction will continue to be included as a purchaser
requirement within the timber sale offering and will therefore be
funded by the sale product value and not appropriated road funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
COLLABORATION
Question. Anecdotal and collected data show that up-front
collaboration is breaking the gridlock in our forests and help to get
work accomplished on the ground. Your agency is encouraging this in the
budget through new programs like the Forest Landscape Restoration Act
and the Jobs and Watershed Stabilization Fund, but what are you doing
to train your district rangers and line officers to facilitate
collaboration and build local support for projects?
Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) offers multiple opportunities for
dynamic learning using both internal and university and partner
resources. The USFS enables line officers flexibility in their approach
and allows the individual and situation to dictate what is most
important in a given situation.
The USFS is employing a range of methods to train line officers in
facilitating collaboration. First, the USFS has made available several
training modules related to collaboration, through the USDA portal for
e-learning. By completing training courses on this portal, USFS
employees can earn credits towards development goals.
Complementing this online resource, line officers will soon be able
to also use the USFS's Partnership Resource Center, our online vehicle
for advancing collaboration and partnerships. As part of this effort,
the USFS is launching a new e-Collaboration feature which will create a
Web environment for exchanges and networking. The site, scheduled to
relaunch in May or June 2010, will also offer new resources and tools,
both internally and externally built and tested.
The USFS is also actively engaged in various cross-sector,
capacity-building exercises alongside our partners, the audience with
whom we implement projects and ideas. One example includes
participating in a recent capacity-building session in Skamania,
Washington, with grantees as well as the National Forest Foundation
(NFF) (recent capacity-building session in Skamania, Washington, with
grantees).
The USFS offers line officers a range of peer-learning
opportunities. Line officers have participated in peer-learning
sessions, sponsored by the NFF, to exchange knowledge and best
practices and build relationships, to facilitate stewardship
contracting and agreements. Working across agencies, line officers have
also participated in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sponsored
distance learning course, Managing by Network. This course uses WebEx
conferencing to join participants with their colleagues and a
management coach to discuss and learn how to manage their work through
networks of partnerships, contracts, volunteers, and alliances, and how
to apply best management practices to their current partnerships and
community collaboration responsibilities.
FIRE
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget finally addresses
firefighting in a separate budget with the Federal Land Assistance,
Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Fund and the President's
discretionary fund. Yet you cut the investment in local and State
firefighting funds. Why? How do you plant to help assist States? Also
why is it necessary to have two contingency funds? Why is the
secretarial discretion not sufficient? If it was so important for
Congress and this subcommittee to pass the authorization for the FLAME
Act, why was it not necessary for the subcommittee to pass the same
authorizing authority for the Presidential discretionary fund?
Answer. The President's budget proposal of $50,104,000 for State
Fire Assistance (SFA) funding, while down from the fiscal year 2010
enacted level, is consistent with prior funding requests for this
account. These program funds complement the SFA program that is funded
through the State and private forestry appropriation.
As in prior years, the USFS will continue to provide SFA funding to
State foresters to address important and unique needs relating to
hazardous fuel treatment, wildland fire prevention, hazard mitigation,
and wildland fire suppression response. The SFA funding will continue
to be used to maintain and enhance coordination and communication with
Federal agencies as well as for critical preparedness needs including
firefighter safety, enhanced initial attack capability, and training.
State foresters make determinations about how to target funding to the
highest-priority needs identified in their State.
The proposed budget also contains a discretionary Presidential
contingency reserve account for firefighting which would be used if the
Suppression and FLAME Act accounts are exhausted and specific criteria
are adequately addressed.
This special contingency account will provide a backstop for the
unpredictability of fire seasons and ensure that other key EPA programs
are not disrupted if fire transfer would otherwise have to be employed
to meet firefighting funding needs in years of above average fire
activity/costs.
The Secretary's discretion covers the funding needed to cover the
10-year average costs for suppressing wildfire. The President's
Contingency Reserve Fund provides funding over and above the 10-year
average cost for suppression of fires. It will make available an
additional $282 million if the fire season is extreme and suppression
and FLAME Act funds are depleted.
ROAD BUDGET
Question. Your budget drastically reduces the road maintenance
budget and clearly outlines the USFS's desire to reduce the number of
roads the USFS maintains by 6,000 miles. To properly remove roads and
restore watershed takes money. How does defunding this budget properly
address the goal reducing the USFS's duplicative road infrastructure?
Wouldn't it be wiser to increase funding to assure roads are properly
converted to trails, decommissioned and re-contoured?
In the ``Right Sizing'' of the road system, what steps does the
USFS consider to be a reclaimed road? Is this fully re-contouring? What
is the impact on leaving these road beds on water quality and fish
habitat?
Answer. The USFS is managing multiple priorities within a
constrained budget. The reduction reflects a curtailment in the
construction of new roads and upgrading existing roads while keeping
the maintenance funding relatively level (a decrease of 1.5 percent)
with the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The USFS will focus on
maintaining the existing transportation system. Other appropriated
programs such as legacy roads and trails and deferred maintenance and
infrastructure Improvement complement the roads program. Road work
accomplished under these programs, including decommissioning, support
the USFS's priorities to repair and maintain roads and trails that
affect water resources and ecosystem function, and to reduce the
deferred maintenance backlog. Nonurgent work will be deferred.
Road decommissioning decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and
consider many factors such as topography, climate, geology, and risks
to threatened and endangered species. Some roads may require
recontouring to ensure that decommissioning is effective and to
mitigate resource damage; some roads will be decommissioned with
limited effort. Those sections that do not require full recontouring
are considered to be low risk, and have minimal impact on water quality
and fish habitat.
PLANNING RULE
Question. As you well know the current planning rule was issues in
1986 and is scientifically and socially outdated. On December 18 you
announced an effort to write a new planning rule under the National
Forest Management Act. What is the progress on this effort?
Do you really think a new rule will solve our problems?
Answer. The USFS is analyzing public comments received in response
to the notice of intent issued December 18, 2009. The USFS will host a
National Science Forum and a series of public meetings through mid-May
2010 to provide opportunities for public input and dialogue on the
development of a new planning rule. Further information on these
meetings is available at on the planning rule Web site, http://
www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. Through collaboration on the planning
rule, the USFS will be able to better address current and future needs
of the National Forest System (NFS) such as restoration, protecting
watersheds, addressing climate change, sustaining local economies,
improving collaboration, and working across landscapes. The USFS
expects to publish the draft environmental impact statement in December
2010 and the final environmental impact statement in October 2011.
ENERGY PLANNING
Question. Chief Tidwell, the Mountain States Transmission Intertie
(MSTI) line is working to cite and build a 500kv line in Montana. Some
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives for this line
cross FS land. How are you working with the stakeholders, Interior and
State Departments to find reasonable solutions to citing this and
future transmission lines?
Answer. The USFS is a cooperating EPA in the MSTI project and works
closely with the joint lead agencies--the BLM and Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Under BLM and MDEQ project management, we
have collaborated with several other agencies, starting in 2008 with
the Montana Major Facility Act process. We have also participated in
numerous interagency meetings and public meetings to identify issues
and alternatives. As alternative routes are proposed in response to
specific issues, many of those proposals would cross NFS lands outside
of designated corridors. In those situations, the EPA identifies
resource concerns and land management plan implications, then
collaborates to refine the routing in a manner that reduces unnecessary
conflicts, such as crossing inventoried roadless areas. As a result,
the USFS has identified a reasonable range of feasible alternatives,
including some that do cross NFS lands outside of designated corridors.
Those alternatives will be studied in detail in the draft EIS which is
scheduled for public release in June 2010.
Question. What are you doing to work with Interior and the State of
Montana and plan energy transmission corridors?
Answer. During forest plan revision, the USFS has been consulting
with other Federal and State agencies on a variety of topics, including
utility corridor designation. Recently, the USFS participated with many
other Federal agencies in the West-wide Energy Corridors process
mandated by Environmental Protection Act of 2005, section 368. The
State of Montana has made many valuable comments relative to NFS lands
on the draft Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which
many have been adopted in the final PEIS. As specific major
transmission projects are proposed, we cooperate with the State first
in the Montana Major Facility Siting Act process, followed by
cooperation in the Montana Environmental Protection Act and processes.
The Forest Service also works closely with BLM and other Federal
agencies, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Coordination in Federal Agency Review of Electric Transmission
Facilities on Federal Land (dated October 28, 2009). As individual
project siting is completed, new or revised energy corridors may be
designated through land management plan amendment, as provided for in
subsection 368(c). Prior to issuing the record of decision for the
section 368 corridors, the Montana Governor's office reviewed the
corridors as required by the BLM's governors consistency review
process. Based on that review, Montana offered no revisions for the 368
corridors on NFS lands.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Question. Recently the Forest Service (USFS) completed a revision
of the Travel Management Plan in Mississippi. This plan has created
much consternation among users of the National Forests in Mississippi.
For many years, forests in Mississippi were open for use for all-
terrain vehicle (ATV) enthusiasts and hunters. Currently, many of the
trails and roads that were utilized by these users are closed and
prohibitions on the use of ATVs within the forest also exist. It is my
hope that the USFS can address the needs of all users.
Mr. Tidwell, can you tell me what resources the USFS will need to
ensure that all users of forests will be able to fully access and
utilize the forests?
Answer. Very few places exist on the National Forests and
grasslands that are closed to access by all users. However, the method
of access and/or time of year may be restricted. The travel management
rule, promulgated on November 9, 2005, requires that all administrative
units designate those National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails,
and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor vehicle use. When making
designations, specific criteria must be considered including the
effects on natural and cultural resources, public safety, recreational
opportunities, etc. Decisions on which NFS routes and areas to
designate are left up to the local line officers--district rangers and
forest supervisors--since they are most familiar with the local
situation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
AIRTANKERS
Question. Page 137 of the House Report 111-316, accompanying the
fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act, states that: ``The
Conferees reiterate the House and Senate direction concerning readiness
required for public safety and the requirement that the Forest Service
provide a copy of its report on Federal air tanker needs, including an
estimate of replacement costs, within 30 days of enactment of this
Act.'' (emphasis added)
Apparently, this report has not yet been submitted. What is the
status of that report currently, and when can members expect to see it?
Answer. The Forest Service (USFS) recognizes the need for an
overall airtanker strategy to plan for a future airtanker fleet and
will work closely with the subcommittee to develop an acceptable
strategy to deal with the rapidly aging airtanker fleet. The USFS and
our interagency partners are also working on the cohesive strategy, as
directed by the Congress, which will provide strategic insights for
balancing wildland fire response, fire adapted human communities and
landscape restoration.
Question. I am told that, last summer, the Department's Office of
Inspector General stated that due to the rapidly aging large air
tankers, individual aircraft will need to be retired for reasons of
safety in the near future. Do you agree with this prognosis? If not,
why?
Answer. The USDA Office of Inspector General's Audit Report No.
08601-53-SF USFS's Replacement Plan for Firefighting Resources states
that ``FS estimates that by 2012 the remaining 19 airtankers will begin
to be either too expensive to maintain or no longer airworthy.'' The
USFS agrees with the Inspector General's assessment and would add that
this estimate does not take into account the possibility of additional
loses from accidents, further reducing fleet size.
Question. Can you supply relevant data regarding the remaining
operational service life of the large air tankers that are today in the
fleet?
Answer. The estimated remaining time for the aircraft based on
cycles is as follows:
--P-3: Attrition begins in 2014 and ends in 2026, half of the
attrition occurs by 2016
--P2V: Attrition begins in 2013 and ends in 2032, half of the
attrition occurs by 2017
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Feinstein. So thank you for coming and we look
forward to working with you.
And the subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]