[Senate Hearing 113-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 9:38 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Reed, Tester, Merkley, Begich, Murkowski, 
and Blunt.

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                      United States Forest Service

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY TONY DIXON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET, AND 
            ACCOUNTABILITY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

    Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order.
    Good morning. This is the third hearing of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the President's fiscal year 2015 
budget request, and today, we will discuss the budget for the 
United States Forest Service.
    I am very pleased to welcome Forest Service Chief, Tom 
Tidwell. Chief, thank you for your service, and for your 
support to the important programs of the Forest Service. Thank 
you very much.
    And I also recognize the agency's Budget Director, Tony 
Dixon, who is testifying before the subcommittee for the first 
time. So welcome, Tony. Good to have you here.
    Turning to the budget request for the Forest Service, the 
fiscal year 2015 request is a total of $5.7 billion, including 
$4.77 billion in discretionary spending. In addition, the 
President has proposed a significant budgetary shift to provide 
$954 million in fire suppression funding within the disaster 
cap.
    Since I assumed the chairmanship of this subcommittee, we 
have been forced to make unfortunate tradeoffs to provide the 
appropriate resources for fire suppression, both on the 
frontend--through increases in the 10-year average--and on the 
backend--through repayment of borrowing--because the 10-year 
average proved insufficient.
    In the last 2 years alone, we have been forced to carve out 
more than $1 billion from other accounts in order to pay for 
unanticipated emergency firefighting costs. This has been a 
change from traditional practice under which extraordinary 
firefighting costs were treated as emergencies, just like other 
disasters.
    These additional obligations have come at a cost in the 
investments we can make in public land maintenance and 
construction, water and sewer grants, land acquisition, and 
every other account funded in this bill. And I know you, Chief, 
are as worried as we are about the Forest Service just becoming 
``the fire service.'' That cannot happen.
    This is just as troubling to me as it is to my western 
colleagues. Indeed, I would note that my colleagues, Senators 
Wyden and Crapo, have introduced bipartisan legislation in the 
senate to deal with this problem. An identical bill has been 
introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Simpson, former 
chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and 
it has been cosponsored by Representative Ken Calvert, the 
current chairman of the subcommittee.
    While Rhode Island does not have any national forest lands, 
we do rely on the Forest Service's expertise and grant programs 
for our State and private forested lands. We all agree that it 
is a Federal responsibility to fight fires on Federal lands to 
protect the life and property of Americans. But if we continue 
down the path that we have been forced under the current budget 
caps, we put in jeopardy the rest of the Forest Service's 
mission.
    For Rhode Island, that would mean losing the Forest 
Service's expertise in research and science that has led to 
breakthroughs to defend against the invasive species and 
disease that attack our trees in the country and in the city, 
Forest Legacy funds to protect threatened areas, and urban and 
community forest funds to get people outdoors.
    That is why I think what you have done, Chief, to work on 
the budget proposal to move a portion of the spending into the 
disaster cap is such a great step forward. It takes care of 
three problems that we have been struggling with.
    First, it removes the agency's need to borrow from non-fire 
accounts and provides a steady stream of funding throughout the 
fire season, so that you can do both your firefighting and your 
other work without setting aside funds within construction, 
land acquisition, and your mandatory programs in case there is 
a need for it.
    Second, it allows us to put emphasis on the programs that 
will help you prevent catastrophic fire in the future, such as 
hazardous fuels reduction, watershed and vegetation management, 
and inholdings acquisitions.
    Third, it protects the programs that would otherwise get 
cut within future budget proposals to pay for fire needs like 
research and State grant programs.
    So with this budget proposal and your recent acquisition of 
air tankers from the Coast Guard and next generation air 
tankercontractors, it is quite possible that fiscal year 2015 
could be the turning point in adopting a more rational approach 
to fire management. And you deserve much credit for this 
progress, Chief. Thank you very much.
    While I am pleased that we are able to move the 
administration to address the fire problem, I am disappointed 
to see the cuts to other programs like research, State and 
private forestry, and international forestry, even with the 
shift to firefighting resources, that are being proposed.
    I am looking forward to discussing with you how we can work 
together to restore and strengthen these programs as well.
    Now, before turning to Senator Murkowski, the bottom line 
here is, and I do not mean to sound too cute, but these 
firefighting funds are just burning up your entire budget. Our 
budget too, because what we have to provide for firefighting, 
we cannot provide for State water funds, infrastructure, 
national parks, a host of programs. So we have to get this 
right.
    With that, Senator Murkowski, please.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome 
Chief.
    It is good to be examining the budget request for the 
Forest Service for fiscal year 2015. Mr. Chairman, I do not 
think we are going to need any assistance with firefighting 
here in Washington, DC this morning. It is a mess out there, it 
is so wet.
    Chief, I think I mentioned at the hearing last year, when 
we had the 2014 budget in front of us that, I said that it felt 
a little bit like Groundhog's Day. Well, I am back at Groundhog 
Day all over again. Every year, you and I have this 
conversation. You commit to working with me to improve the 
timber sale program and permitting for other multiple use 
activities on the Tongass, and then we move to the next year 
and, we are having the same conversation about really why 
things have not improved. And again, we are just facing the 
same thing today.
    Despite repeated pledges from the Forest Service to 
increase timber harvest levels, we continue to steadily march 
towards losing what remains of that timber industry in 
southeast Alaska.
    Our 2013 timber harvest numbers did improve a little bit to 
36 million board feet compared to 21 the year before, but you 
and I both know, Chief, that that is well, well below the 
allowable sales quantity of 267 million board feet. It is far 
short of what your own economists say that the market demand is 
in southeast, or what it takes to sustain any kind of a viable 
forest products industry within the region.
    I am trying to look on the positive side. I am trying to 
find some hopeful signs here that we might be turning the 
corner, but it seems like every time there is something out 
there, we run up against a roadblock. A great example, of 
course, is the Big Thorne sale. We have been talking about the 
Big Thorne sale. It was supposed to be bringing in 150 million 
board feet. This was the sale that everybody was counting on, 
the sale that your agency said was going to be absolutely 
necessary. It was going to be critical to making the transition 
to second growth that you keep talking about in the Tongass. 
Everybody knew that the Big Thorne was what was going to be 
able to help us piece it together.
    But what has happened to it? It has been on hold since 
September of last year. I hope you will have a little bit of an 
update for me this morning on when we might see this critical 
sale offered. Every year, I bring up the situation with the 
roadless rule exemption. On the 26th of March, the Ninth 
Circuit upheld the roadless rule exemption for the Tongass.
    I know that this administration did not defend the 
exemption. Alaska, my State, had to take it on itself. I am 
glad we did. I also know that this is not the end in the 
courts.
    So again, I think you are going to hear in my questions 
this morning a great of concern about what is going on within 
the Tongass, the impact of the roadless rule, how the ruling 
will affect management actions. In my view, I hope we are going 
to see balance restored with respect to the conservation and 
economic development there.
    Now, with regards to the budget and the chairman's comments 
here this morning, once again, you are proposing to consolidate 
several line items into one big pot called ``Integrated 
Resource Restoration.'' We talk about this, again, also every 
year. And I am sympathetic to the Forest Service's desire to 
improve efficiencies, but until we can really see some concrete 
results from these three pilot programs, I just cannot support 
making this program permanent across the agencies.
    You have a multiple use mandate there at the Forest 
Service, and one of the most important ways that we have here 
in Congress to ensure that you are following this mandate is 
having a budget that shows where and how much the agency is 
spending on activities that we, here in Congress, believe are 
important.
    So whether it is for timber, whether it is for recreation, 
habitat improvement, whatever it is, we cannot sacrifice our 
oversight role solely for the sake of efficiency. And again, I 
say this every year.
    The chairman speaks to the issue of fire borrowing. When we 
look to ways that we can improve financial management at the 
Forest Service, really, one of those ways is how we deal with 
the fire borrowing situation, which disrupts important programs 
by effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul until an undetermined 
date in the future. I think it is a bad way to budget, a bad 
way to manage important programs.
    I do share the goal of the propose fire cap adjustment, but 
I am concerned whether in its current form, it is the most 
fiscally responsible way to proceed.
    I do think that the administration's proposal is a good 
starting point for discussing how we deal with fire borrowing, 
but I think the committee, OMB, and the firefighting agencies 
need to work together to reach a resolution that not only fixes 
the problem, but is also politically tenable in the current 
fiscally constrained environment. So we need to be working 
together on this to find a workable solution.
    There are many other important issues we need to work on 
like how to effectively modernize our air tanker fleet, promote 
fire-adapted communities, and meet our obligations to 
communities that are dependent upon our national forests for 
economic survival.
    So I look forward to hearing your comments this morning, 
some updates, and then the questions and answers.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Reed. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues want to 
make a brief opening statement?
    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 
Murkowski. And I will be very brief.
    I want to thank you both, Mr. Dixon and Chief Tidwell for 
being here. I want to thank you for your work. Your agency, you 
know the area intimately, has a profound impact on Montana, 
whether it is from recreation, wildfires, sawmills, whatever it 
may be.
    My focus and my questions are going to be around the 
firefighting ability that you are going to have for aircraft, 
and it is going to be around some of the same things Senator 
Murkowski talked about, and that is timber cut.
    I can tell you, and you correct me if I am wrong, but I 
believe every timber sale in Montana was blocked. I will be the 
first one to fight not having public input on timber sales, 
because I think it is critically important. By the same token, 
I am really getting sick of the obstructionists, and I look 
forward to any ideas you might have to help streamline that 
process.
    With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 
working with both these gentlemen and the Forest Service to 
make things better in our public lands.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    Chief Tidwell, please.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL

                            KEY AUTHORITIES

    Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 
once again, it is a privilege to be here. Mr. Chairman, thank 
you for your opening remarks, Senator Murkowski for yours. You 
did an excellent job to make all the key points that I had 
planned to make in my opening remarks.
    I did want to reflect on last year when I was up here to 
testify. I was asking for your support for several key 
authorities that were about to expire: stewardship contracting, 
the Good Neighbor Authority. So I want to thank you for your 
good work to provide these key authorities through the 2014 
Appropriations bill, and also for your support for the Forestry 
Title in the Farm bill.

                    FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

    Those authorities, plus this budget request, really reflect 
the opportunity, the responsibility we have to restore and 
maintain our national forest and grasslands. Through this 
proposed budget fire suppression cap adjustment, we will 
finally be able to stop the disruptive practice of having to 
shutdown our projects every August and September, to stop the 
work that reduces the effects of fire, to stop the work that 
produces jobs just to be able to shift money to pay for fire 
suppression. I want to thank you, for the job you have done to 
repay those funds every 3 to 6 months later.

                     WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT

    I, too, need to recognize the work from Senators Wyden and 
Crapo for introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act and the 
members of the subcommittee that are cosponsors of this bill.
    Senator Murkowski, we do want to work with the committee on 
finding a solution for this. The legislation that is here in 
the Senate and the House, plus the work that we have been doing 
in the administration, I think is a very good starting place, 
and we do want to work with the subcommittee to be able to find 
a resolution to this issue once and for all.
    Over the last 10 years, fire funding has gone from 13 
percent of our budget to over 40 percent. The 10-year average 
has increased by $500 million, and just since 2012, the 10-year 
average has gone up $156 million. Now, under a constrained 
budget, these increases, they have to come from all the other 
programs. The other programs that are essential to provide all 
the benefits that people want, the public demands from their 
national forests.
    It also has had a critical impact to our staffing. Over 
this period of time, our staffing in our national forest 
system, the folks that manage the national forests, has gone 
down 35 percent; staffing and forest management, down 49 
percent. Now, at the same time, we are actually putting out 
about the same level of outputs that we worked 12 years ago 
with a much reduced staff, and I give a lot of credit to our 
work, our employees. They are doing an outstanding job to work 
with the communities and partners to be able to do as much work 
as they possibly can. But it is time to recognize that 
something needs to change here.
    Now, I cannot change that the fire seasons are now 70 to 80 
days longer. The fires are burning hotter. We are dealing with 
these extensive droughts that we will, no doubt, talk about 
today, and more and more homes are in the Wildland Urban 
Interface. But what we can do, by increasing the pace and scale 
of restoration, we can reduce the effects of wildfires to our 
community, making it easier for us to suppress these fires. And 
we can do that by what this budget is proposing with the 
increased funding that we are asking for in some very key 
programs.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

    This request is $125 million less than in 2014 enacted, 
which reflects the difficult choices that we have had to make 
to address the deficit reduction. But it does provide for some 
key increases in programs that will help us to restore our 
national forests, reduce the threat of wildfire, reduce the 
threat to wildlife, to threatened and endangered species, and 
also reduce the impact to recreational settings that are the 
reason 170 million people visit the national forest and 
grasslands every year.

                    FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

    Now, this level of preparedness, it will still provide for 
a level of funding that will suppress 98 percent of all the 
fires that we take initial attack on. It also requests a 
funding level to cover the costs for 99 percent of our 
wildfires. Then it requests a fire suppression cap adjustment 
that basically will cover about 1 percent of our fires, which 
equals about 30 percent of the cost. It is these fires that, we 
feel, should be considered a natural disaster, and that is the 
purpose of the budget fire suppression cap adjustment.
    Now is the time, for us to make the shift. Chairman as you 
mentioned, in 2015, it could be the time when we recognize that 
we have actually made a change to address the fire suppression 
issue, and at the same time to be able to increase our 
investment in the national forests and grasslands.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    The science is clear. It is supported by the results on the 
ground. We can reduce the effects. We can reduce the effects of 
the severity of insect and disease outbreaks. We can reduce the 
impacts to water quality, but we must increase the pace and 
scale of our restoration.
    So again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be 
here to address the committee, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell
    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
inviting me here today to testify on the President's budget request for 
the Forest Service for fiscal year 2015. I appreciate the support this 
subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past, and in 
particular, thank you for your hard work on the fiscal year 2014 
appropriations act. When I testified before you last year, there were a 
number of important authorities, like stewardship contracting and good 
neighbor authority, which were set to soon expire. Thanks to the hard 
work of Congress on the 2014 appropriations act and the 2014 farm bill, 
we are in a much better position this year. I look forward to 
continuing to work together with members of the subcommittee to ensure 
that stewardship of our Nation's forests and grasslands continues to 
meet the desires and expectations of the American people. I am 
confident that this budget will allow the Forest Service to meet this 
goal while demonstrating fiscal restraint, efficiency, and cost-
effective spending.
    The fiscal year 2015 President's budget for the Forest Service 
focuses on three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building 
thriving communities, and managing wildland fires. It calls for a 
fundamental change in how wildfire suppression is funded. It proposes a 
new and fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire, 
contributes to long-term economic growth, and continues our efforts to 
achieve the greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the least cost. This 
budget will enable us to more effectively reduce fire risk, manage 
landscapes more holistically, and increase resiliency of the Nation's 
forests and rangelands as well as the communities that border them.
    The President's 2015 budget also includes a separate, fully paid 
for $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGS 
Initiative). The Initiative identifies additional discretionary 
investments that can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and 
strengthen national security. The OGS Initiative includes funding for 
Forest Service programs. The OGS Initiative includes $18 million for 
Research and Development and would focus on energy security and 
national economic stability while simultaneously addressing our 
conservation and restoration goals. In addition, the OGS Initiative 
includes $61 million for Facilities and Trails to provide essential 
infrastructure maintenance and repair to sustain the benefits of 
existing infrastructure as domestic investments to grow our economy.
    As part of the President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security 
Initiative and a permanent legislative proposal, the Forest Service 
would also have the opportunity to compete for conservation and 
infrastructure project funding included within the Centennial 
initiative. The Centennial initiative supporting the 100th anniversary 
of the National Park Service features a competitive opportunity for the 
public land management bureaus within the Department of the Interior 
and the Forest Service to address conservation and infrastructure 
project needs. The program would be managed within Interior's Office of 
the Secretary in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture with 
clearly defined project criteria. The administration proposes $100 
million for the National Park Service anniversary's Centennial Land 
Management Investment Fund, as part of the Opportunity, Growth and 
Security Initiative and $100 million for conservation and 
infrastructure projects annually for 3 years as part of a separate 
legislative proposal.
    The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative also includes a $1 
billion Climate Resilience Fund. A portion of this funding source 
allows us to continue to invest in research to better understand the 
projected impacts of climate change and how we can better prepare our 
communities and infrastructure. The Fund would also serve to fund 
breakthroughs in technologies and resilient infrastructure development 
that will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate. The 
Fund proposal includes three Forest Service programs: an increase of 
$50 million for State Fire Assistance Grants to increase the number of 
communities that are ``Firewise'' and the number of communities 
implementing building codes and building protection requirements, 
resulting in increased protection of communities, their residents and 
private property; an increase of $50 million for Integrated Resource 
Restoration (IRR) and Hazardous Fuels to enhance support for public 
lands managers to manage landscape and watershed planning for increased 
resilience and risk reduction; and an increased $25 million for Urban 
and Community Forestry to maintain, restore and improve urban forests 
mitigating heat islands and other climate change impact.
                      value of the forest service
    Our mission at the Forest Service is to sustain the health, 
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to 
meet the needs of present and future generations. The Forest Service 
manages a system of national forests and grasslands totaling 193 
million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico, an area almost twice the 
size of California. These lands entrusted to our care provide some of 
the richest resources and most breathtaking scenery in the Nation, are 
the source of drinking water for millions of Americans, and support 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thousands of communities across the 
Nation depend on the national forests for their social well-being and 
economic prosperity.
    Since our founding in 1905, as the Nation's leading forestry 
organization, we continue to serve Americans by supporting the 
sustainable stewardship of more than 600 million acres of non-Federal 
forest land across the Nation, including 423 million acres of private 
forest land, 69 million acres of State forest land, 18 million acres of 
Tribal forests, and over 100 million acres of urban and community 
forests. This commitment to sustainable forest management helps 
Americans use their lands while caring for them in ways that benefit 
them, their families, their communities, and the entire Nation.
    We also maintain the largest forestry research organization in the 
world, with more than a century of discoveries in wood and forest 
products, fire behavior and management, and sustainable forest 
management. We are pursuing cutting-edge research in nanotechnology and 
green building materials, expanding markets for woody biomass. Land 
managers across the Nation use the results of our research to conserve 
forests, ensuring continuation of a full range of benefits for future 
generations.
    America's forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral 
to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. They 
play a vital role in providing public benefits such as clean air, clean 
water, mineral and energy production, and fertile soils for supporting 
timber, forage, carbon storage, food and fiber, fish and wildlife 
habitat, along with myriad opportunities for outdoor recreation. The 
Forest Service provides a valuable service to the public by restoring 
and improving forest, grassland, and watershed health; by producing new 
knowledge through our research; and by providing financial and 
technical assistance to partners, including private forest landowners.
    The benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include 
jobs and economic activity. Jobs and economic benefits stem not only 
from public use of the national forests and grasslands, but also from 
Forest Service management activities and infrastructure investments. We 
completed an economic analysis that calculated activities on the 
National Forest System contributed over $36 billion to America's gross 
domestic product, and supported nearly 450,000 jobs during fiscal year 
2011.
    Through our Job Corps and other programs including the 21st Century 
Conservation Service Corps, we provide training and employment for 
America's youth, and we help veterans transition to civilian life. Our 
Urban and Community Forestry Program has provided jobs and career-
training opportunities for underemployed adults and at-risk youth.
    The Forest Service routinely leverages taxpayer funds by engaging 
partners who contribute to investments in land management projects and 
activities. In fiscal year 2013, for example, we entered into more than 
8,200 grants and agreements with partners who made a total of about 
$540 million in cash and noncash contributions. Combined with our own 
contribution of nearly $730 million, the total value of these 
partnerships was over $1.27 billion.
    Other noncommercial uses provide crucial benefits and services to 
the American people. Many Tribal members use the national forests and 
grasslands for hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods and other 
materials for personal use. They also use sacred sites on National 
Forest Service (NFS) lands for ritual and spiritual purposes.
    National forests and grasslands attract about 160 million visits 
annually, and 55 percent of those visitors engage in strenuous physical 
activities. Based on studies showing that outdoor activities contribute 
to improved health and increased fitness, the availability of the 
Nation's forests and grasslands to all Americans provides other 
tangible benefits. In addition, since more than 83 percent of Americans 
live in metropolitan areas where opportunities to experience nature are 
often reduced, the Forest Service has developed an array of programs 
designed to get people into the woods, especially children. Each year, 
we reach an average of more than 5 million people with conservation 
education programs.
                       challenges to conservation
    Our Nation's forest and grassland resources continue to be at risk 
due to drought, uncharacteristically severe wildfire behavior, invasive 
species, and outbreaks of insects and disease. Although biodiversity 
remains high on national forests and grasslands, habitat degradation 
and invasive species pose serious threats to 27 percent of all forest-
associated plants and animals, a total of 4,005 species.
    The spread of homes and communities into wildfire-prone areas is an 
increasing management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, the United States 
could see substantial increases in housing density on 44 million acres 
of private forest lands nationwide, an area larger than North and South 
Carolina combined. More than 70,000 communities are now at risk from 
wildfire, and less than 15,000 have community wildfire protection 
plans.
    This same growth and development are also reducing America's forest 
habitat and fragmenting what remains. From 2010 to 2060, the United 
States is predicted to lose up to 31 million acres of forested lands, 
an area larger than Pennsylvania.
    Forest Service scientists predict that fire seasons could return to 
levels not seen since the 1940s, exceeding 12 million to 15 million 
acres annually. Highlighting these concerns, for the first time since 
the 1950s, more than 7 million acres burned nationwide in 2000 and more 
than 9 million acres burned in 2012. In 2013, the largest fire ever 
recorded in the Sierra Nevada occurred, and a devastating blaze in 
Arizona killed 19 highly experienced firefighters.
                     budget request and focus areas
    To meet the challenges ahead, the Forest Service is focusing in 
three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving 
communities, and managing wildland fires. We continue to implement 
cultural initiatives and cost savings measures focused on achieving a 
safer, more inclusive, and more efficient organization. To help us 
achieve these goals, the President's proposed overall budget for 
discretionary funding for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2015 is 
$4.77 billion. The budget also proposes a new and fiscally responsible 
funding strategy for wildland fire that recognizes that catastrophic 
wildland fires should be considered disasters, funded in part by 
additional budget authority provided through a budget cap adjustment 
for wildland fire suppression. Combined with the funding for fire 
suppression in the discretionary request, this strategy will fully fund 
estimated wildfire suppression funding needs.
Restoring Resilient Landscapes
    Our approach to addressing ecological degradation is to embark on 
efforts that support ecological restoration allowing for healthier more 
resilient ecosystems. In cooperation with our partners across shared 
landscapes, we continue to ensure that the Nation's forests and 
grasslands retain their ability to deliver the social, economic, and 
ecological values and benefits that Americans want and need now and for 
generations to come.
    In February 2011, President Obama launched the America's Great 
Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for 
conservation and outdoor recreation in the 21st century. In tandem with 
the President's initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack outlined 
an All Lands vision for conservation calling for partnerships and 
collaboration to reach shared goals for restoring healthy, resilient 
forested landscapes across all landownerships nationwide.
    In response, the Forest Service has launched an initiative to 
accelerate restoration across shared landscapes. The Accelerated 
Restoration Initiative builds on Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR), 
the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), the 
2012 planning rule, and other restoration-related programs and 
initiatives to pick up the pace of ecological restoration while 
creating more jobs in rural communities. Our collaborative, holistic 
approach to restoring forest and grassland health relies on the State 
Forest Action Plans and the Forest Service's own Watershed Condition 
Framework to identify high-priority areas for restoration treatments.
    In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized the Forest Service to 
pilot test the combination of multiple budget line items into a single 
line item for IRR. By combining funds from five budget line items we 
can better integrate and align watershed protection and restoration 
into all aspects of our management. In fiscal year 2013, our integrated 
approach restored almost over 2,533,000 acres of forest and grassland, 
decommissioned 1,490 miles of roads, and restored 4,168 miles of stream 
habitat substantially improving conditions across 12 entire watersheds 
across the NFS. Given the success demonstrated in the three pilot 
regions, we propose fully implementing IRR across the entire Forest 
Service in fiscal year 2015. We propose a national IRR budget of $820 
million. Investing in IRR in fiscal year 2015 is expected to result in 
2,700,000 watershed acres treated, 3.1 billion board feet of timber 
volume sold, approximately 2,000 miles of road decommissioned, and 
3,262 miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced. An estimated 26 
watersheds will be restored to a higher condition class in fiscal year 
2015.
    CFLRP was created in 2009 to help restore high-priority forested 
landscapes, improve forest health, promote job stability, create a 
reliable wood supply, and to reduce firefighting risks across the 
United States. The Secretary of Agriculture selected 23 large-scale 
projects for 10-year funding. Although the projects are mostly on NFS 
land, the collaborative nature of the program ties communities to local 
forest landscapes, engaging them in the work needed to restore the 
surrounding landscapes and watersheds. We propose to increase 
authorization for this successful collaborative program in the fiscal 
year 2015 President's budget. We propose to increase the program 
authorization to $80 million and are requesting $60 million in fiscal 
year 2015 to continue implementation of the current 23 projects and for 
inclusion of additional projects. All of the existing projects are on 
track to meet their 10-year goals, and to date, more than 588,461 acres 
of wildlife habitat have been improved, while generating 814 million 
board feet of timber and 1.9 million green tons of biomass for energy 
production and other uses.
    To gain efficiencies in our planning efforts, the Forest Service is 
moving forward with implementing a new land management planning rule. 
The new rule requires an integrated approach to forest plan preparation 
and multilevel monitoring of outcomes that allows for adaptive 
management, improved project implementation, and facilitated landscape 
scale restoration. We are also working to be more efficient in our 
environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) through development of three restoration-related categorical 
exclusions promoting hydrologic, aquatic, and landscape restoration 
approved in 2013. Other investments in ``Electronic Management of 
NEPA'' (eMNEPA) have significantly reduced administrative costs; we 
estimate that we save approximately $17 million each year because of 
these investments. Collectively, these efforts will help land managers 
to focus on collaborative watershed restoration efforts that also 
promote jobs and economic opportunities in rural communities.
Building Thriving Communities
    The Forest Service works to build thriving communities across the 
Nation by helping urban communities reconnect with the outdoors, by 
expanding the benefits that both rural and urban residents get from 
outdoor recreation, and by providing communities with the many economic 
benefits that result from sustainable multiple-use management of the 
national forests and grasslands.
    Through our Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage program, we are 
dedicated to serving tens of millions of recreation visitors each year. 
Rural communities rely on the landscapes around them for hunting, 
fishing, and various amenities; the places they live are vital to their 
identity and social well-being. We maintain these landscapes for the 
character, settings, and sense of place that people have come to 
expect, such as popular trail corridors and viewsheds.
    In support of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative 
and the First Lady's ``Let's Move'' initiative, we are implementing a 
Framework for Sustainable Recreation. The framework is designed to 
ensure that people of all ages and from every socioeconomic background 
have opportunities to visit their national forests and grasslands--and, 
if they wish, to contribute through volunteer service. We focus on 
sustaining recreational and heritage-related activities on the National 
Forest System for generations to come. That includes maintaining and 
rehabilitating historic buildings and other heritage assets for public 
use, such as campgrounds and other historic facilities built by the 
Civilian Conservation Corps.
    A significant portion of our budget to sustain operations for 
outdoor recreation--roughly 20 percent--comes from fees collected under 
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). Of the fees 
collected, 95 percent are locally reinvested to maintain and restore 
the facilities and services for outdoor recreation that people want and 
need. We propose permanent authority for the FLREA while clarifying its 
provisions and providing more consistency among agencies. This is an 
interagency proposal with the Department of the Interior.
    For decades, the Forest Service has focused on protecting and 
restoring critical forested landscapes, not only on the national 
forests, but also on non-Federal lands. All 50 States and Puerto Rico 
prepared comprehensive State Forest Action Plans identifying the 
forested landscapes most in need of protection and restoration. Based 
on the State plans, the Forest Service has been working with State and 
other partners to tailor our programs accordingly, applying our limited 
resources to the most critical landscapes.
    In fiscal year 2014, we began building on our successful State and 
Private Forestry Redesign initiative through a new program called 
Landscape Scale Restoration. The program allows States to continue 
pursuing innovative, landscape-scale projects across the Forest Health 
Management, State Fire Assistance, Forest Stewardship, and Urban and 
Community Forestry programs without the limitation of a specific mix of 
program funding. The program is designed to capitalize on the State 
Forest Action Plans to target the forested areas most in need of 
restoration treatments while leveraging partner funds. We propose 
funding the new program at almost $24 million.
    We are also using the State Forest Action Plans to identify and 
conserve forests critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs through 
our Forest Legacy Program. Working through the States, we provide 
working forests with permanent protection by purchasing conservation 
easements from willing private landowners. As of February 2014, the 
Forest Legacy Program had protected more than 2.36 million acres of 
critical working forests, benefiting rural Americans in 42 States and 
Puerto Rico.
    We propose $53 million in discretionary funding for Forest Legacy 
and $47 million in mandatory funds, from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund (LWCF), for a total of $100 million. The increase is 
a key component of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative 
to conserve critical landscapes and reconnect Americans to the outdoors 
through reauthorizing the LWCF as fully mandatory funds in fiscal year 
2016.
    In a similar vein, our Land Acquisition Program is designed to 
protect critical ecosystems and prevent habitat fragmentation. In 
accordance with the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we 
worked with the Department of the Interior to establish a Federal 
interagency Collaborative Landscape Planning Program, designed to 
leverage our joint investments and coordinate our efforts to protect 
intact, functioning ecosystems across entire landscapes. Land 
acquisitions are a proven value for the taxpayer, making it easier and 
less expensive for people to access their public lands--and easier and 
less expensive for the Forest Service to manage and restore the lands 
entrusted to our care. An analysis by The Trust for Public Land showed 
that every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition returns $4 to the 
taxpayer; taking returns beyond 10 years into account, the benefits are 
even greater.
    The President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes $51 million in 
discretionary funding for our Federal Land Acquisition program and 
almost $76.7 million in mandatory funding from the LWCF, for a combined 
total of $127.7 million. These mandatory funds are part of the 
President's proposed LWCF reauthorization with fully mandatory funds 
starting in fiscal year 2016.
    Working with the Department of the Interior, we propose to 
permanently authorize annual mandatory funding, without further 
appropriation or fiscal year limitation for the Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture LWCF programs beginning in fiscal year 2015. 
Starting in 2016, $900 million annually in permanent funds would be 
available. During the transition to full permanent funding in 2015, the 
budget proposes $900 million in total LWCF funding, comprised of $550 
million in permanent and $350 million discretionary funds.
    Another legislative proposal listed in our fiscal year 2015 budget 
is an amendment to the Small Tracts Act to provide land conveyance 
authority for small parcels, less than 40 acres, to help resolve 
encroachments or trespasses. Proceeds from the sale of National Forest 
System lands under this proposed authority would be collected under the 
Sisk Act and used for future acquisitions and/or enhancement of 
existing public lands.
    We are also helping communities use their wood resources for 
renewable energy. Through the Forest Service's Woody Biomass 
Utilization Grants Program, we are funding grants to develop community 
wood-to-energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood-based energy 
systems and in fiscal year 2013, State and Private Forestry awarded 10 
biomass grant awards totaling almost $2.5 million to small businesses 
and community groups. In an interagency effort with the Rural Utilities 
Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Business-Cooperative Service 
within Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development and the Farm 
Service Agency, the USDA Wood to Energy Initiative synergistically 
facilitates achievement of the cooperating agencies' goals. The Forest 
Service leverages its small amount of grant funds with the Rural 
Development's grant and loan programs by providing subject matter 
expertise and technical assistance in the early stages of project 
development, so the proponents can successfully compete for Rural 
Development's loans and grants. Our goal is lower energy bills, greater 
rural prosperity, and better environmental outcomes overall.
    Better environmental outcomes result, in part, from removing woody 
materials to restore healthy, resilient forested landscapes. Many of 
the materials we remove have little or no market value, and by finding 
new uses for them through our Research and Development Programs, we can 
get more work done, producing more jobs and community benefits. Our 
Bioenergy and Biobased Products Research Program is leading the way in 
researching wood-based energy and products. Through discoveries made at 
our Forest Products Lab, woody biomass can now be used to develop 
cross-laminated timber for building components such as floors, walls, 
ceilings, and more. Completed projects have included the use of cross-
laminated panels for 10-story high-rise buildings.
    Over 83 percent of America's citizens now live in urban areas. For 
most Americans, their main experience of the outdoors comes from their 
local tree-lined streets, greenways, and parks, not to mention their 
own backyards. Fortunately, America has over 100 million acres of urban 
forests, an area the size of California. Through our Urban and 
Community Forestry Program, the Forest Service has benefited more than 
7,000 communities, home to 196 million Americans, helping people reap 
the benefits they get from trees, including energy conservation, flood 
and pollution control, climate change mitigation, and open spaces for 
improved quality of life.
    We are expanding our work with cities such as New York, 
Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, working with an array of partners in the 
Urban Waters Federal Partnership to restore watersheds in urban areas. 
We are also helping communities acquire local landscapes for public 
recreation and watershed benefits through our Community Forest and Open 
Space Conservation Program, which is funded at $1.7 million in the 
fiscal year 2015 President's budget. Our goal is to help create a 
Nation of citizen-stewards committed to conserving their local forests 
and restoring them to health for all the benefits they get from them.
    Our community focus supports the President's America's Great 
Outdoors Initiative to achieve landscape-scale restoration objectives, 
connect more people to the outdoors, and support opportunities for 
outdoor recreation while providing jobs and income for rural 
communities. Building on existing partnerships, we have established a 
21st Century Conservation Service Corps to help us increase the number 
of work and training opportunities for young people and veterans while 
accomplishing high-priority conservation and restoration work on public 
lands.
Managing Wildland Fires
    The administration has worked this year to analyze and develop a 
strategy to address catastrophic fire risk. The budget calls for a 
change in how wildfire suppression is funded in order to reduce fire 
risk, to more holistically manage landscapes, and to increase the 
resiliency of the Nation's forests and rangelands and the communities 
that surround them. The cost of suppression has grown from 13 percent 
of the agency's budget just 10 years ago to over 40 percent in 2014. 
This increase in the cost of wildland fire suppression is subsuming the 
agency's budget and jeopardizing its ability to implement its full 
mission. The growth in the frequency, size, and severity of fires in 
recent years; along with the continual expansion of the wildland urban 
interface (WUI) have all increased the risks of catastrophic fires to 
life and property. Collectively these factors have resulted in 
suppression costs that exceeded amounts provided in annual 
appropriations requiring us to transfer funds from other programs to 
cover costs. This shift in funding is creating a loss in momentum for 
critical restoration and other resource programs as fire transfers 
deplete the budget by up to $500 million annually.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a new funding strategy that 
recognizes the negative effects of funding fire suppression as we have 
historically. The budget proposes funding catastrophic wildland fires 
similar to other disasters. Funded in part by additional budget 
authority provided through a budget cap adjustment for wildfire 
suppression, the budget proposes discretionary funding for wildland 
fire suppression at a level equal to 70 percent of the estimated 10-
year average suppression costs, which reflects the level of spending 
associated with suppression of 99 percent of wildfires. In addition, 
the budget includes up to $954 million to be available under a disaster 
funding cap adjustment to meet suppression needs above the base 
appropriation. This proposed funding level includes 30 percent of the 
10-year average of fire suppression costs and the difference to the 
upper limit of the 90th percentile range forecast for suppression costs 
for fiscal year 2015. This additional funding would be accessed with 
Secretarial declaration of need or imminent depletion of appropriated 
discretionary funds. This strategy provides increased certainty in 
addressing growing fire suppression needs, better safeguards non-
suppression programs from transfers that diminish their effectiveness, 
and allows us to stabilize and invest in programs that more effectively 
restore forested landscapes, treat forests for the increasing effects 
of climate change, and prepare communities in the WUI for future 
wildfires.
    Our evolving approach to managing wildland fire is integral to 
meeting our goals of safety, landscape-scale restoration, cross-
boundary landscape conservation, and risk management. We continue to 
learn more about wildland fire, and we continue to apply what we learn 
through fire and risk management science in partnership with States, 
communities, and other Federal agencies. We strive to maximize our 
response capabilities and to support community efforts to reduce the 
threat of wildfire and increase ecosystem resilience. The agency has 
made great progress in its continued focus on risk-based decisionmaking 
when responding to wildfires, and in 2015 will continue this important 
work to better inform decisionmakers on the risks and trade-offs 
associated with wildfire management decisions. The budget also furthers 
efforts to focus hazardous fuels treatments on 1.4 million WUI acres 
focused on high priority areas identified in Community Wildfire 
Protection Plans.
    Through our Hazardous Fuels Program, the Forest Service controls 
fuels by removing buildups of dead vegetation and by thinning overly 
dense forests that can be hazardous to lives, homes, communities, and 
wildland resources. From fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2013, the 
Forest Service treated about 33 million acres, an area larger than 
Mississippi. For fiscal year 2015, we propose $358.6 million for our 
Hazardous Fuels program. We also propose performing non-WUI Hazardous 
Fuels work within the IRR line item in order to accomplish work more 
efficiently. With more than 70,000 communities in the WUI at risk from 
wildfire, the Forest Service is working through cross-jurisdictional 
partnerships to help communities become safer from wildfires. Through 
the Firewise program, the number of designated Firewise communities 
rose from 400 in fiscal year 2008 to nearly 1,000 in fiscal year 2013.
    Our Hazardous Fuels program is also designed to help firefighters 
manage wildfires safely and effectively, and where appropriate, to use 
fire for resource benefits. Our Preparedness program is designed to 
help us protect lives, property, and wildland resources through an 
appropriate, risk-based response to wildfires. Preparedness has proven 
its worth; Fire Program Analysis, a strategic management tool, shows 
that every $1 subtracted from preparedness funding adds $1.70 to 
suppression costs because more fires escape to become large and large 
fires are more expensive to suppress. Unless we maintain an adequate 
level of preparedness, we risk substantial increases in overall fire 
management costs.
    Airtankers are a critical part of our response to wildfire. Their 
use plays a crucial role in keeping some fires small and greatly 
assists in controlling the large fires. Accordingly, we are 
implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy to replace our 
aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our strategy, reflected in 
our budget request, would fund both the older aircraft still in 
operation and the next-generation airtankers currently under contract. 
It would also cover required cancellation fees and the C-130 Hercules 
aircraft transferred by the U.S. Coast Guard.
                          safety and inclusion
    In addition to our focus on restoring resilient landscapes, 
building thriving communities, and managing wildland fire, we continue 
our agency efforts to become a safer, more diverse, and more inclusive 
organization.
    Accomplishing our work often takes us into high-risk environments. 
For that reason, for several years now, we have undertaken a learning 
journey to become a safer organization. Every one of our employees has 
taken training to become more attuned to safety issues and the need to 
manage personal risk. As part of this effort, safety means recognizing 
the risk and managing it appropriately. Our goal is to become a zero-
fatality organization through a constant, relentless focus on safety.
    Recognizing that more than 83 percent of Americans live in 
metropolitan areas, the Forest Service is outreaching to urban and 
underserved communities to introduce more people to opportunities to 
get outdoors, to participate in NFS land management, and to engage in 
conservation work in their own communities. Part of this inclusiveness 
is creating new opportunities to come into contact with and to hiring 
individuals from various backgrounds that might not otherwise be 
exposed to other Forest Service programs.
                              cost savings
    The Forest Service is committed to achieving the greatest benefits 
for the taxpayer at the least cost. Mindful of the need for savings, we 
have taken steps to cut operating costs. Taking advantage of new 
technologies, we have streamlined and centralized our financial, 
information technology, and human resources operations to gain 
efficiencies and save costs. We continue to work with other USDA 
agencies under the Blueprint for Stronger Service to develop strategies 
for greater efficiencies in key business areas. In fiscal year 2013, we 
saved millions of dollars through additional measures to promote 
efficiencies, ranging from an $800,000 annual savings through 
consolidation of local telephone service accounts to right-sizing our 
existing Microsoft software licenses, which yielded over $4 million in 
savings in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2013, we also instituted 
measures that will yield $100 million in cost pool savings by fiscal 
year 2015.
    Another cost saving highlight is the Forest Service completion of 
the design and construction for the renovation of the Yates Building on 
schedule, and within budget. On January 13, 2014, following completion 
of the renovation, all 762 Washington Office located employees apart 
from International Programs were finally located in the same building. 
Beside these benefits, this move is expected to save $5 million 
annually in leasing costs.
                             future outlook
    For more than a century, the Forest Service has served the American 
people by making sure that their forests and grasslands deliver a full 
range of values and benefits. America receives enormous value from our 
programs and activities, including hundreds of thousands of jobs and 
annual contributions to the economy worth many times more than our 
entire annual discretionary budget. Especially in these tough economic 
times, Americans benefit tremendously from investing in Forest Service 
programs and activities.
    Now we are facing some of the greatest challenges in our history. 
Invasive species, climate change effects, regional drought and 
watershed degradation, fuel buildups and severe wildfires, habitat 
fragmentation and loss of open space, and devastating outbreaks of 
insects and disease all threaten the ability of America's forests and 
grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services that Americans 
want and need. In response, the Forest Service is increasing the pace 
and scale of ecological restoration. We are working to create healthy, 
resilient forest and grassland ecosystems capable of sustaining and 
delivering clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, opportunities for 
outdoor recreation, and many other benefits.
    Our budget request focuses on the public's highest priorities for 
restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, and 
safely managing wildland fire while providing an effective emergency 
response. Our requested budget will enable us to address the growing 
extent and magnitude of our management challenges and the mix of values 
and benefits that the public expects from the national forests and 
grasslands. We will continue to lead the way in improving our 
administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness in 
mission delivery. Our research will continue to solve complex problems 
by creating innovative science and technology for the protection, 
sustainable management, and use of all forests, both public and 
private, for the benefit of the American people. Moreover, we are 
working ever more effectively to optimize our response to cross-cutting 
issues by integrating our programs and activities.
    We can achieve these priorities through partnerships and 
collaboration. Our budget priorities highlight the need to strengthen 
service through cooperation, collaboration, and public-private 
partnerships that leverage our investments to reach shared goals. 
Through strategic partnerships, we can accomplish more work while also 
yielding more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of all 
generations to come.
    This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to 
answer any questions that you or the subcommittee members have for me.

                             WILDLAND FIRE

    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief.
    Mr. Dixon, do you have any comment? Thank you very much.
    Every year, Chief, we sit down at this moment, which is, 
coincidentally, before the fire season and we anticipate what 
it will be like, and it would help us if you could give us your 
sense of what you expect going forward, particularly as we are 
all aware of, droughts in many parts of the West.
    Can you give us a sense of what you expect? And even with 
the significant resources you are asking for, do you think they 
will be adequate?
    Mr. Tidwell. We are anticipating a very active fire season 
this year, especially in the southwest.
    In California, if you are watching the news, it has a 
record drought, some of the driest conditions, and this follows 
the driest year on record in California and last year, but it 
is just one of the areas. We have had to bring on additional 
resources earlier this year to be prepositioned to be able to 
deal with that in California. So we do have the resources that 
we need to be able to deal with the suppression issue.

                           BUDGET CHALLENGES

    However, we do expect that the cost of this fire season is 
going to exceed the funding that we have available this year. 
You can anticipate that I will be informing the subcommittee of 
the need to be able to transfer money. That is based on the 
information that we have this year at this point in time. So it 
is going to be very similar to what we had last year, and some 
indications, it is going to be even more active than the fire 
season we had last year.

                    FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    In terms of the approach that you are taking which, in a 
very simplified way, would put some of the funding into the 
emergency category and the bulk of it remaining under our 
purview, and has to be offset by other programs. That requires 
coordination with several committees, including the budget 
committee since it is a budget issue here, the authorizing 
committees, and obviously our committee.
    Can you tell us what you have been doing to reach out to 
these other committees and try to make the case?
    Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, we have been meeting with the 
staffs and members of all three of these committees that you 
have mentioned over the last 3 or 4 months now, to be able to 
help them understand the problem, and then in addition, how 
this solution would work.
    I need to stress that this would not increase spending for 
fire suppression by shifting a portion of our fires into the 
natural disaster category. It would allow us to access the 
disaster fund that has already been appropriated. All it does 
is stop the transfer. It does not increase costs. It does not 
score.
    This is one of the reasons that we feel very strongly that 
this is a good approach. We definitely want to work with this 
subcommittee, the authorizing committees and, of course, the 
Budget Committee on ways to even improve what is being proposed 
at this time in the introduced legislation.
    But we feel it is a very good starting place.
    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    And Chief, I understand that the $954 million requested 
within the disaster cap is made up of two parts. It is 30 
percent of the regular 10-year average and the second part is 
to project an amount above the 10-year average that would be 
necessary based on a new 2-year forecast.
    Can you tell us how you arrived at the 30 percent level? 
And also, how you developed the new 2-year forecasting model?
    Mr. Tidwell. Well, we have always had the 2-year 
forecasting model since we have been responding to Congress on 
the FLAME Report, where we send up our forecast every quarter. 
What it is based on is just looking at data from the last 30-
some years, and it is a regression model that our scientists 
use to do the best job to actually predict what we can expect 
this coming year.
    The problem with it is when it is 2 years out, for fiscal 
year 2015, that model shows that we are 90 percent confident 
that the suppression costs will be somewhere between $770 
million and $1.9 billion. Now, as we move closer into 2015, we 
will definitely be able to have a much better forecast. But 
that is the challenge that we have had.
    The 10-year average was something we all agreed to. It has 
proven not to work out because 11 of the last 14 years, we have 
exceeded the 10-year average in our funding. Even with the 
forecasts 2 years out, it is just so difficult because there 
are so many weather patterns that can shift for next year. That 
is what makes this so difficult.
    That is why we feel that if this is a better approach, to 
set up so that there is a certain type of fire, we are talking 
about the large, complex fires, the fires that threaten 
communities, we would be able to access this disaster funding. 
When we exhaust all the appropriated funds, then anything after 
that would still be able to access the disaster fund.
    But those are the challenges that we have.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Chief.
    Senator Murkowski.

                             ROADLESS RULE

    Senator Murkowski. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief, as you know, due to your visit with me to the State 
last summer, and I appreciate you taking the time. I know 
Alaskans appreciated the opportunity to show you on the ground 
what we are dealing with there in the southeast, in the 
Tongass.
    But as you know, most of the mills there in the southeast 
have closed due to lack of timber supply. Energy projects 
whether it is hydroelectric or potential geothermal projects, 
could really make a difference in a region that struggles with 
high energy costs. In some of our smaller village communities, 
you are paying 40 cents to 50 cents a kilowatt hour and yet, we 
are surrounded with amazing hydropower potential, and in 
certain areas, geothermal potential. But opportunities are tied 
up because of red tape, whether it is policies coming out of 
the Federal Government or the impact of the roadless rule.
    You have indicated to me that you think that there is some 
flexibility that you have to act and you have got to avoid some 
of those areas that are so impacted by the roadless. But I am 
passing a map out to my colleagues here that details the 
roadless area inventory within the Tongass. 91 percent of the 
Tongass is considered roadless; 9.6 million acres is roadless. 
So we are bound.
    We cannot access an area to put in a hydro facility, 
whether it is small hydro, lake tap, whatever it is we are 
trying to do, geothermal opportunities. We are all talking 
about the great policies that this Administration is trying to 
advance when it comes to renewables. But if you cannot build 
the project because the roadless rule does not allow you to put 
a road there, the only way you can do it is by helicopter. 
Well, colleagues, figure that one out. Pretty danged expensive 
to build a hydro facility or do anything if you are operating 
completely by helicopter. So we are trying to figure this out.

                            BIG THORNE SALE

    You know, Chief, that last year was not a good year for 
Region 10. It was the worst performing region, just 16.8 
percent of the target was accomplished. Region 10 has only sold 
about 30 million board feet per year since 2008.
    So, again, in my opening statement, I mentioned Big Thorne. 
We are all hoping and praying that Big Thorne comes through and 
Big Thorne has been sitting since September. You have indicated 
to me that that is how we are going to get to this transition 
is second growth.
    So can you give me some update on when we may see the Big 
Thorne Sale offered? How much volume of the original 150 
million board feet will be offered? And really, from a broader 
perspective, how are you going to overcome this decline? Is it 
just done? Is it just over in the Tongass, that we will not be 
able to see any aspect of a timber industry anymore? Is it 
done? Because if you say that it is, we are going to have a 
timber war here all over again.
    We cannot give up on this region. We cannot give up on a 
region that has opportunity and has potential, but is being 
denied because of policies from our own Federal Government.
    So first, Big Thorne and then, second, how are we going to 
arrest this decline?
    Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, we are committed to completing 
the Big Thorne project. We are in the process, with the region 
finishing up their draft Supplemental Information Report. They 
are going to be sitting down with the appellants to share that 
additional information around their concerns. I am optimistic 
that they will be able to address that.
    They may have to, as part of addressing the appeals, drop a 
unit or two. That is always something we can look at. But I am 
confident that the majority of that project will go through.
    Senator Murkowski. Do you know when? Give me an estimate 
because I am not sure we can hold on. I am not sure we can hold 
on much longer.
    Mr. Tidwell. Well, they are completing the Supplemental 
Information Report and they are working with the State to 
provide some information about the wolf species, that is of a 
concern up there. I think they are close to completing that.
    They will be sitting down with the appellants, and then, 
hopefully we will be able to resolve it, and then be able to go 
forward.
    Senator Murkowski. What if we cannot?
    Mr. Tidwell. We are planning on doing it this year along 
with the other timber sales that we have planned. So the target 
this year is 70 million plus the Big Thorne project.
    Senator Murkowski. 70 million plus Big Thorne. You 
anticipate that Big Thorne is going to be 150 million board 
feet. But realistically, I mean, we have not seen, we sold 30 
million board feet per year since 2008.
    How are we going to get to the numbers that you are talking 
about? I mean, are they just numbers on paper?
    Mr. Tidwell. No, they are not on paper. Senator, with Big 
Thorne, the staff have worked so hard on that project.
    Senator Murkowski. I know.
    Mr. Tidwell. It will not be 150, but it should be in the 
range of 100 million, plus what we plan to go forward with. As 
you have pointed out, this is essential that we provide this 
bridge timber for our plan to transition to second growth.
    I think that is still the right plan, but we need to be 
able to do projects like Big Thorne. We need to be able to do 
the projects like Wrangell this year. To be able to have that 
amount of timber and to be able to bridge during the times 
until we are ready to move into the second growth as being the 
predominant harvest up there; to be able to sustain the wood 
products industry for all the reasons that you have mentioned; 
and to be able to provide jobs. It needs to be part of the 
economic activity in that State.
    The other part of it is hydro. We are working on the hydro 
projects. They are a great benefit, especially in the 
Southeast. But as you also know, we are having to ship wood 
pellets, either out of Seattle to bring them up to Ketchikan to 
convert using the biomass for electricity. When we see all that 
and the trees there, the idea that we cannot have a pellet 
plant right there, to be able to provide renewable energy for 
those facilities and not ship it out. But that is another 
reason it is just essential for us to be able to maintain the 
industry.
    So you have my commitment that we are going to get Big 
Thorne done. We are going to move forward on the sales this 
year. And at the same time, still continue to move forward with 
the transition.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, Chief, my time has expired. I will 
have more questions in the second round.
    But you keep talking about these sales that will be the 
bridge, but in order for a bridge to work, it has to be 
anchored to something on either side. Right now, there is not 
much to anchor within the southeastern timber economy because 
we cannot get any sales moving. We cannot get any product at 
all.
    And so, when we talk about transition, when we talk about 
bridges, we still have to have an anchor, and you are not 
giving us that anchor yet.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Reed. Senator Tester.

                               AIRTANKERS

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, again, for 
being here, fellows.
    Chief Tidwell, you and I have talked about the recent 
struggles the Forest Service has faced in putting together a 
next generation air tanker fleet, and I do appreciate the 
attention the Forest Service has given to the matter.
    I am concerned about reports that some of the contractors 
that were not ready to go last year may not be ready to go this 
year. We are 3 years into this gig and I do not know that we 
have gotten a lot out of it.
    That being said, can you give me an update of where folks 
stand in terms of getting the planes in the air to combat 
wildfires?
    Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we will have an adequate number of 
air tankers again this year to be able to deal with the 
projected fire season. It will be a combination of the legacy 
aircraft that are under contract, and then we are expecting to 
have seven of the next generation aircraft also flying this 
year.
    We are also working closely with the Air Force and the Air 
Force Reserve to have the Modular Airborne FireFighting System 
(MAFFs) units. They have already started their training to be 
ready, and then we also have our agreement with Canada to bring 
down their planes if we need to, to get through this year, and 
then hopefully, we will be in a better position in 2015 to have 
more of the next generation aircraft online.
    Senator Tester. So what I heard you just say, and correct 
me if I am wrong, you are going to have seven next generation 
planes ready to be up in the air this year?
    Mr. Tidwell. That is what we are hearing from the 
contractors.
    Senator Tester. Okay.
    Mr. Tidwell. That is what they said they will deliver.
    Senator Tester. And so, come July 1, there will be seven 
next generation ready to go.
    Mr. Tidwell. That is what they have told us.
    Senator Tester. Okay. Last year, they were not, and I think 
they might have told you the same thing. Were there any 
ramifications/repercussions for those folks who failed to meet 
those deadlines?
    Mr. Tidwell. We followed our contract procedures to send 
them cure notices. They respond to that. We are working with 
these contractors because we need the planes, and as you saw 
last year, it became more difficult for them to be able to make 
the modifications to the aircraft that they bought to be able 
to meet our tests and, at the same time, be safe aircraft that 
the FAA will certify after they have made the modifications to 
the aircraft. It is a year later, and they are making progress.
    Senator Tester. I would just say this, Chief, I mean, I 
would hold their feet to the fire. This is not nuclear physics; 
this kind of stuff is not that complicated and, quite frankly, 
I think they knew exactly what they were getting into when they 
were awarded the contracts. And I personally do not think they 
had any--I think they fully knew that they were not going to be 
able to get those planes up in the air; let us just put it that 
way. And they knew we would be very forgiving too.
    And so, I do not point the finger at you. I just think that 
this is a common practice across Government. People contract 
with us and then they say, ``Well, it costs much more money,'' 
and we cut them a check, and I think that kind of stuff needs 
to stop. If they do not provide the service, they ought not 
have the contract. That is my soapbox for you.
    Last year, we kind of heard the same thing, and I just want 
to point out that the Forest Service, I think, their dates for 
next generation are not certain. They are to be determined, 
TBD. Is that correct?
    Senator Tester. For the next generation.
    Mr. Tidwell. For this year?
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Mr. Tidwell. We have asked the contractors that the planes 
need to be flying, passed all the tests by July 1st, and we 
have a schedule of the dates that they will be bringing those 
on.
    Senator Tester. Okay. So thank you for that. So you are 
telling me that you have dates certain from these contractors 
when these planes are going to be up.
    Mr. Tidwell. They have provided us dates, yes.
    Senator Tester. And what happens if they do not meet those 
dates?
    Mr. Tidwell. We will send them a cure notice and they have 
to explain then what steps they are going to take to be able to 
bring the planes on.
    Senator Tester. Okay. Is there anything you can do if they 
do not meet those dates? I know we need planes, but they also 
need our business too.
    Mr. Tidwell. Yes. We are working with these contractors 
because if we cancel these contracts, then we do not have any 
planes for sure. Even though it is taking them longer, late 
last year, we got another one of the planes flying. There is 
one of the companies that indicated they will have two of their 
planes ready. We know that there are two more planes that will 
pass the tests, and we can be flying those.
    So it has been frustrating, and I share your frustration. I 
have to deal with it.
    Senator Tester. And I would just say, I get it, but if they 
know that they do not have to play by the rules, and yet, they 
are still going to get the contract, that is crazy. I mean, 
that is just flat crazy. I still believe that competition will 
fill that void and so, I think they need to be held 
accountable. I think the taxpayers expect that, quite frankly 
and I think everybody on this panel does too.
    I am going to stick around for the next round of questions, 
so I will let my 30 seconds go. But once again, thank you for 
your work, Chief. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Reed. Senator Blunt.

           COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

    Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chief Tidwell, our State, Missouri, is ranked No. 3 by the 
Forest Service in terms of economic impact of forestry on the 
economy. I want to talk a little bit about the Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Project.
    I met with the regional forester, Kathleen Atkinson, in 
December, a year ago, and I had been to the site where you were 
doing a large burn, I think it was a 10,000 acre burn. Looked 
like, to the farm boy in me, that there was lots of damage to 
the tall trees you were trying to save and lots of potential 
erosion on the ground.
    I asked for a couple of things then, one of which I have 
not gotten yet. One was any proof that we felt that this would 
really work. I believe the goal was to restore the forest to 
some moment that the Service has decided was exactly the right 
balance of trees in the forest which, I think, we could 
probably argue about. And whether or not the forest industry 
could go in and mark trees and harvest those trees before you 
burnt them. I did not receive much in specifics on that. On 
marking the trees, I think the answer was, no. You did not 
think that was possible.
    But there was a meeting recently with the local Forest 
Service with Congressman Smith and Congressman Luetkemeyer and 
my staff in the State. And my understanding now is that those 
funds will not be used for burns, but will be used to hire new 
personnel to help with harvesting in the coming fiscal year. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Tidwell. Senator, with the Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration Program there is always a mix of 
activities. Yes, this coming year, there is going to be more 
mechanical treatment, more timber harvest that will be coming 
off of there.
    The purpose of the prescribed fire is to create a much more 
resilient forest that can deal with concerns with insect and 
disease, et cetera. When there are merchantable trees, we 
always want to get in there and harvest those trees that need 
to be removed. A prescribed fire is to just provide more of the 
ecological system that we have, so that it is more resilient. 
So it is usually a combination, and often, we do a timber 
harvest and then follow that with a prescribed burn to reduce 
some of the residual material and reduce the concern for 
potential fire. It takes both. But this coming year, I do know 
that on that project, they are going to be focused on doing 
timber harvest and not the prescribed burning.
    Senator Blunt. Okay. Well, that is helpful. And then there 
is a University of Missouri study on the impact of that program 
and forestry generally. Are you aware of that and are you all 
cooperating in that?
    Mr. Tidwell. I am not aware of that specific study.
    Senator Blunt. Would you follow up on that? I think your 
people on the ground said that they were beginning to work with 
the University of Missouri to talk about the impact there.
    And I think the estimate is we lose 50 million board feet 
of timber in the Mark Twain Forest every year, and we harvest 
about 38 million. Doing a better job of harvesting the trees 
that are going to be lost would be something that, I know, you 
care about and I do too, and I hope we do that.
    Do you have some information there, Mr. Dixon, on the study 
I asked about?
    Mr. Dixon. Our northern research station is working with 
the University of Missouri to detail the socioeconomic modeling 
related to the impacts of our Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration Program. So we are working in conjunction with the 
University.
    Senator Blunt. Well, since both of those things have been 
verified, I feel better about the year we are going into.
    I do think on the greater issue of the burning program, 
what I would like to see, and maybe we have a year now to see 
if you could produce that for me, any evidence that that really 
is going to work in restoring the forest area you are burning 
to where you think it is.
    It seems to me having visited there, that the trees coming 
back up are the same trees you burned down, as opposed to some 
different look that tries to capture a moment in time which, I 
think, is pretty arguable too; that that was the perfect moment 
for the forest, and we go to all this effort to make that 
happen. And you do have, when you remove all of the 
groundcover, obviously, erosion and other things are a problem 
that would not be otherwise. I may have had my two biggest 
questions answered here.
    Personnel-wise are you using the new personnel that you are 
hiring to try to identify the timber that can be harvested? Is 
that what I understood you to say?
    Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, each year, staff put together 
the program of work, and we get a lot of our work done with our 
seasonal workforce. So as we move into a year, we are going to 
be doing more timber harvest, we are going to be hiring more 
seasonals to do the marking, et cetera, versus maybe a 
prescribed burn.
    But the thing I need to stress is that with the reduction 
of our staffing over the last decade, it has just really 
limited our ability to be able to manage these forests. To be 
able to do the work where there is now strong support across 
the country, especially in these Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration projects where people understand what needs to be 
done on the landscape.
    But I will tell you, we are just so limited in what we are 
able to do. Our staff are doing a great job to be able to 
produce as much as they are. But with this budget request, 
where we are asking for additional money to do more forest 
restoration, do more hazardous fuels funding, and this is the 
first time that I have been up here in quite a few years in a 
position to be able to ask for that increase. That is what will 
really make a difference.
    So we have the collaboratives in place, folks understand 
what work needs to be done. Now is the time for us to add some 
additional capacity into the system so that we can get more 
work done.
    And Senator, we will share with you the monitoring 
information from that project, and also the research that we 
have that guides the type of projects that we are putting on 
the ground. We have been doing this work for many years, and we 
will provide that information.
    Not every project accomplishes every objective we set out. 
That is why we monitor these. But just like in our hazardous 
fuels projects, 90 percent of those meet their objectives to 
reduce the threat of fire and reduce the severity of fire.
    So we will provide you with that additional information.
    Senator Blunt. I may have some other questions later, 
Chairman.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
    Senator Merkley, please.

                    FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
thank you, Chief Tidwell and Mr. Dixon. Appreciate your 
testimony.
    First I just want to thank you very much for your support 
and advocacy of changing the way that we address funding of 
fighting forest fires in a regular budget, the 70 percent 
rolling average over a 10-year period, and then doing the rest 
under emergency. It makes a great deal of sense. We have just 
been putting all our resources in the firefighting end and 
failing to treat emergencies as emergencies, and draining the 
Forest Service, and then trying to refund the Forest Service to 
do your regular work, which is so critical, whether it is 
planning for timber sales or maintaining the forest parks.
    So anything I can do to work in partnership with you all, 
and with this committee, and with the Energy and Natural 
Resources committee, we are certainly happy to do.

                        WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

    I wanted to mention that one community in Oregon, the 
community of Ashland, would be a great candidate for further 
hazardous fuels funding in their Wildland Urban Interface, and 
I will certainly follow up. They have partially completed their 
forest resiliency project, and just have a ways to go, and very 
important to their watershed for their area.

                              TIMBER SALES

    I wanted to turn to timber sales that are done by dealing 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning 
backlog and just the challenge of having the interdisciplinary 
teams necessary to complete the planning. The backlog in NEPA 
planning work in Oregon has presented itself as a concern to 
me. Perhaps you are aware of it, and the addition of more 
technical experts to those teams would be helpful.
    But are you aware of this challenge, and any particular 
thoughts about it?
    Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, we are, and it is one of the 
challenges we face, not only in your State, but across the 
country, to be able to have the necessary capacity to be able 
to increase the pace and scale of restoring our forests.
    We do have a great example, in the eastern part of your 
State, on the Malheur National Forest where we have been able 
to put that 10-year project together, and we are doing more and 
more work now where we are looking at large landscapes.
    Instead of looking at 1,000 acres at a time, we are now 
looking at tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres 
at a time and doing one Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 
and we are finding this to be much more efficient and more 
effective. It lays out a program of work for the next 10 years 
and provides a certainty to the industry, and it actually is 
saving us a lot of money and a lot of time in our NEPA process.
    We are to the point where for us to really go to where we 
need to be, and I use the project in eastern Oregon, for us to 
change the fire regime, we need to double the number of acres 
we have been treating in the last couple of years, and we need 
to do that for over a decade to really make a difference.
    That is just an example of the challenge that we have, and 
we do not need to double our budget to be able to do that work, 
but we do need to be able to increase our capacity so that we 
can expand. And that is one of the reasons that I feel so 
strongly about our budget request this year because we are 
asking for some modest increases to be able to do forest 
management work using Integrated Resource Restoration funds and 
then, of course, a significant increase with hazardous fuels 
which often accomplishes two objectives: reduces fuels and at 
the same time produces saw timber for mills.

               COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION

    Senator Merkley. I must say, there is an ecstatic community 
in John Day, Oregon and the Forest Service was instrumental in 
developing the innovation of using a service contract rather 
than a harvest contract to have that 10-year plan. That mill 
has hired, I believe, it is about 50 additional full time 
workers, living wage jobs, huge, huge for a small mill 
community and certainly a model to be replicated.
    And in that regard, I did want to praise the Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Program, the major part of that, 
the issues, the frame up with NEPA, all involved in that. We 
are seeking additional funding. You are seeking additional 
funding for it. I certainly am very supportive of that.
    But if we are able to maintain at least the 40 million; I 
do not know if we will make it to the 60 million. I would love 
it if we can. But will we be able to continue those projects 
that are already underway, like those three projects?
    Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator. We will be able to continue the 
projects that are underway, but what we found at the CFLR 
programs to be so effective, and it has so much support behind 
it. That is why we are asking for that increase to be able to 
expand that work.

                     WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT

    And Senator, I do want to thank you for being a cosponsor 
on the Wildfire Disaster Fund because that is key to a lot of 
things that we are talking about, so I really appreciate your 
support and work on that.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

    Senator Merkley. Two more things I would like to mention in 
my 1 minute left. One is the Columbia River Gorge Economic 
Development Fund.
    At a time that that scenic area was established, there was 
a commitment from the Federal Government to fund $10 million of 
economic development in the Gorge. Some of that has been 
funded, but there is a balance left on it of approximately $2 
million. I want to encourage the Forest Service to find a way 
to complete that commitment to the community. We are 28 years 
later and they could benefit from that.
    And second, just to put in a note that in terms of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), there are a lot of projects 
in Oregon that would merit from their attention and look 
forward to following up on that conversation.
    Mr. Tidwell. We will work on both of those efforts, and we 
will get back to you on the LWCF projects.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. Senator Begich.

                            BIG THORNE SALE

    Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I know my colleague, Senator Murkowski, asked you several 
questions on the Big Thorne Timber Sale. So can I just ask, 
these might be very quick, just so I get the understanding.
    I know it is delayed. I know you are under an 
administrative appeal process. So I have two questions, maybe 
three. Is there any information, I know there was, at one 
point, the State of Alaska had to get some information for your 
administrative appeal.
    Has everyone supplied the information you need that is 
external to your operation to deal with that appeal?
    Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator. It is my understanding the State 
has provided that information. It is going to be put into that 
Supplemental Information Report and then shared with the 
appellates.
    Senator Begich. Okay. So you have everything external that 
you need?
    Mr. Tidwell. That is my understanding.
    Senator Begich. Okay.
    Second, do you have the necessary staffing levels to ensure 
that you can move forward with resolving the appeal issue, but 
also, let us assume that it moves the right direction, to then 
make the sale happen?
    Mr. Tidwell. Yes, we do. We have the staffing to be able to 
finish and implement Big Thorne, and at the same time, move 
forward with this year's program of work.
    Senator Begich. Okay. And this led me, I thought I just had 
two, or three, on this one.
    And that is, can you put in more specific terms--not right 
now, but in a memo back to myself and my colleague and the rest 
of the committee if they have any interest in that--is just a 
range of timetable that you think, based on the appeal and 
where we you might end up at the final here? Because obviously, 
this is a pretty big issue, as you know. It is important for 
the mill to have this contract resolved sooner than later.
    But can you give us something more definitive in dates or 
ranges of dates that you think you can get down this ladder?
    Mr. Tidwell. We can provide that to you and the rest of the 
committee, if they are interested in that.
    [The information follows:]

    The Big Thorne Record of Decision received a number of 
administrative appeals. Upon review of those appeals, the Regional 
Forester upheld the Forest Supervisor's decision, with direction to 
address whether the information and conclusions contained in the August 
2013 statement of retired State of Alaska wildlife biologist Dr. David 
Person, is consistent with the analysis in the Big Thorne Final 
Environmental Statement and Record of Decision.
    The work necessary to address Dr. Person's Statement has been 
ongoing since the Regional Forester issued her appeal decision on 
September 30, 2014. The Wolf Task Force, comprised of State and Federal 
wildlife biologists, is reviewing the information and conclusions 
contained in Dr. Person's Statement. Additionally, the Forest 
Supervisor is also reviewing the Tongass Forest Plan's legacy and old 
growth reserves standards and guidelines to ensure the Big Thorne 
Record of Decision is consistent with Forest Plan direction.
    Once these reviews are completed, the findings will be summarized 
in a draft Supplemental Information Report (SIR), which will be 
provided to appellants and appropriate State and Federal agencies for a 
30-day review and comment period. Any comments received will be 
considered prior to issuance of a final SIR by the Forest Supervisor. 
It is unknown what additional issues may be raised by the appellants or 
agencies in comments submitted on the draft SIR; any new information 
that is submitted could require additional analysis to be completed by 
the Tongass National Forest prior to issuing the final SIR.
    With this in mind, the following is the current schedule for the 
remaining administrative processes for the Big Thorne timber sale 
project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 31............................  Draft Supplemental Information
                                     Statement (SIR) released to the
                                     Appellants and appropriate State
                                     and Federal agencies for 30-day
                                     review period.
June 30...........................  End of Review period for Draft SIR,
                                     start of review and response to
                                     comments.
August 20.........................  Final Decision and SIR completed and
                                     released.
August 30.........................  If no units dropped, final appraisal
                                     completed and Sale advertised.
September 30......................  If units dropped, prepare final
                                     cruise, final appraisal completed
                                     and Sale advertised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Senator Begich. Okay. Fantastic. If you would do that, that 
would be great.

                         RECREATION AND TOURISM

    Second, I want to move to the tourism recreation budgets, 
and this is of grave concern to me. I know there is a leader's 
document on the regional level that indicates that they will be 
substantially reducing its support or dropping its support for 
recreational tourism within your operations.
    And as you know, the Alaska travel industry, or maybe you 
do not know, but the Alaska travel industry has brought forward 
a resolution concerned about this too. As you know, it is big 
business for us, especially in the southeast where there is an 
enormous amount of travelers. We get about 800,000 cruise ship 
industry travelers, 1.9 million overall travelers to the State. 
And, of course, our forests are incredible. It supports our 
tourism business in southeast alone, about 10,000 jobs and 
about $1 billion in annual spending. So pretty, as you know, 
pretty significant and I am concerned about this leader's 
document indicating this.
    So the question I have is, one, is that moving forward in 
full force, what your leadership document has? Or is there a 
number that you are still trying to struggle with to put into 
the budget to keep it level, at least for the funding regarding 
tourism and recreation, in regards to your budget? Is there a 
number that you need to put back in to make it whole, or is 
just now the policy that this is no longer a priority, and 
money or not, we are not interested?
    Can you give me a--obviously from my perspective, you are a 
huge landowner along with many other Federal agencies, and when 
you decide not to use it for something like this that is an 
economic driver, that is a diversifier of economy, especially 
in southeast, it is very problematic.

                           BUDGET CHALLENGES

    Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we are not shifting our priority 
about how important recreation is. It provides more economic 
activity, supports more jobs than all the other activities on 
the national forest put together.
    What you are seeing in Alaska is just the result of what 
has been happening to our budget over the years of having to 
put more and more of our budget into dealing with fire 
suppression. Under a constrained budget, we keep having to 
reduce all these other programs. Recreation is another key one.
    So the regions have to make some really tough choices based 
on the realities of the budgets that we see right now, to be 
able to prioritize what work they can do, where is the best 
place to put their limited recreation money to be able to 
provide for the most economic benefit. Those are just an 
example of how difficult these choices are.

                         RECREATION AND TOURISM

    Senator Begich. But let me, I appreciate that. I understand 
that, but as you indicated, you had some incremental movements 
in the budget this year, and I understand why. Fire suppression 
is a critical piece and what you have done is a smart move, 
actually planning for what really is going to happen, which I 
give you a lot of credit for that, and commend the agency.
    But what is the amount, or can you get to me, what the 
amount of resource you would need to put it back into being 
held harmless or, at least, flat compared to last year? Can you 
get me that information so I understand what this increment is 
that is lacking for this promotion, this activity around 
tourism and recreation?
    Mr. Tidwell. I will tell you that the region is dealing 
with about a 30 percent reduction in the recreation funding 
from what they received a few years ago. It is not quite at 
that level nationally. It is more about 15 percent down.
    But I can tell you--there is not any fewer people wanting 
to come to see the national forests. And especially in your 
State, it is such a big economic driver.
    Senator Begich. Yes, I mean, you are making my argument. So 
give me those numbers and especially if nationally it is 15 
percent and in our region it is 30 percent, then we are not 
being treated fairly. That is a whole other debate, which, you 
kind of opened that door, but I will just leave that over here 
for a second.
    If you can get me that information, I want to know what it 
will take to get that, at least a reasonable approach because 
as you just said, the biggest use of the Forest Service is 
recreation and tourism. And for Alaska, it is, again, your 
lands, the Bureau of Land Management lands, and other lands are 
huge to the promotion of our business. So if you could get me 
that, I would greatly appreciate that.

                             ROADLESS RULE

    Then last, I will not take any more time. I will not be 
able to be here for a second round, but I know you are working 
on some issues around roadless rules, and we can have a 
different conversation at a later time.
    Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
    Senator Begich. Thank you very much for everything you guys 
are doing.

                               AIRTANKERS

    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Begich.
    Chief, last year through the Defense bill, you received C-
130 aircraft and the Air Force is in the process of modifying 
them at this moment.
    Do you have any money in this year's budget for costs 
associated with that modification? Will you be able to take 
these aircraft and incorporate them quickly without additional 
resources?
    Mr. Tidwell. The funding that is necessary to basically 
replace the wing boxes on those planes, plus to retrofit them 
for retardant delivery is actually part of the Defense 
Authorization Act. The Air Force has the adequate funding to be 
able to do the work on those planes.
    So it is not in our budget, but it is in theirs and those 
planes have to be put into the line up with everything else the 
Air Force is working on. They also have some of their own C-
130s that they need to do the same modifications on.
    They have told us that we should receive the first plane 
next year, and then the other planes will be coming in the 
years after that.
    Senator Reed. Very good.
    In 2012, you were talking about your Modernization 
Strategy, and you were calling for between 18 and 28 large 
airtankers, and you are getting new aircraft and leasing 
aircraft. You have the C-130s coming online.
    Are you on your trajectory to have your capacity, your 
adequate capacity?
    Mr. Tidwell. We are. I would say we are probably a year 
behind where we wanted to be at this time. But with these C-130 
planes that we will have in the next few years that will add to 
that. So if you add those planes to where we plan to be with 
the next generation aircraft that we are on the right 
trajectory.
    The other thing is we also have to factor in the P-2s that 
are being flown under our legacy contract. We are expecting to 
have those planes for 4 years and they will probably be done. 
That is why it is essential that we move forward with the next 
generation, and at the same time, the C-130 planes. That will 
provide seven aircraft. We will contract for the operation and 
maintenance of those aircraft, but it will be a key part of our 
future fleet.
    Senator Reed. Just finally, you have a $145 million item 
within the fire preparedness budget and it is designated ``Air 
Modernization.''
    If it is not for aircraft physical modification, what is it 
for?
    Mr. Tidwell. It reflects the cost of the next generation 
airtankers. They will cost us, based on what we saw last year 
with the ones that we flew last year, about 2.8 times as much 
as the legacy aircraft. However, they are faster. They are 
safer. They can deliver more retardant. But that is just a 
reflection of, as we move into these more modern aircraft, that 
it is going to be a significant increase in the cost.
    Senator Reed. Essentially, it is a contracting cost.
    Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief.
    Senator Murkowski.

                             ROADLESS RULE

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief, talking about the situation with the roadless rule 
right now following the Ninth Circuit decision, as I mentioned, 
I think we know that there is still more legal wrangling and 
procedure before the exemption will definitively apply on the 
Tongass.
    Once that is complete, and I would hope that the Forest 
Service would defend the exemption in any subsequent 
proceedings, I think it will give you that flexibility that you 
and I have talked about.
    But can you explain to me this morning how the Ninth 
Circuit ruling will impact--whether it is future timber sales; 
I mentioned the renewable projects, whether it is our hydro 
projects; possible transmission lines; mining roads such as 
those that we looked at when we were flying over Prince of 
Wales, the Bokan Road, the Niblack projects--can you speak to 
how this roadless exemption will impact effectively what you 
are doing within the Tongass right now?
    Mr. Tidwell. Well, what we have planned for this year in 
the Tongass, with or without the exemption, it will have no 
effect. All the projects that we have planned to go forward 
with, the mining projects that you just mentioned, the timber 
sale, the Big Thorne, the Wrangell sales, those will all go 
forward with or without any exemption.
    We will have to wait and see. As you mentioned, I think 
there is still some lengthy court time in front of us before we 
actually see where we end up, if the exemption will be 
reinstated or not.
    Senator Murkowski. Is the Forest Service going to defend 
the exemption?
    Mr. Tidwell. I am not going to comment on litigation until 
I actually see what comes out of this process.
    I will make the commitment that I want to resolve the issue 
with roadless. I spent 37 years, my entire career, dealing with 
this and I can at least, in most places now, see we have 
resolved the issue. Alaska is the last place.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, we thought we had resolved it. You 
and I both know, we thought we had resolved that back in 2003. 
I, too, want to finally and fully get this done. I, too, want 
to see us be able to access an area whether it is for energy 
resources, for access to road projects, transmissions, but we 
have got to get this roadless issue resolved, and we need that 
flexibility that you have been talking about.

                             TIMBER HARVEST

    Let me ask a couple of other questions here in this same 
vein. This past winter, you announced that you are appointing 
this public advisory council under the Federal Advisory Council 
Act (FACA), to consider these changes within the Tongass 
policy, particularly implementation of how you move towards 
second growth.
    Can you give me a quick status here on when this 15-member 
group will be announced, when it is going to start meeting, and 
then the composition? Because what I want to make sure is that 
you are going to have members that would be part of this, that 
reflect a diversity of views and not just necessarily one part 
of the community there.
    Mr. Tidwell. We are in the process. Shortly, we will be 
starting to review the applicants that have submitted their 
request to be considered. I am hoping by the end of May, we can 
actually announce the 15 people that will be on this.
    I can guarantee it will have a diverse set of interests. It 
is essential for us to do that. And based on our past success, 
when we have taken the time with these formal--these FACA 
committees, to me, are formalized collaborative effort--to get 
that diverse set of interests. It has been remarkable what they 
have been able to reach agreement on and to be able to deal 
with some of the more difficult issues.
    We saw it with the Idaho roadless of Senator Risch, who was 
with the other committee, if he was here, he would be talking 
about that. The work that we are seeing with the FACA committee 
we have on our planning rule to put the directives together. 
They have taken on the most difficult issues and actually, I 
have been so impressed. They have been able to resolve those 
and be able to make recommendations that we can move forward to 
implement.
    So based on my personal experience, this FACA group that we 
are putting together, it is absolutely essential that it 
provides that diverse set of interests so that we can be able 
to use that group's recommendations and be able to move forward 
with making the adjustments to the Tongass plan.

                       RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

    Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the adjustments, then, 
if you will. I have mentioned several times here this morning 
my concern for the limitations that we place on our ability to 
move out our renewable energy resources. This has been a key 
priority of this administration, has moved towards renewables, 
and yet it is our own Federal policies here that are limiting 
any ability in southeast to access, whether it is hydro, 
whether it is geothermal, or other renewable energy.
    So the question this morning is whether or not there is a 
renewable energy plan for the Tongass. And if so, whether it 
would be included in the Forest Plan Amendment as we move 
forward with this process?
    And also, I have queried different members of the Cabinet 
as they have come before other committees to just make sure 
that we are in agreement here, that hydropower is considered a 
renewable resource.
    So question to you about the broader renewable energy plan 
and whether within Forest Service you consider hydropower to be 
a renewable energy resource that would meet with the definition 
and the goals of this administration.
    Mr. Tidwell. I consider hydro to be renewable energy and it 
is essential there in southeast, especially, for us to be able 
to take advantage of that energy source and to replace the 
barging of diesel to those communities; which, I feel, is just 
a matter of time before we have an accident where we will then 
be doing a major clean up. And not only will it reduce the 
cost, but it also reduces the impact, the potential impact, to 
the environment. And that is why I think you are seeing the 
levels of support from some of the conservation communities and 
environmental groups about moving forward with the hydro 
projects.
    I know that as we have talked before, there is a long list 
of proposals, and we are working very closely with the State to 
be able to take those on. Last year, we dealt with like 29 
different projects, 22 of them were Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission projects; three of them are now under construction. 
This year, there are 30 proposals, 24 of them are FERC 
projects, and we expect to have five of those start 
construction this year. So we are making headway.
    As we have talked, when it comes to the FERC projects, the 
access that is needed to be able to develop that proposal is 
provided with, or without, roadless. So it is one of the things 
that we have to really understand is the flexibility that is 
within the 2001 roadless rule; that is what we are focused on 
this year. We will see how everything plays out in the courts 
for the future. So we are going to be focused on that.

                             PLAN REVISION

    Your other question about what we will consider with this 
amendment to the forest plan. We want to take a focused effort 
to be able to, at a minimum, deal with making some, potential 
changes to facilitate the transition to second growth, provide 
the bridge. And we will look at other opportunities. We will 
want to be very strategic in being able to see what we really 
need to consider.
    When it comes to the hydro potential, we have the projects, 
so we have a good idea of where they are located. It is 
something we can take a look at before we even make the 
decision of what we are going to be needing to address. So it 
is going to be part of the initial assessment that will be done 
before we get started.
    But it is just essential that we move forward and amend the 
Tongass plan. It is also, Senator, essential that your Sealaska 
bill gets through. I mean, not only is that important for the 
communities, but it is essential for some key changes for our 
transition plan. It is another key part of this that needs to 
be in conjunction as we move forward with our plan revision.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate your support of 
Sealaska. It was kind of a long and tortured process. I would 
like to see that through.
    I do want to make sure though that, again, as we are 
talking about renewable energy projects, we remember that it is 
more than just the list that is in play today where a blessing 
has been given to those specific projects.
    Because if we are limited to just that, how will a 
community--whether it is Ketchikan or Kake--be able to grow and 
evolve in the future if they do not have the ability to expand 
out their energy needs? And as you have pointed out, their 
energy needs can best be met through the addition of hydropower 
resources. We do not want to go back to the bad old days of 
diesel; that is not the future for this region.
    So as we are looking to the forest plan amendments, I think 
it is key, I think it is absolutely critical that there be a 
renewable energy plan that not only incorporates our 
opportunity and potential for hydropower, but also the 
geothermal resources that we have there.
    And you had mentioned, you know, biomass. There is 
abundance there, but I think it needs to be incorporated as 
part of the amended plan going forward. And quite honestly if 
it is not--if a renewable energy plan is not incorporated--I 
think that that is very, very inconsistent with, again, this 
administration's push toward, movement towards renewables. And 
so, how we balance that, I think, is going to be critical going 
forward.
    But to just suggest that it is just these particular 
projects that have been identified that meet that criteria, 
does not allow for a future for the Tongass. So we need to be 
working with you on really building out that renewable energy 
plan.
    I have gone well over my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. Senator Tester.
    Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                     FOREST JOBS AND RECREATION ACT

    I appreciate the administration's increased target on 
timber cuts. I think it is critical that we get that number up, 
and I am sure you do too.
    Over the past three decades, Montana is not like any other 
State. I think we have lost over two dozen mills. These mills 
are partners of the Forest Service. They are partners of the 
taxpayers. They do a very, very good job in allowing us to be 
able to manage forests in a way that will ensure forest health.
    Without an increase in timber coming out of the Forest 
Service lands, I think it is an obvious conclusion: we are 
going to lose more mills. So, and once they are gone, they are 
gone. They are not coming back. It is one of the reasons that I 
have tried to push the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which is 
a ground up approach, a Montana-made bill, supporting mills, 
creating jobs, supporting our Forest Service and our forests, 
and the breathtaking landscapes that are in those. And I want 
to thank you for the Forest Service support of that bill.
    I know that you face challenges in carrying out the 
projects. I am proud that Congress came together with the 
reauthorization of the Stewardship Contracting Authority and 
gave the Forest Service some more tools through the Farm bill.
    So the question is, what is the process that you are going 
to use to evaluate the recommendations put forth by the 
governors?

                               FARM BILL

    Mr. Tidwell. For the recommendations that we received from 
the new authority in the Farm Bill, we have 36 Governors who 
have submitted their recommendations. We have a team in my 
office that is actually going through those, all those 
different areas and I expect that in the middle of May or no 
later than late May, but probably closer to middle of May, we 
will be able to respond to each Governor about which projects, 
which areas that they recommended that we will be able to apply 
the authority.
    So all we are doing is checking about areas they 
recommended versus what the criteria is in the law. And I can 
tell you that we have worked very closely with all the State 
foresters. It is my expectation that the majority of the 
recommendations are going to be approved and will allow us to 
be able to move forward and design projects in those areas and 
use the new Farm Bill authorities.
    Senator Tester. Okay. So when would we expect the first 
batch of projects to move forward?
    Mr. Tidwell. Well, the projects themselves will probably be 
next year.
    Senator Tester. Okay.
    Mr. Tidwell. We have identified these areas, and we have 
the program to work for 2014 in place today. We will be looking 
at these areas and factor that into our planning for 2015.

                               AIRTANKERS

    Senator Tester. Good. I want to go back to a question the 
chairman asked you on the $145 million for additional 
contracting costs for next generation. Is that what I heard you 
say for the next generation air tankers? That is what the $145 
million was for.
    Mr. Tidwell. Part of our request is to have an adequate 
number, an adequate funding to deal with the additional costs; 
2.8 times as expensive as what we used to have with the legacy 
aircraft.
    Senator Tester. Okay. And I am not going to argue with 
that. And Mr. Dixon, if you want to join in on this, you can, 
because you are fidgeting there a little, so you can jump in.
    What kind of metrics did you use to determine the cost 
effectiveness in that additional 2.8 times? Now, I know you 
talked about safety, and I know you talked about timeliness of 
delivery, and those can save money.
    So it would seem to me, and I appreciate the $145 million 
and I am not going to argue that figure with you. But I just 
want to make sure that there was some consideration of the 
effectiveness of these next generation planes and the cost 
savings that could be associated with their effectiveness.
    Mr. Tidwell. When we put out the contract, we wanted to 
have aircraft that were safer, faster, and a larger capacity 
because based on the fire activity that we are seeing today, we 
needed to be able to provide a larger load of retardant to deal 
with this.
    So we put out those specs and received the bids, and then 
we awarded the contracts.
    Senator Tester. I got you.
    Mr. Tidwell. The costs just reflect the market.
    Senator Tester. I got you. But was there any account for 
the fact that the tankers, that they are going to be delivering 
a bigger payload? That, in fact, they are going to be more 
cost-effective in that way per hour of flight time?
    Mr. Tidwell. We do expect they will be more cost effective 
because they are faster.
    Senator Tester. Right.
    Mr. Tidwell. We can get you the information about the cost 
of a gallon delivered. But the reality is that when we have 
these exclusive use contracts, there is a set amount that is 
the cost of the plane for the year----
    Senator Tester. I got you.
    Mr. Tidwell. Plus the flight hours.
    Senator Tester. Maybe this is the wrong correlation, but I 
will make it anyway. I can haul grain to market in a single 
axle truck that costs me $20,000 or I can haul grain in a semi 
that costs me $100,000. Over time, the cost per bushel actually 
is cheaper for the more expensive rig.
    And I just want to make sure you have taken those metrics 
into account because it would seem to me that the effectiveness 
of these planes are going to be better. Like you said, they are 
going to be safer. They are going to be more timely and they 
are going to be able to deliver the payload to where it needs 
to be delivered in a much more time-effective way. It is going 
to save money.
    Mr. Tidwell. We will provide you with the analysis that we 
have done.

    [Note: This information was provided directly to Senator Tester.]

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

    Senator Tester. Good, good. I just want to comment. I 
really support the administration's Land and Water Conservation 
request, and I am going to work with my colleagues to provide 
adequate funding because we have some great projects in Montana 
that will be done, and I appreciate your support of that fund.
    And the last thing, on a personal note, how is your ticker?
    Mr. Tidwell. I woke up this morning, so it is a great day.
    Senator Tester. All right. Well, thank you very much for 
your work, Chief. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator 
Murkowski. Gentleman, thank you for your testimony and for your 
service.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    The record will remain open until May 7 for any of my 
colleagues who may wish to submit statements or questions. And 
Chief, we would ask you to respond as quickly as possible on 
any written questions that we deliver to you.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to 
the hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
    Question. How does the proposed disaster cap amendment benefit the 
Forest Service and get the agency ahead of the curve on fire spending?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget proposes a new and 
fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire. To solve the 
fire problem, we need a comprehensive approach that will restore fire-
adapted ecosystems; build fire-adapted human communities; and respond 
appropriately to wildfire. Wildfire funding has grown from 21 percent 
of the Forest Service budget in 2000 to over half of the agency budget 
in 2014. Fire transfers deplete the budget by up to $500 million 
annually, which disrupts the momentum of critical restoration work. The 
impact is felt across critical programs nationwide and exacerbates the 
frequency and intensity of fires in future years. The suppression cap 
adjustment would provide a stable source of fire funding and enable 
greater investment in restoration and fire risk reduction programs.
    Question. Please elaborate on the modifications that the Air Force 
is making to ensure that the C-130Hs are mission-ready for the Forest 
Service.
    What physical work needs to be done by the Forest Service once an 
aircraft is transferred in order to make it ready to fly?
    Answer. The Air Force will complete the Programmed Depot 
Maintenance (PDM) as well as the Center Wing Box (CWB) and Outer Wing 
Box (OWB) replacement. The Air Force will also contract for and oversee 
the installation of the gravity retardant delivery system. After the 
aircraft is transferred, the Forest Service will need to install 
avionics and other equipment specific to the airtanker mission.
    Question. Is there any funding in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
associated with delivery of the C-130s?
    What will be required of the Forest Service above the $130 million 
provided by the Air Force to get these planes in the air, not including 
the contracting for operation and maintenance
    Answer. The Forest Service estimates that approximately $4.3 
million will be required for one C-130H in fiscal year 2015. That cost 
includes operating costs, pilot and maintenance contracts, required 
payments into the Working Capital Fund, and minor modifications 
specified in the question above.
    Question. Is it correct that the Forest Service will hit within the 
target of 18-28 large air tankers in fiscal year 2015?
    What level of confidence does the Forest Service have that all of 
these planes will actually be flying?
    Answer. Yes, the Forest Service expects up to 25 airtankers in 
fiscal year 2015. More specifically, the Forest Service is planning 
for: 8 legacy airtankers, 16 next generation airtankers, and 1 Forest 
Service owned/contractor operated excess U.S. Coast Guard C-130H 
converted into an airtanker. Our confidence is high that all of these 
planes will be flying in fiscal year 2015.
    Question. What accounts for the continued decrease in Urban & 
Community Forestry?
    Are these activities not a priority, or are they being delivered 
through some other mechanism?
    Answer. The Urban and Community Forestry activities remain a high 
priority for the Forest Service. In the past, a percentage of Urban and 
Community Forestry (U&CF) Program funds were used to fund competitive, 
landscape-scale ``Redesign'' projects, which was essentially formalized 
in fiscal year 2014 as the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) budget 
line item. With the proposed $9 million increase in LSR funds in fiscal 
year 2015, it is anticipated that Urban and Community Forestry work and 
communities served as part of the LSR Program will be on a similar 
scale to previous year's U&CF representation or equivalent to the $4.4 
million reduction in the fiscal year 2015 budget. In addition, the 
Urban and Community Forestry program is part of the President's 
proposed new $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund presented as part of 
the fiscal year 2015 budget. Through this Fund, the President proposes 
that we:
  --Invest in research and unlock data and information to better 
        understand the projected impacts of climate change and how we 
        can better prepare our communities and infrastructure.
  --Help communities plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change 
        and encourage local measures to reduce future risk.
  --Fund breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure that 
        will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate. 
        The Urban and Community Forestry program is part of this, as 
        improving community trees and forests helps remove carbon from 
        the air, reduce the need for stormwater treatment, mitigate 
        flooding and provide other ecosystem services.
    Question. Please describe what will be accomplished in the 
Landscape Scale Restoration program with the funding provided in fiscal 
year 2014, and why it is proposed for a more than 50 percent increase 
in fiscal year 2015.
    Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) 
program will fund over 50 projects in the South, Northeast and West 
focused on addressing priorities and needs identified in State Forest 
Action Plans. These projects cover an expansive range of issues--from 
expanding forest markets, to invasive species management, to 
agroforestry, to watershed enhancements to urban forestry outreach--all 
focusing on restoring healthy and resilient landscapes and communities 
in priority areas within and across States. The LSR budget line item 
makes it even easier for States and their partners to propose 
innovative, cross-boundary work that spans multiple State and Private 
Forestry program areas. In fiscal year 2015, the program will continue 
to focus on funding innovative projects across boundaries and across 
jurisdictions to address States' priorities--and best target and 
leverage the Federal dollar. This level of funding will also allow the 
agency to leverage approximately $6 to $8 million more in partner 
contributions and provide the ability to fund approximately 15 to 20 
additional projects. The proposed funding level in fiscal year 2015, 
while 68 percent higher than the fiscal year 2014 enacted, is only 18 
percent higher than the President's fiscal year 2014 request of $20 
million.
    Question. Does the evidence in the Integrated Resource Restoration 
pilot regions show that the flexibility Congress has provided is 
resulting in more work being accomplished?
    What objective measures will demonstrate success?
    Answer. The evidence suggests that IRR is allowing the pilots to 
focus on and accomplish more priority work related to our goal of 
restoring National Forest System lands. The pilot authority has 
provided preliminary validation of the benefits that would be derived 
from nationwide Integrated Resource Restoration authority including:
  --increased ability to achieve integrated outcomes at the landscape 
        scale;
  --reduced administrative burden;
  --previously separate program employees working together to achieve 
        shared restoration goals;
  --clear direction and focus for integrated resource restoration 
        within priority landscapes;
  --streamlined prioritization processes;
  --realization of mutual benefits through integrated planning across 
        multiple resource areas; and
  --improved operational efficiencies.
    Occasionally, the highest priority work does not produce more 
outputs, e.g., miles, acres; but addresses areas that are deemed to 
make the most significant contributions to restoration. Therefore, we 
are using a combination of objective outcome and output measures to 
evaluate our progress with restoration. The key outcome associated with 
the Forest Service's restoration effort is:
  --Moving watersheds to an improved condition class as per the 
        agency's Watershed Condition Framework.
    The pilot program was able to move six watersheds to an improved 
condition class in fiscal year 2013 (double the number that was 
accomplished in fiscal year 12).
    We are also tracking the following longstanding output measures 
under IRR:
  --Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and 
        resilience;
  --Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced;
  --Volume of timber sold; and
  --Miles of roads decommissioned.
    In fiscal year 2013 the IRR pilot exceeded planned targets for 
acres treated (133 percent) and miles of stream habitat restored (135 
percent). The program nearly met the volume of timber sold target at 96 
percent, and did not meet the road decommissioning target at 85 
percent. Three of the four output measures (acres treated, miles of 
stream habitat restored, and timber sold) increased over the fiscal 
year 2012 accomplishment levels (by 11.0 percent, 5.9 percent. and 12.9 
percent respectively).
    Planned targets were not met primarily due to litigation, market 
conditions (no bid on a sale), staffing vacancies, fire season, and 
NEPA appeals and litigation. Many of these conditions would exist 
regardless of IRR.
    We will continue to both monitor the performance results from the 
three regions under the IRR pilot authority and submit the IRR Pilot 
Annual Report to Congress.
    Question. After years of flat or declining budget proposals for 
Forest and Rangeland Research, the fiscal year 2014 request included a 
$15 million dollar increase. The fiscal year 2015 request asks for an 
almost equivalent decrease of $17.5 million. Why such a significant 
decrease proposed, especially during a time when the Forest Service is 
trying to implement the new planning rule, which will rely on the 
science performed within the research division?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests funding 
for the highest priority research needs. Recognizing that research is a 
critical component of the agency, the administration also proposes to 
provide funding through the combination of the Budget Line Item for 
Forest and Rangeland Research and the fiscal year 2015 Opportunity, 
Growth, and Security Initiative.
    Question. How is the Forest Service fulfilling the instructions 
included with the $5 million increase for biomass utilization grants 
provided in fiscal year 2014, to use these funds to develop new high 
value markets for low value wood?
    Where is the increased funding in fiscal year 2014 being focused?
    Answer. The increased funding is focused on two critical needs: (1) 
expanding renewable wood energy use near National Forest System lands 
in need of hazardous fuels treatments, and (2) promoting wood as a 
construction material in the commercial building sector. This work 
helps to create high value markets by expanding the use of woody 
biomass for energy as well as expanding the demand for engineered wood 
and other wood products in the institutional/commercial building 
sector.
    Question. What areas would be expanded if Congress provides the 
budget request's increase of another $5 million in fiscal year 2015?
    Answer. The expanded areas would be to:
  --increase grant opportunities to assist with the final phases of 
        wood energy projects;
  --stimulate woody biomass utilization in geographic areas with high 
        wildfire risks; and
  --promote more widespread use of wood in commercial building 
        construction.
    Question. How are the $2 million in funds provided for Restoration 
Partnerships being used in fiscal year 2014?
    Answer. In March 2014, we issued a field unit request within select 
program networks, including watershed restoration and utility corridor 
maintenance networks, to determine project and program needs. We 
received a total of 33 proposals, representing each region within the 
Forest Service, with a total request of $8.8 million. We are currently 
determining if there are options for additional private-sector leverage 
of Restoration Partnership funds, and we anticipate the final decisions 
on the allocation of Restoration Partnership funds to occur in June 
2014.
    Question. Will this program be continued in fiscal year 2015 
without a specific line-item?
    Answer. We did not request a separate line-item to fund this 
program in the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget. We feel the program 
can be carried out through partnerships under the proposed Integrated 
Resource Restoration budget line item and existing authorities.
    Question. Will the partnerships developed in fiscal year 2014 be 
continued without new funds?
    Answer. Yes, we hope that any partnerships we develop in fiscal 
year 2014, through the Partnership Restoration funding opportunities, 
will continue in fiscal year 2015. Our ability to continue those 
partnerships will be based on need, priority, and funding availability.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
    Question. As you know, California is facing a historic drought. For 
the first time in 15 years, 100 percent of California is in moderate to 
exceptional drought according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. This year, 
the State received only about 50 percent of normal precipitation, and 
snowpack levels are down to just 16 percent of normal.
    California's Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE) 
reports that since January 1, California has had 1,108 fires on State 
lands. During the same period last year, the State saw only 697 fires 
on State lands. This is an almost 60 percent increase.
    Clearly, we are facing the likelihood of a particularly severe 
wildfire season this year that will significantly threaten public 
safety and infrastructure throughout California and other Western 
States.
    Chief Tidwell, what specifically is the Forest Service doing to 
prepare for this year's drought-enhanced fire season?
    Answer. Due to the drought throughout California and other States, 
we continue to maintain heightened staffing levels, including 
organizing trained firefighters from other geographic areas who can 
pre-position or quickly respond when needed. We've developed short and 
long-term strategies that include hiring additional agency personnel, 
utilizing contract resources under existing contracts, creating new 
contracts, extending options on aviation assets and utilizing assets 
from other regions on a long-term basis. We escalate and decrease 
staffing levels commensurate with weather conditions and resource 
drawdown. In addition to crews, engines, dozers and prevention assets, 
we maintain aerial firefighting capability with helicopters, air 
tankers and smokejumpers. Many of the forests have 7 day staffing, as 
well as 24 hour coverage in some cases. We are also establishing 
mobilization centers in areas where increased fire activity is 
predicted, to efficiently manage an influx of fire suppression 
resources and we are working with our partners and reaching out to the 
public with focused fire prevention messaging using Fire Prevention 
Teams and Public Information Officers located in our Geographic Area 
Coordination Centers. We have also increased patrols and signage, and 
are providing one united message to the public with regard to the 
uncharacteristic fire danger levels that exist, especially in 
California. We are also coordinating with our partners, including 
Federal, State and local, to ensure information is being shared and 
that local and geographical area agreements are up to date.
    Question. What actions are you taking to have firefighting aircraft 
(including tankers and helicopters) and fire crews staged in drought 
stricken states like California?
    Answer. As fire danger and risk increase in California, 
firefighting aircraft will be pre-positioned to respond to fires. 
Currently, there are four Type I heavy helicopters and nine Type II 
helicopters, five airtankers and several aerial supervision aircraft in 
Southern California, ready to respond. Additional aircraft will be 
moved, if needed. The Forest Service is in the second year of night air 
operations in Southern California. A night air operation includes a 
type-2 helicopter and an infrared equipped twin engine fixed wing. Both 
aircraft started on June 1.
    Question. Do you expect the 2015 budget request to adequately cover 
the costs for this year's fire season?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request covers our 
forecasted funding needs for the fiscal year 2015 fire season. Together 
the request for Suppression and the proposed cap adjustment would fund 
the 10-year average and anything above the 10-year average equal to the 
high end of the 90 percent confidence interval predicted by the outyear 
forecast. For fiscal year 2014, however, any costs above the 10-year 
average will be covered by fire transfer. The May (median) forecast for 
suppression spending predicts that the Forest Service will spend $1.55 
billion this fire season, and we were appropriated $995 million. 
Therefore, we expect to have to enter into fire transfers again this 
fire season.
    Question. Last summer, the Rim Fire burned over 270,000 acres, 
including 154,000 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest. While 
ecological recovery will take many years, there may be only 18 to 24 
months from the time of the fire before the downed timber rots and is 
no longer salvageable.
    It is my understanding that the Forest Service has been able to 
expedite timber salvage along roads and utility corridors on an 
emergency basis and is currently working on completing an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) that may allow for an estimated 30,000 acres of 
timber salvage in the Stanislaus.
    Chief Tidwell, can you please provide an update regarding the 
status of both the emergency timber salvage work as well as the status 
of the EIS for the larger salvage project?
    Answer. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for hazard tree removal 
along 194 miles of high-use Forest Service roads, administrative and 
recreation facilities, and areas adjacent to private infrastructure was 
completed and the Decision Notice signed on April 25, 2014. The hazard 
trees will be removed through the use of four competitive salvage 
timber sales, in addition to two settlement sales that were awarded to 
affected utility companies. All four competitive sales have been sold.
    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reduce the 
potential for future catastrophic fire by reducing the fuel loading and 
to capture the perishable economic value of the fire-killed trees has 
been completed. The Draft EIS analyzed over 44,000 acres of National 
Forest System lands for potential treatment, including an estimated 
30,000 acres of timber salvage. The 30-day public comment period on the 
Draft EIS is scheduled to start on May 16, 2014. A Final EIS is 
scheduled for completion in August 2014.
    Question. When do you expect the Forest Service will be able to 
award salvage contracts, and when will that allow timber harvesters to 
get on the ground to begin that work?
    Answer. As mentioned above, two settlement sales have been awarded 
and all four competitive sales have been sold. Now that the projects 
are awarded, operations can begin immediately.
    Projects approved under the larger EIS are scheduled to be 
advertised for sale shortly after the Record of Decision (ROD) is 
signed, with a minimum seven-day advertisement period. Operations are 
expected to begin in early September.
    Question. Does the Forest Service have any additional 
administrative options or legislative recommendations that would help 
expedite the process?
    Answer. An Emergency Situation Determination (ESD) has been granted 
by the Chief for the hazard tree EA and the larger EIS project. Both 
projects are under the Section 218 Objection Process. With an approved 
ESD, there is no objection period (60 days) or objection resolution 
period (30 plus days). The decision is signed immediately after the 
public is notified that the decision will be signed, saving 90 days in 
the process. Since there is no objection process, the public has the 
option to pursue remedy in the Courts.
    We have been successful in requesting and receiving alternative 
arrangements from the Council on Environmental Quality on the Rim Fire 
EIS. The approved alternative arrangements allow for the comment period 
on the Draft EIS to be reduced by 15 days and eliminating the 45-day 
period between release of the Final EIS and the issuance of the ROD.
    Timber salvage volume from the Rim Fire is expected to 
significantly exceed the capacity of the local manufacturing 
infrastructure. Hauling costs to manufacturing facilities outside the 
local working circle is prohibitively expensive. The Forest Service is 
exploring all options within our authorities to enable the woods 
products industry in California to economically utilize the salvage 
material available from the Rim Fire.
    Question. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act included a 
provision that I worked on with my colleague Senator McCain to transfer 
7 C-130 air tankers from the Coast Guard to the Forest Service. These 
planes would also receive maintenance and new wing boxes from the Air 
Force.
    I believe these seven planes are only the first step necessary to 
provide the Forest Service with the fleet it needs to protect our 
nation. It is my understanding that at least one or two planes will be 
transferred from the Coast Guard during this calendar year.
    Can you give me a precise update on when the Forest Service expects 
to begin receiving these planes?
    Answer. A transfer strategy and timeline for the planes has been 
developed and is being implemented. We expect the first aircraft to be 
transferred in late 2014 or early 2015 and be available for limited 
operations in 2015, after the Air Force completes their retrofitting 
work. The C-130H aircraft will be Forest Service owned and contractor 
operated and maintained. We expect three additional aircraft to be 
transferred in fiscal year 2017 and the remaining three to be 
transferred in fiscal year 2018.
    Question. California's Department of Forestry & Fire Protection 
(CALFIRE) has long had a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service 
to efficiently provide fire protection to all of California. 
Specifically, this agreement allows California to protect Federal lands 
and for the Forest Service to protect state lands when it is clearly 
economically efficient.
    In recent years, the Forest Service has faced challenges in 
fulfilling this agreement. If the Forest Service does not uphold its 
end of the bargain, it will result in increased costs for both 
California and the Federal Government.
    In this year of heightened fire risk, do I have your commitment to 
provide California with adequate firefighting resources as required by 
this agreement?
    Answer. Yes, I am committed to provide California with adequate 
firefighting resources as required in the agreement.
    Question. The 2014 Farm Bill contained a provision that directed 
States to identify forest areas that need treatment for pests and 
diseases, and the Bill further allowed for expedited environmental 
reviews.
    California has identified and requested three areas that need 
critical pest and disease treatment to safeguard forest health. These 
are the McCloud Watershed, the Southfork American Watershed, and the 
Santa Ana Watershed. All of these watersheds are experiencing a 
troubling decline in forest health based on annual surveys and are at 
risk of substantial tree death in the next 15 years according to the 
California Department of Forestry & Fire (CALFIRE).
    Can you provide a status update on California's request for three 
priority treatment areas?
    Answer. On May 20, 2014 USDA Secretary Vilsack announced the 
designation of over 45 million acres of National Forest System lands 
across 94 national forests in 35 States to address insect and disease 
threats. Approximately 1.5 million acres were designated in California 
within the McCloud/Pit River Watershed, the South Fork American River 
Watershed, and the Santa Ana Watersheds.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
    Question. As you know, the current approach to funding wildfire 
suppression is unsustainable and hurts many important programs that 
address fire prevention and support critical resources that we expect 
from National Forest System lands, including timber, water, recreation, 
wildlife, and range. I applaud the Forest Service and the 
administration for including in the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget a 
solution to this problem based upon the Wyden-Crapo Wildfire Disaster 
Funding Act that I have cosponsored. This new approach to funding large 
fires as natural disasters under the existing disaster cap should free 
up substantial resources that would have otherwise been slated to go to 
wildfire suppression under the current funding formula. This provides 
an opportunity both to sustain key programs that would have been cut 
and to provide substantial additional investment in fire prevention 
activities, including hazardous fuels and pest and disease treatment 
and mitigation. In the proposed budget, what programs were sustained 
and what programs received additional investment with the funding not 
allocated to fire suppression due to the proposed change in suppression 
funding?
    Answer. The President's budget invests in programs that help us get 
ahead of the fire problem by restoring landscapes and protecting 
communities. Compared to fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 the 
budget proposes significant increases for Hazardous Fuels ($52 million 
above fiscal year 2014 enacted), Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) 
($63 million above the fiscal year 2014 President's budget), 
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) ($20 million 
above fiscal year 2014 enacted) and Landscape Scale Restoration ($10 
million above fiscal year 2014 enacted). Over $50 million of the money 
freed up by the fire cap funds Preparedness and Suppression to cover 
the reality of our fire operations costs.
    Question. I would like to congratulate the efforts of the Forest 
Service in the Black Hills to work with a broad coalition of partners 
to respond to the mountain pine beetle infestation. Through the work of 
these partners, including the forest products industry, the State, 
counties, conservation districts, and others, tens of thousands of 
acres have been treated, slowing the spread of the beetles and 
improving the resiliency and long-term sustainability of the forest. 
With the interspersed FS and private lands throughout much of western 
South Dakota, I was intrigued to hear about the effort to coordinate 
actions between the FS and NRCS to address watershed-scale treatment 
and restoration across Federal and non-Federal lands. It seems to me 
that the approach described in the Chief's Joint Partnership would 
benefit the ongoing effort in the Black Hills. How do you see the 
Partnership working at this juncture? What do you see as the 
opportunities and timing for adding additional projects that could 
increase the pace and scale of critical treatment on non-Federal lands 
in the Black Hills?
    Answer. Through the Chiefs' Joint Landscape Restoration 
Partnership, the Forest Service is investing $13 million in 13 projects 
in 12 States across the country to help reduce wildfire threats to 
communities and landowners, protect water quality and supply, and 
improve wildlife habitat for at-risk species. Those projects are still 
in the early stages of implementation and accomplishments will be 
summarized at the end of fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2015 (pending 
available funding), the Chief expects to continue to support those 13 
projects as well as to consider additional projects that meet the goals 
of the Partnership. Additional projects would be considered via 
recommendations from Regional Foresters in partnership with their 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) counterparts. As both the 
Forest Service and NRCS work with private landowners, there could be 
opportunity in the Black Hills to consider a recommendation for 
funding.
    Question. The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board was 
established in 2003 to improve cooperation and understanding among 
Forest stakeholders. The Board was chartered under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act to consist of 16 members and 16 alternates appointed by 
the Secretary of Agriculture with the recommendation of the Forest 
Service. Regular meetings of the Board have proven to provide an 
important avenue of communication between stakeholders and the agency. 
Unfortunately, it continues to be challenging to keep the Board 
chartered and to fill all vacancies so that the Board is able to 
maintain a quorum for each meeting. What is the Forest Service doing to 
work with USDA to help ensure that the Board's charter does not expire 
and that new members are formally appointed as efficiently as possible?
    Answer. The Forest Service and USDA want robust Boards, 
representing the American people, assembled to carry out the mission in 
a timely fashion. The Forest Service recognizes the evolving workload 
and time requirements to evaluate and approve members and charters. We 
are committed to meeting the timelines to avoid unnecessary delays.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                                tongass
    Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, it was another subpar year 
in Region 10. The most recent 5-year schedule projects only about 82 
million board feet per year in the future, well below the ASQ for the 
forest.
    How are you going to overcome the ongoing decline in timber sales 
and ensure that the various timber targets are achieved?
    Answer. The Region was on track to meet or exceed all assigned 
targets in fiscal year 2013; however, the Big Thorne Project received 
seven appeals. The decision was affirmed, but the Tongass prepared a 
draft Supplemental Information Report (SIR) that was released May 23, 
2014 for a 30-day review by appellants, with the goal of issuing a 
final SIR later in the summer and offering in late September, 2014. 
Saddle Lakes Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected in 
2014 with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and draft 
Record of Decision (ROD) in June 2015, and final ROD in October 2015. 
The Wrangell Island DEIS is expected late in 2014, with the FEIS and 
ROD in 2015, and a sale offer in fiscal year 2016. The Kosciusko (first 
large young growth sale) project is underway. The environmental 
documentation for this project is expected to be completed by February 
2015. Field work will continue in the operating season of 2015 with a 
sale offer in early 2016.
    Question. Have you requested adequate funding to restore the timber 
sale program to what was projected in your 2008 Land Management Plan? 
If not, why not?
    Answer. Funding for the Region 10 timber sale program on the 
Tongass has been adequate to prepare and offer the assigned program of 
work. The assigned volume sold targets for the Region have been lower 
than the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) envisioned in the 2008 Plan. The 
ASQ represents a maximum annual average harvest from a given National 
Forest over a ten-year period as determined in the forest planning 
process.
    Question. Why is the current 5-year plan targeting such a low 
volume of timber? What is needed to increase the volume in the current 
5-year plan?
    Answer. The current 5-year plan targets an average of 101 million 
board feet (mmbf) per year for the next 5 years. This level of volume 
is consistent with the funding provided for the program and the 
available land base to work with for old growth ``bridge timber'' 
sales. The 5-year plan includes the reallocation of staff and finances 
to planning efforts that incorporate viable and available young growth 
stands into the targeted program of work.
    Question. For years we have heard the Forest Service blame 
litigation for failure to achieve timber targets on the Tongass. It 
seems after dealing with these legal challenges for such a long time 
that there would be some strategy to better address these claims. Do 
you have a plan to address this issue?
    Answer. The Tongass continues to address legal challenges to timber 
sale projects by improving collaboration with all stakeholders and 
presenting well-planned projects utilizing planning documents that are 
clear, concise and based upon the latest science. Implementing our 
transition strategy to second growth is a key element to reduce 
litigation and provide a sustainable flow of timber to support the wood 
products industry in Southeast Alaska. In addition, USDA efforts to 
assist in converting mills to handle smaller logs and developing 
additional markets, including biomass, will increase the economic 
viability of processing wood products in Alaska and reduce the need to 
export logs. Where export is often required to make projects 
economically viable, the more jobs that can be supported in Southeast 
will increase the support for the benefits of an integrated wood 
products industry needed for community sustainability.
    Question. At the hearing, we briefly discussed the status of the 
Federal Advisory (FACA) Committee that you are assembling to provide 
advice on the Amendment you are proposing to the 2008 Amended Tongass 
Forest Plan.
    Will you commit to me to balance the FACA Committee with Alaska 
Native Corporation and pro-development Southeast Alaskans?
    To what extent will you commit to me to include Southeast Alaskan 
representatives from the renewable energy and hydropower sectors on the 
FACA Committee?
    Answer. The Federal Advisory Committee Act has been announced and 
membership represents a diverse mix of viewpoints, with members from 
the Alaska Native community, national or regional environmental and/or 
conservation organizations, the timber industry, Federal, State and 
local government representatives, and other commercial users.
    Question. Will the Forest Service consider adding a Mineral and 
Strategic Mineral Land Use Designation (LUD) in the Amendment to the 
2008 Forest Plan to promote and support mineral and strategic mineral 
development and related access roads consistent with National Security 
and National Strategic Mineral Policies?
    Answer. The Tongass Forest Plan, in its current form, contains a 
``Minerals Overlay'' Land Use Designation (LUD) which states: ``To 
encourage the prospecting, exploration, development, mining, and 
processing of locatable minerals in areas with the highest potential 
for minerals development; and, To ensure minerals are developed in an 
environmentally sensitive manner and other high-valued resources are 
considered when mineral developments occur.'' We will evaluate whether 
changes to the Plan are necessary during the amendment process.
    Question. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 found 
that ``accelerated development and use of renewable energy technologies 
provide numerous benefits to the United States, including improved 
national security, improved balance of payments, healthier rural 
economies, improved environmental quality, and abundant, reliable and 
affordable energy for all citizens of the United States,'' and set a 
goal that by 2025 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United 
States come from renewable resources. Additionally, this administration 
has placed a high priority on development of renewable energy on public 
lands.
    How is the failure of the Tongass National Forest to have a 
renewable energy plan consistent with these goals?
    Answer. Hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority granted by the Federal 
Power Act. When projects are located on National Forest System (NFS) 
lands, FERC determines if the project is consistent with purposes of 
the NFS lands. The Forest Service submits license conditions to FERC 
necessary for the protection and utilization of NFS lands and 
resources. The Forest Service does not propose or plan renewable energy 
projects, but responds to proposed projects. Under the Federal Power 
Act, project proponents apply for a preliminary permit and FERC 
withdraws the land to allow the proponent to study the feasibility of a 
project. The Forest Service does not pre-determine where the best 
locations are as that is up to project proponents through FERC's 
procedures. Section 24 of the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920, 
as amended (16 U.S.C. 818), provides that any lands of the United 
States included in an application for power development under that Act 
shall, from the date of filing of an application therefore, subject to 
valid existing rights, be reserved from entry, location, or other 
disposal under the laws of the United States until otherwise directed 
by the FERC or by Congress. Therefore, the Forest Service responds to 
project proposals rather than identify potential areas for development.
    Question. Alaska is home to a vast amount of energy resources. What 
is the Forest Service doing to help make this energy available and 
accessible for the greater public benefit of citizens of Alaska and 
America, so that we can ``home source'' our energy supply, recapturing 
a greater portion of U.S. energy expenditures and job creation benefits 
that would otherwise occur overseas?
    Answer. The national forests in the Alaska Region are committed to 
responding to interests in developing energy sources in a timely 
fashion, consistent with forest plan direction. Currently neither 
national forest is in receipt of any proposals to develop any leasable 
(oil and gas, coal, geothermal) resources. Both national forests in the 
Alaska Region address leasable minerals, such as the energy-focused oil 
and gas, coal, and geothermal, in their forest plans. The Tongass 
Forest Plan states, as a Forest-Wide goal to, ``Provide for 
environmentally sound mineral exploration, development, and 
reclamation.'' Minerals Standards and Guides in the Tongass Forest Plan 
direct that ``leasing may occur on a case-by-case basis following site-
specific analysis.'' The Chugach Forest Plan states as a Forest-Wide 
goal, to ``Provide opportunities to develop minerals for personal and 
commercial uses.''
    Question. In 1947, the United States Forest Service (USFS) 
published a report titled ``Water Powers Southeast Alaska,'' which 
identified over 200 hydropower resources in watersheds across Alaska. 
The study summary states:
        The report indicates that it is possible to create dependable 
        blocks of power by coordinating many of the power sites into an 
        integrated utility system. There appear to be sites for 
        communities not too far from the general concentration of power 
        and natural transmission patterns.
    With the hydropower resources of Southeast Alaska so well 
understood as evidenced by a body of work assembled by Federal agencies 
which dates back nearly a century, why is it that the availability of 
these resources within the Tongass are being ignored and excluded from 
the Tongass Land Management Plan at a time in our Nation's history when 
new, clean, renewable energy resources are most needed?
    Answer. Hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority granted by the Federal 
Power Act. When projects are located on National Forest System (NFS) 
lands, FERC determines if the project is consistent with the purposes 
of the NFS land. The Forest Service responds to project proposals in 
accordance with FERC-administered regulations and timelines. After 
extensive review and coordination with project proponents, the Forest 
Service submits license conditions to FERC necessary for the protection 
and utilization of NFS lands and resources. The Forest Service does not 
propose or plan renewable energy projects, but responds to proposed 
projects.
    Question. Does the Forest Service intend to include a renewable 
energy plan in the Forest Plan Amendment to the 2008 Amended Tongass 
Forest Plan?
    Answer. The Tongass responds to renewable energy proposals in 
accordance with applicable Federal law. The Forest Service does not, 
per se, propose or plan renewable energy projects, but responds to 
proposed projects. The current Tongass Forest Plan states, as a Forest-
Wide goal to, ``Provide for environmentally sound mineral exploration, 
development, and reclamation.'' Minerals Standards and Guides in the 
Tongass Forest Plan direct that ``leasing may occur on a case-by-case 
basis following site-specific analysis.'' We will evaluate whether 
changes to the Plan are necessary during the amendment process.
    Question. Do you agree with the Executive Summary of a 2011, Region 
10, Forest Service document entitled ``Roadmap to Rural Wealth in 
Southeast Alaska: Restoration and Timber in Context'' in which Region 
10 of the Forest Service asserted:
        Low-cost energy is critical. The high cost of electric power 
        impedes economic development in the region, yet the region is 
        rich in hydropower potential. The most promising opportunities 
        lie in developing hydroelectric power and building transmission 
        lines to connect Southeast Alaska's communities to each other 
        and to Canada's grid, generating electric power for potential 
        export. Such projects would create new jobs through 
        constructing, operating and maintaining hydroelectric and 
        transmission facilities. Previous work by the Forest Service 
        has estimated job creation by this type of work at 10 jobs for 
        every million dollars invested.
    Answer. The Alaska Region continues to support the policy of 
encouraging hydropower production to reduce the high cost of energy 
while ensuring such development is compatible with national forest 
purposes and ensuring that the planning, construction, and operation of 
hydropower projects protect and effectively utilize National Forest 
System lands and resources.
    Question. What has the Forest Service done to resolve the ``minimum 
development'' and ``no roads'' requirements within the 9.6 million 
acres of Roadless Areas of the Tongass with Congress's and the Obama 
administration's renewable energy policies?
    Answer. The Roadless Rule prohibits road construction and the 
removal of timber in inventoried roadless areas, except under limited 
circumstances. For example, the Rule permits road construction where a 
road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as 
provided for by statute or treaty. Renewable energy hydropower projects 
are permitted through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
authority granted by the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act 
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to include conditions that ensure 
that projects are constructed and operated as ``deem[ed] necessary for 
the adequate protection and utilization of such [national forest 
lands.]'' The Alaska Region works with the proponents of hydropower 
projects to identify needed infrastructure for the proposed project and 
how those requirements can be met under the requirements of the 
Roadless Rule and the Federal Power Act.
    Question. The Forest Service acknowledged in a July 20, 2009 letter 
to Alaska Power & Telephone that a renewable energy project, 
specifically a hydropower project, sited in a Remote Recreation 
Transportation and Utility System (TUS) Avoidance Area could not meet 
the management direction for that LUD consistent with the National 
Environmental Policy Act, thereby requiring the Forest Plan to be 
amended. Notwithstanding that the commitment was made to do so nearly 5 
years ago, the Forest Service has not amended the Forest Plan, thereby 
precluding hydropower and other renewable energy projects in TUS 
Avoidance LUDs. Will the Forest Service correct this problem as part of 
the amendment process?
    Answer. As part of the proposed action in the amendment process, 
the Forest will consider whether changes are needed to the Tongass 
Forest Plan to provide for renewable energy project development.
    Question. The Draft Southeast Integrated Resources Plan (SEIRP) 
requires access to hydropower sites to promote hydropower development. 
The Draft SEIRP identified some, potential hydropower sites in 
Southeast Alaska. Further, the 1947 Water Powers of Southeast Alaska 
Report, conducted in part with the Forest Service, identified over 200 
such potential sites, many of which lay in the 2008 Forest Plan TUS 
avoidance LUDs. Such access is severely restricted by Remote Recreation 
LUDs. What actions do you plan to take in the upcoming amendment to the 
2008 Tongass Forest Plan to resolve this problem?
    Answer. This will be considered as the Tongass determines what 
issues may need to be included for updating in the amendment process.
    Question. Will the Forest Service consider a Renewable Energy LUD 
as part of the 2008 Amended Forest Plan amendment process, the purpose 
of which would be to promote and support all forms of renewable energy 
development (including geothermal) and related transmission lines 
within the Tongass consistent with Public Laws and national security 
and national energy policies?
    Answer. This will be considered as the Tongass determines what 
issues may need to be included for updating in the amendment process.
    Question. Would you agree that a Renewable Energy Development LUD 
would take precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable 
laws) regardless of whether the underlying LUD is an ``Avoidance LUD'' 
or not. And as such, it would represent a ``window'' through the 
underlying LUD through which renewable resources could be accessed and 
developed?
    Answer. These types of resource development priority decisions will 
be considered as the Tongass determines what may be included in the 
amendment process.
    Question. Will the Forest Service consider allowing geothermal 
leasing in the Tongass as part of the amendment process?
    Answer. The national forests in the Alaska Region are committed to 
responding to interests in developing energy sources in a timely 
fashion, consistent with forest plan direction. Three geothermal leases 
at Bell Island have been issued by the Bureau of Land Management, but 
no development is currently taking place at the site. The Tongass is 
not currently in receipt of any proposals to develop any leasable (oil 
and gas, coal, geothermal) resources. Minerals Standards and Guides in 
the current Tongass Forest Plan already directs that ``leasing may 
occur on a case-by-case basis following site-specific analysis.''
    Question. While ``reasonable access'' is technically permitted in 
Inventoried Roadless Areas, cutting trees associated with mining 
exploration and development does not appear to be allowed. 36 C.F.R. 
Sec. 294.13(b)(2) authorizes the cutting of timber ``incidental to 
implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by 
this subpart.'' However, there is no mention of mining in the examples 
provided in the 2001 Rule and Record of Decision (ROD) of what this 
section authorizes. Moreover, in describing this section the 2001 Rule 
and ROD states: ``Such management activities are expected to be rare 
and to focus on small diameter trees.'' Will you commit to me to allow 
a less restrictive form of ``reasonable access'' for mining exploration 
and development as part of the 2008 Amended Forest Plan process?
    Answer. If an inventoried roadless area on the Tongass is open to 
mineral entry, locatable mineral mining, including certain activities 
ancillary to the mining, such as the incidental cutting of timber, may 
be approved. The 1872 Mining Law gives a statutory right of reasonable 
and necessary access related to the exploration and development of 
mineral properties. The statutory right is subject to reasonable 
regulation for the protection of surface resources.
    Question. Will the 2010 Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska 
Report be updated as part of the 2008 Forest Plan amendment process?
    Are you familiar with what the 2010 report prepared said about the 
volume of timber that could be produced from second growth stands in 
the next 10-15 years?
    Is there a sufficient volume of second-growth for harvest (subject 
to the National Forest Management Act's (NFMA) non-declining, even flow 
requirement, the Tongass Timber Reform Act's (TTRA) stream buffer strip 
requirement's and Tongass Land Management Plan's (TLMP) 1000-foot beach 
buffer zone requirement) to warrant the risk (by bank or operator) to 
justify putting in a mill, even if there were a market?
    If your answer is ``yes,'' how do you explain the point made, at 
page 23 the 2010 Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska that states 
``young growth management is not currently economically viable without 
substantial public investments to pay for thinning?''
    Answer. The referenced report was prepared by the Alaska Region to 
explore ways to accelerate the transition of the timber management 
program on the Tongass National Forest--and the timber industry in 
Southeast Alaska that is dependent on that program--away from its 
historical reliance on harvesting old growth forest stands, and towards 
a program and industry based on the harvest of young growth stands. The 
forest plan amendment process will analyze the economics of the 
transition to young growth management.
    The report stated that about 8 percent of the forest land on the 
Tongass National Forest--400,000 acres--is in young growth, half of 
which is available for harvest under the existing forest plan. As part 
of the plan amendment process, the Tongass will evaluate which lands 
should be available for timber harvest to provide economically 
sustainable young growth, and any proposed changes to standards and 
guidelines and other management direction to promote and speed the 
transition to young growth management while maintaining a viable timber 
industry in Southeast Alaska. Investments in commercial thinning may 
allow young growth volume to be available more rapidly.
    Question. At the hearing, we discussed my concerns about the steady 
march towards losing what remains of the timber industry in Southeast 
Alaska and what we can do to reverse this trend.
    Please state the current objectives of the Transition Plan.
    Answer. As described in Secretary Vilsack's July 2, 2013 
Memorandum, the objective is to transition over the next 10 to 15 years 
to a more ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest 
management program on the Tongass National Forest, so that by the end 
of those 15 years, the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will 
be young growth.
    Question. Is the Forest Service required to adopt Secretary 
Vilsack's July 2nd Transition Plan as the Purpose and Need of the 
Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan? Is its selection as the 
preferred alternative pre-ordained?
    Answer. The proposed action will be to amend the Tongass Forest 
Plan as needed to accomplish the transition to young growth management 
over the next 10 to 15 years while retaining the expertise and 
infrastructure of a viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska, as 
outlined by the Secretary in his Memorandum. The purpose and need and 
any preferred alternative will be identified during the amendment 
process.
    Question. Is one of the Transition Plan's objectives to prevent the 
harvest of old growth in Roadless Areas? If so, explain how the Plan 
would be consistent with the 2003 Tongass Exemption.
    Answer. Secretary Vilsack's July 2, 2013 Memorandum describes the 
objective of the transition; the Memorandum does not address roadless 
areas. There is no immediate change in the application of the 2001 
Roadless Rule to the Tongass. As may be appropriate as a result of 
litigation, the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process may address the 
Tongass Exemption.
    Question. Will the Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan allow 
harvest in beach buffer zones and change stream buffer standards and 
guidelines to increase the inventory of second-growth on the Tongass 
suitable for harvest?
    Answer. The amendment process will identify areas suitable and not 
suitable for timber harvest to achieve the transition to young growth 
management. As part of the Plan amendment process, the Tongass will 
evaluate which lands should be available for timber harvest to provide 
economically sustainable young growth, and any proposed changes to 
standards and guidelines and other management direction to promote and 
speed the transition to young growth management while maintaining a 
viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
    Question. Does the recent 9th Circuit's decision upholding the 2003 
Tongass Roadless Rule Exemption impact the Forest Service's continuing 
its transition plan to second-growth timber on the Tongass as set out 
by Secretary Vilsack's Transition Plan?
    Answer. There is no immediate change in the application of the 2001 
Roadless Rule to the Tongass National Forest resulting from the 9th 
Circuit's decision, and there is no current impact to the transition 
from old growth to young growth timber harvest, as described in 
Secretary Vilsack's Memorandum.
    Question. Is the Transition to second-growth within 10-15 years, as 
proposed by the Secretary, dependent upon a Congressional amendment to 
the culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirement set out in 
the NFMA?
    Answer. Commercial thinning in young growth stands can occur 
without Congressional action, so long as procedural requirements set 
forth in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) are met. Those 
procedural requirements will be addressed in the Tongass Forest Plan 
amendment process.
    Question. If so, what happens to the Transition Plan if Congress 
fails to act?
    Answer. If the procedural requirements of NFMA are not addressed in 
the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process, the transition to a young 
growth based industry will proceed, but at a slower, more measured 
pace.
    Question. How do you assess the Forest Service's political chances 
of getting a Congressional waiver from CMAI, which the Secretary's 
Memorandum acknowledges is needed, given that CMAI was a key demand of 
environmental groups for agreeing to clear-cutting in the NFMA after 
they won the Monongahela suit in 1973 and Zieske case in 1974?
    Answer. Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements 
are part of every land management plan. The National Forest Management 
Act specifically allows exceptions to CMAI requirements ``. . . after 
consideration has been given to the multiple uses of the forest 
including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and range, 
and after completion of public participation processes . . .'' (16 
U.S.C. 1604(m))
    Question. Does the Forest Service plan to wait for Congress to act 
on CMAI before implementing the Transition to second-growth? What will 
be the status of the Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan while 
the Forest Service waits?
    Answer. The transition to young growth would be accelerated with an 
exemption to the CMAI provisions of NFMA, but the Forest Service does 
not plan to wait for Congressional action and will address the NFMA 
requirements in the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process.
    Question. If a waiver from CMAI is not achieved with the USFS seek 
to pursue a transition to 2nd Growth through commercial thinning? 
Forest Service experience with commercial thinning has cost 
approximately $6,000 per acre. What level of investment would be 
required to implement the Secretary's Transition Plan?
    Answer. A waiver from CMAI is not necessary for the transition to 
young growth management. The $6,000 per acre commercial thinning costs 
were the result of test contracts to determine the validity of 
commercial thinning in young growth and included additional costs 
associated with getting appropriate mechanized equipment mobilized into 
Southeast Alaska. With those contracts, the Region has successfully 
offered and sold a 7.4 million board feet (mmbf) young growth 
stewardship contract (Heceta) without supplemental appropriated funds 
necessary to complete the project. Heceta was appraised for 100 percent 
export and appraising for export in the future will be a key component 
of the transition in order to obtain the value necessary to be able to 
offer the projects for bid.
    Question. To what extent will the Forest Service allow export of 
2nd Growth logs to achieve the goals laid out in the Secretary's 
Transition Plan?
    Answer. The Forest Service will allow export of second growth logs, 
to the extent necessary to achieve a positive appraisal value to offer 
the project for sale. As domestic processing facilities convert or come 
on-line to deal with the smaller diameter trees in a young growth sale, 
the actual export of logs is expected to decrease.
    Question. The Forest Service faces a large backlog of pre-
commercial thinning and other treatments calculated to benefit timber 
quality and wildlife habitat. What level of finding will the Forest 
Service request for these activities?
    Answer. Based on the fiscal year 2015 President's budget, Alaska 
could expect to see a 6 percent (approx. $1 million) overall increase 
in appropriated dollars that could be used to help address the backlog 
of young stands needing for pre-commercial thinning.
    Question. The Secretary's July 2, 2013 Transition Memorandum does 
not propose a departure from the NFMA requirement that national forest 
timber be harvested on a sustained yield basis. Nor does the 
Secretary's Memorandum propose to modify the TLMP's 1000 foot beach set 
back rule or the stream buffer rules set out in TTRA. It thus appears 
that there is no profitable domestic or export market for second-growth 
timber from the Tongass National Forest that is subject to the 
management constraints of the NFMA and TLMP. How does the Forest 
Service propose to provide an assured supply of second-growth timber 
sufficient to justify mills and banks providing the financing needed to 
purchase the equipment and make the mill modifications required to 
handle second growth timber?
    Answer. All of these factors will be considered as part of the 
Tongass Plan amendment process to achieve the transition as described 
in the Secretary's Memorandum.
    Question. According to the Secretary's Memorandum, the Transition 
Plan is dependent on Congressional appropriations for ``increasing 
investments in young growth.'' The Secretary's Memorandum does not 
explain the level of investment that is needed or how in the face of 
decreasing Forest Service budgets such additional funds will be 
obtained and retained. What level of funding is the Forest Service 
requesting for this specifically and how much volume is it projected to 
produce?
    Answer. The Alaska Region would refocus the existing workforce into 
planning and executing young growth projects at an increasing pace and 
scale as old growth ``bridge timber'' sales are prepared and offered. 
Annual appropriations at or near the fiscal year 2014 budget level of 
$339 million for Forest Products will be adequate for the immediate 
future.
    It is currently uncertain what volume of young growth will be 
attainable as a result of the forest plan amendment. The proposed plan 
amendment will be designed to evaluate which lands will be available 
for timber harvest, especially young growth timber, which lands should 
be excluded, and additional opportunities to promote and speed the 
transition to young growth management.'' There are about 450,000 acres 
of harvested acres on the Tongass to be evaluated to provide new 
economic opportunities in future decades, when the trees will be large 
enough to yield marketable products. Outputs will be dependent upon the 
characteristics of the stands selected for harvest, the prescriptions 
applied and the economic viability of the selected treatments.
    Question. The Secretary's Memorandum, which results in a timber 
harvest level of 30-50 MMBF, does not explain what has changed since 
the 2008 Amended Forest Plan that would allow it to meet the Market 
Demand requirement of the TTRA which the 2008 Amended Forest Plan ROD 
said was 200 MMBF. Why does the Forest Service believe it has 
discretion to nullify the TTRA by so encumbering the suitable land base 
to surrender its ability to meet market demand?
    Answer. The Secretary of Agriculture monitors and reports on timber 
supply and demand in Southeast Alaska, consistent with ANILCA. As part 
of the Alaska Region's current program of work, an updated timber 
demand study will be completed, which will be considered in the Tongass 
Forest Plan amendment process.
    Question. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits communities such as 
Craig and Klawock from accessing mines with a road on Prince of Wales 
Island, thereby denying access to jobs to the residents of those 
communities and a local workforce to Prince of Wales' mines, such as 
Niblack and Bokan Mountain.
    What actions does the Forest Service plan to take to resolve this 
problem?
    Answer. The 2001 Roadless Rule explicitly allows road construction 
if ``A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as 
provided for by statute or treaty.'' This includes roads needed under 
valid existing rights established under the 1872 Mining Law. A 
determination whether a road is needed for these mines will be made 
upon submission by the mining companies involved of a proposed Plan of 
Operations that includes construction of such a road.
                        stewardship contracting
    Question. I have received reports that some of the Regions have 
been told to shift as much of their commercial timber sale program to 
stewardship contracting as possible.
    If so, why the focus on generating excess receipts by converting 
what would have been commercial timber sale projects to stewardship 
contracts?
    Answer. The Forest Service Washington Office has not directed the 
Regional Offices to shift timber sales into stewardship contracts. 
While we view stewardship contracting as an important tool, it is not 
our only tool in the toolbox. Both timber sale contracts and 
stewardship contracts are important tools to accomplish our work.
    Question. I have also been told that Forest Supervisors have been 
telling members of the public that the reason for shifting away from 
commercial timber sales to stewardship contracting is to allow the 
Forest Service to keep the excess receipts to use for salaries and road 
maintenance and under the discretion of the individual forest 
supervisor.
    The original concept of stewardship contracting was that the value 
of the timber volume would be equal to value of the service contract 
work to be accomplished. Is that not correct?
    Answer. The initial concept of stewardship contracting was and 
remains including timber volume and service work in roughly equal 
amounts within a stewardship contract. However, due to restoration 
needs and contractor capability, there are stewardship contracts where 
the value of the timber exceeds the value of the service work 
(producing retained receipts deposited into the Stewardship Contracting 
Fund) and there are stewardship contracts where the value of service 
work exceeds the value of the timber (requiring the addition of 
appropriated funds to the contract).
    Question. As I recall, the original premise of the stewardship 
contracting pilot projects was that the excess receipts were to be used 
to develop new stewardship contracts. Is that correct?
    Answer. Stewardship contracting retained receipts may be spent on 
new stewardship projects or on accomplishing additional restoration 
work within an existing stewardship project.
    Question. Please provide a table that shows by National Forest the 
percent of all saw timber sold through stewardship contracting versus 
commercial timber sale contracts.
    Answer. See the table below. Only National Forests with Sawtimber 
volume sold in fiscal year 2013 are included.

                  PERCENT OF ALL SAWTIMBER SOLD UNDER STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Sawtimber
                                                               Total Sawtimber    Volume Sold       Percent of
                                                                Volume Sold in       under       Total Sawtimber
               Region                          Forest           thousand board   Stewardship in    Volume Sold
                                                                  feet (MBF)     thousand board       under
                                                                                   feet (MBF)    Stewardship (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 Northern Rockies.................  02 Beaverhead-Deerlodge              127                0              0.0
                                      03 Bitterroot..........            4,692            4,557             97.1
                                      04 Idaho Panhandle.....           27,601              675              2.4
                                      05 Clearwater..........           24,329           21,879             89.9
                                      08 Custer..............              131                0              0.0
                                      10 Flathead............            6,295              578              9.2
                                      11 Gallatin............              191                0              0.0
                                      12 Helena..............                4                0              0.0
                                      14 Kootenai............           20,990            3,819             18.2
                                      16 Lolo................            1,896              130              6.9
                                      17 Nez Perce...........            6,427               10              0.2
02 Rocky Mountain...................  02 Bighorn.............           13,349                0              0.0
                                      03 Black Hills.........          116,610            2,490              2.1
                                      04 GMUG................           15,813              513              3.2
                                      06 MedBow-Routt........           26,186            2,957             11.3
                                      09 Rio Grande..........            8,491                0              0.0
                                      10 Arapahoe-Roosevelt..            8,908            4,122             46.3
                                      12 Pike-San Isabel.....            4,243            1,544             36.4
                                      13 San Juan............            7,737            3,865             50.0
                                      14 Shoshone............            2,799                0              0.0
                                      15 White River.........           17,413            5,512             31.7
03 Southwestern.....................  01 Apache-Sitgreaves...           39,206           36,020             91.9
                                      03 Cibola..............            6,081            5,787             95.2
                                      04 Coconino............           45,931           36,094             78.6
                                      06 Gila................              692                0              0.0
                                      07 Kaibab..............           19,562           18,351             93.8
                                      08 Lincoln.............              680                0              0.0
                                      09 Prescott............            1,554            1,554            100.0
                                      10 Santa Fe............            1,049              507             48.3
                                      12 Tonto...............            3,865            2,353             60.9
04 Intermountain....................  01 Ashley..............              465                0              0.0
                                      02 Boise...............           27,526           24,638             89.5
                                      03 Bridger-Teton.......            3,289                0              0.0
                                      07 Dixie...............            7,549            4,755             63.0
                                      08 Fishlake............            3,904                0              0.0
                                      12 Payette.............           10,591           10,572             99.8
                                      13 Salmon-Challis......            3,921            3,447             87.9
                                      14 Sawtooth............            1,528                0              0.0
                                      15 Caribou-Targhee.....               53               16             30.2
                                      19 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache.            4,971              307              6.2
05 Pacific Southwest................  03 Eldorado............           26,054           25,415             97.5
                                      05 Klamath.............           21,369            5,808             27.2
                                      06 Lassen..............           43,609                0              0.0
                                      08 Mendocino...........           11,868            8,036             67.7
                                      09 Modoc...............           15,986                0              0.0
                                      10 Six Rivers..........           16,393           16,201             98.8
                                      11 Plumas..............           44,114            2,888              6.5
                                      13 Sequoia.............            4,265            4,016             94.2
                                      14 Shasta-Trinity......            7,826              954             12.2
                                      15 Sierra..............           17,784            3,152             17.7
                                      16 Stanislaus..........            3,194               44              1.4
                                      17 Tahoe...............           16,257            9,952             61.2
                                      19 Lake Tahoe Basin....              336                0              0.0
06 Pacific Northwest................  01 Deschutes...........           41,066           14,628             35.6
                                      02 Fremont-Winema......           25,004           23,493             94.0
                                      03 Gifford Pinchot.....           28,565           21,750             76.1
                                      04 Malhuer.............           38,785           28,619             73.8
                                      05 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie           11,731                0              0.0
                                      06 Mt. Hood............           32,727           32,120             98.1
                                      07 Ochoco..............           11,440            1,873             16.4
                                      09 Olympic.............           24,000                0              0.0
                                      10 Rogue River-Siskiyou           29,271            1,761              6.0
                                      12 Siuslaw.............           38,990           22,105             56.7
                                      14 Umatilla............           16,615                0              0.0
                                      15 Umpqua..............           29,751            1,661              5.6
                                      16 Wallowa-Whitman.....           27,733            2,875             10.4
                                      17 Okanogan-Wenatchee..           22,566               34              0.2
                                      18 Willamette..........           82,692                0              0.0
                                      21 Colville............           33,444           29,020             86.8
08 Southern.........................  0NFs in AL.............           22,686            5,698             25.1
                                      02 Daniel Boone........            3,310                0              0.0
                                      03 Chattahoochee-Oconee            2,263            1,162             51.3
                                      04 Cherokee............            6,241               13              0.2
                                      05 NFs in FL...........            5,889            5,486             93.2
                                      06 Kisatchie...........           22,807                0              0.0
                                      07 NFs in MS...........           30,060            4,070             13.5
                                      08 George Washington-              6,214                0              0.0
                                       Jefferson.
                                      09 Oachita.............           40,166                0              0.0
                                      10 Ozark-St. Francis...           34,233           11,632             34.0
                                      11 NFs in NC...........           11,816            1,469             12.4
                                      12 Francis Marion......           22,713                0              0.0
                                      13 NFs in TX...........           18,370           13,294             72.4
                                      60 Land Between the                1,059                0              0.0
                                       Lakes.
09 Northern.........................  03 Chippewa............            7,404            2,095             28.3
                                      04 Huron-Manistee......           14,268            2,770             19.4
                                      05 Mark Twain..........           31,264            5,634             18.0
                                      07 Ottawa..............            7,024              518              7.4
                                      08 Shawnee.............            2,023                0              0.0
                                      09 Superior............            7,908              358              4.5
                                      10 Hiawatha............           13,631            3,273             24.0
                                      12 Hoosier.............            2,426                0              0.0
                                      13 Chiquamegon-Nicolet.           14,075            1,233              8.8
                                      14 Wayne...............            1,515                0              0.0
                                      19 Allegheny...........           14,647            4,513             30.8
                                      20 Green Mountain......            2,451            2,451            100.0
                                      21 Monongahela.........            3,760              116              3.1
                                      22 White Mountain......            4,924            1,559             31.7
10 Alaska...........................  05 Tongass.............           13,572                1              0.0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................  .......................        1,588,803          520,802             32.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please also provide by National Forest a table that show 
how much excess receipts were generated through the stewardship 
contracts for each of the last 5 years, as well as a detailed 
accounting of how those excess receipts were expended and whether any 
of those excess receipts went to pay for salaries or other employee 
expenses.
    Answer. The table in Attachment A lists stewardship contracting 
collections and spending for fiscal year 2009 to 2013. Collections 
equal the sale value of the forest products in excess of the cost of 
the service work obtained under an integrated resource contract. 
Stewardship contracting funds are available until expended for other 
authorized stewardship projects and may be used for:
  --road and trail maintenance or decommissioning to restore or 
        maintain water quality;
  --work to improve soil productivity, or other resource values;
  --prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure, condition, 
        and health of forest stands or to improve wildlife habitat;
  --removal of vegetation or other activities to promote healthy 
        forests, reduce fire hazards, or achieve other land management 
        objectives;
  --restoration and maintenance of watersheds;
  --restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and
  --control of noxious and invasive weeds, and re-establishment of 
        native plant species.
    The initial concept of stewardship contracting was and remains 
including timber volume and service work in roughly equal amounts 
within a stewardship contract. However, due to restoration needs and 
contractor capability, there are stewardship contracts where the value 
of the timber exceeds the value of the service work (producing retained 
receipts deposited into the Stewardship Contracting Fund (SSCC)). 
Unused balances in SSCC carry-over into the next fiscal year. This can 
create a situation where we may plan to spend more SSCC funds than we 
collect in the current fiscal year.

                              ATTACHMENT A

                     FISCAL YEAR 2009-2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Total Spending
                 Fiscal Year                              Forest Name               Total    -------------------
                                                                                 Collections   Other *  Salary *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009.........................................  APACHE-SITGREAVES...............           0
2009.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           0
2009.........................................  BITTERROOT......................  ...........       -12
2009.........................................  BOISE...........................  ...........       103
2009.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............         213         94
2009.........................................  CHEROKEE........................  ...........        10
2009.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         243        237
2009.........................................  COLVILLE........................         293         84        58
2009.........................................  DIXIE...........................           0
2009.........................................  ELDORADO........................       1,300        200
2009.........................................  FLATHEAD........................         257         20         0
2009.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........           4         92
2009.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          81
2009.........................................  HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE................           1
2009.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................          45         44
2009.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................         417         38
2009.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................         256        194
2009.........................................  KLAMATH.........................           6
2009.........................................  KOOTENAI........................         229
2009.........................................  LOLO............................           0
2009.........................................  MANTI-LASAL.....................           0
2009.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................           2          2
2009.........................................  MONONGAHELA.....................  ...........        82
2009.........................................  MT HOOD.........................  ...........        -1
2009.........................................  NEZPERCE........................          94          7
2009.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................  ...........        62
2009.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................           1        -57
2009.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         200
2009.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........  ...........         3
2009.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................          18
2009.........................................  OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE..............           3
2009.........................................  OLYMPIC.........................          45         44
2009.........................................  PAYETTE.........................          16
2009.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           0
2009.........................................  RIO GRANDE......................           0
2009.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................         340        364
2009.........................................  UMATILLA........................       1,323      1,153
2009.........................................  UMPQUA..........................          92         23        80
2009.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         203        266         1
2009.........................................  WHITE MOUNTAIN..................          22
2009.........................................  WHITE RIVER.....................           3
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      2009 Totals **.........................  ................................       5,707      3,052       139
                                              ==================================================================
2010.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................         247         56
2010.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............          80         25
2010.........................................  ASHLEY..........................           8
2010.........................................  BIGHORN.........................          59
2010.........................................  BITTERROOT......................          40         55
2010.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................  ...........        51
2010.........................................  BOISE...........................           0          5
2010.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............          84          4
2010.........................................  CHEROKEE........................           4          0
2010.........................................  CHIPPEWA........................           1
2010.........................................  CLEARWATER......................  ...........         0
2010.........................................  COCONINO........................  ...........         0
2010.........................................  COLVILLE........................           0         47        64
2010.........................................  DANIEL BOONE....................           3
2010.........................................  ELDORADO........................         243        540
2010.........................................  FLATHEAD........................         735         41         0
2010.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........         145        131
2010.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....          16          5
2010.........................................  HIAWATHA........................          96         19
2010.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................          24          0
2010.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................  ...........        32
2010.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................  ...........         0
2010.........................................  KOOTENAI........................           2        140
2010.........................................  LOLO............................          38
2010.........................................  MALHEUR.........................         350         20
2010.........................................  MARK TWAIN......................          47         28
2010.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................  ...........         0
2010.........................................  MT HOOD.........................         480        285
2010.........................................  NEZPERCE........................  ...........        47
2010.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................          48          4
2010.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................  ...........        58
2010.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         631        350
2010.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         585        378         0
2010.........................................  OLYMPIC.........................           3          0
2010.........................................  OTTAWA..........................           0
2010.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................  ...........         7
2010.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           1
2010.........................................  SHASTA TRINITY..................           1
2010.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................  ...........       314
2010.........................................  STANISLAUS......................           4
2010.........................................  SUPERIOR........................  ...........         0
2010.........................................  TAHOE...........................          44
2010.........................................  UMATILLA........................       3,445      1,416
2010.........................................  UMPQUA..........................         173          0        23
2010.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................          57          0        -1
2010.........................................  WHITE MOUNTAIN..................           4
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      2010 Totals **.........................  ................................       7,698      4,058        86
                                              ==================================================================
2011.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................  ...........        73
2011.........................................  APACHE-SITGREAVES...............           0          0
2011.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           2          0
2011.........................................  BITTERROOT......................           8         -5
2011.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................  ...........         1
2011.........................................  BOISE...........................  ...........        40
2011.........................................  CHATT-OCONEE....................           0
2011.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............         112         52
2011.........................................  CHIPPEWA........................           0
2011.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         593        244
2011.........................................  COLVILLE........................         150        129        81
2011.........................................  ELDORADO........................          69        851
2011.........................................  FLATHEAD........................          20        490         0
2011.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........         978        461
2011.........................................  FREMONT-WINEMA..................           9
2011.........................................  GEORGE WASHINGTON/JEFFERSON.....         187
2011.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          43
2011.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....          67         29
2011.........................................  HIAWATHA........................  ...........        52
2011.........................................  HOOSIER.........................          10
2011.........................................  HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE................          31
2011.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................         241         -8
2011.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................  ...........         0
2011.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................  ...........         0
2011.........................................  KLAMATH.........................  ...........         6
2011.........................................  LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES NRA......           7
2011.........................................  MALHEUR.........................       1,840      2,062
2011.........................................  MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT..............          27
2011.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................          15
2011.........................................  MT HOOD.........................         623        498
2011.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................  ...........        11
2011.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................          13         -7
2011.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         207        175
2011.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........  ...........         5
2011.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         165        303         1
2011.........................................  OUACHITA........................          70
2011.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................         292          0
2011.........................................  PAYETTE.........................  ...........         0
2011.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           1
2011.........................................  SAN JUAN........................           0
2011.........................................  SHASTA TRINITY..................          20
2011.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................         526        325
2011.........................................  TAHOE...........................  ...........        44
2011.........................................  UMATILLA........................         868      3,225
2011.........................................  UMPQUA..........................  ...........         1        20
2011.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         719        269
2011.........................................  WAYNE...........................          81         73
2011.........................................  WHITE RIVER.....................           0
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      2011 Totals **.........................  ................................       7,994      9,399       102
                                              ==================================================================
2012.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................  ...........        78
2012.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           2         25
2012.........................................  ASHLEY..........................  ...........         5
2012.........................................  BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE............  ...........        14
2012.........................................  BIGHORN.........................  ...........        18
2012.........................................  BITTERROOT......................          40         10
2012.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................          21          0
2012.........................................  BOISE...........................          49         87
2012.........................................  BRIDGER-TETON...................           9
2012.........................................  CHATT-OCONEE....................  ...........        18
2012.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............         524         51
2012.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         190        429
2012.........................................  COLVILLE........................         276         14        36
2012.........................................  DESCHUTES.......................           1
2012.........................................  DIXIE...........................           0
2012.........................................  ELDORADO........................         150        178
2012.........................................  FLATHEAD........................          79        549         0
2012.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........         943        462
2012.........................................  GEORGE WASHINGTON/JEFFERSON.....  ...........        64
2012.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          10         41
2012.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....          10         21
2012.........................................  HIAWATHA........................  ...........         6
2012.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................           6         20
2012.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................  ...........       189
2012.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................           3        -76
2012.........................................  KLAMATH.........................           1
2012.........................................  KOOTENAI........................  ...........         0
2012.........................................  LINCOLN.........................           1
2012.........................................  MALHEUR.........................       2,313      1,406
2012.........................................  MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT..............           3
2012.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................           2
2012.........................................  MONONGAHELA.....................  ...........        11
2012.........................................  MT HOOD.........................         207        470
2012.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................           3         11
2012.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................          37
2012.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         369        165
2012.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........  ...........        67
2012.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         325        441
2012.........................................  OLYMPIC.........................           1
2012.........................................  OTTAWA..........................          83         40
2012.........................................  OUACHITA........................         163         27
2012.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................  ...........        50
2012.........................................  PAYETTE.........................          89         50
2012.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           2          1
2012.........................................  PLUMAS..........................          13
2012.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................         688        427
2012.........................................  TAHOE...........................  ...........         0
2012.........................................  TONGASS.........................          13
2012.........................................  UMATILLA........................       2,223          0
2012.........................................  UMPQUA..........................  ...........        51        17
2012.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         277        236
2012.........................................  WAYNE...........................  ...........         0
2012.........................................  WILLAMETTE......................         305
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      2012 Totals **.........................  ................................       9,431      5,656        53
                                              ==================================================================
2013.........................................  AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.....           0
2013.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................         232         79
2013.........................................  APACHE-SITGREAVES...............           0
2013.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           4          0
2013.........................................  BIGHORN.........................           0         18
2013.........................................  BITTERROOT......................           0          0
2013.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................           0         16
2013.........................................  BOISE...........................           0         48
2013.........................................  CHATT-OCONEE....................           0          1
2013.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............          68        132
2013.........................................  CHEROKEE........................          12
2013.........................................  CHIPPEWA........................           0          0
2013.........................................  CIBOLA..........................           0
2013.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         380        437
2013.........................................  COCONINO........................           0
2013.........................................  COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NAT AREA...          68
2013.........................................  COLVILLE........................         755         -9        41
2013.........................................  DESCHUTES.......................         500        416
2013.........................................  DIXIE...........................           0
2013.........................................  ELDORADO........................         695        136
2013.........................................  FLATHEAD........................         525        346
2013.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........       1,028      1,064
2013.........................................  FREMONT-WINEMA..................          41
2013.........................................  GALLATIN........................           0
2013.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          38        -17
2013.........................................  GRAND MESA-UNC-GUNN.............           0
2013.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....         111         70
2013.........................................  HIAWATHA........................           1          7
2013.........................................  HOOSIER.........................          13
2013.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................         136         31
2013.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................           0          9
2013.........................................  INYO............................           2
2013.........................................  KAIBAB..........................           1
2013.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................           0          7
2013.........................................  KLAMATH.........................           0          0
2013.........................................  KOOTENAI........................         171          0
2013.........................................  LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES NRA......           0
2013.........................................  LASSEN..........................           0
2013.........................................  LEWIS AND CLARK.................          11
2013.........................................  LINCOLN.........................           0
2013.........................................  LOLO............................          70         45
2013.........................................  LOS PADRES......................           1
2013.........................................  MALHEUR.........................       1,589      2,785
2013.........................................  MANTI-LASAL.....................           0
2013.........................................  MARK TWAIN......................           3          0
2013.........................................  MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT..............          13
2013.........................................  MONONGAHELA.....................           3        342
2013.........................................  MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE.............          30
2013.........................................  MT HOOD.........................       1,377        253
2013.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................           0          7
2013.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................          20         28
2013.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............           0        655
2013.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........           1         11
2013.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         655        568         1
2013.........................................  OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE..............           0
2013.........................................  OTTAWA..........................         301        270
2013.........................................  OUACHITA........................          80         20
2013.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................           0         46
2013.........................................  PAYETTE.........................           0          0
2013.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           0
2013.........................................  PLUMAS..........................           0
2013.........................................  ROGUE RIVER/SISKIYOU............           0
2013.........................................  SALMON-CHALLIS..................           0
2013.........................................  SAN JUAN........................           0
2013.........................................  SIERRA..........................           0
2013.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................       1,225      1,028
2013.........................................  SIX RIVERS......................           0
2013.........................................  STANISLAUS......................           0
2013.........................................  SUPERIOR........................           0
2013.........................................  TAHOE...........................         361
2013.........................................  TONGASS.........................           0
2013.........................................  UMATILLA........................         770        597
2013.........................................  UMPQUA..........................         564         16        79
2013.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         507        394
2013.........................................  WAYNE...........................           0
2013.........................................  WHITE MOUNTAIN..................           0          2
2013.........................................  WHITE RIVER.....................           3
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      2013 Total **..........................  ................................      12,365      9,858       121
                                              ==================================================================
        Total **.............................  ................................      43,200     32,016       501
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Salary is defined as all spending in Budget Object Classification (BOC) codes starting with 11 and 12, and
  Other is all remaining BOCs.
** The total Costs and Spending may not exactly match the numbers in MAX because data was run at different
  points in year, which may result in some prior year adjustments.

    Question. Alaska's timber industry predominantly consists of small 
businesses. In fact, small business purchasers have bought the majority 
of the timber sale volume offered by the Federal Government for the 
last 60 years. I have asked about the agency's plans for applying the 
small business set aside requirement to stewardship contracting sales 
and you indicated that there were ``issues'' that were being 
considered.
    What are those ``issues'' being considered?
    Answer. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has requested 
inclusion of the Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts 
(IRTCs) in the Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program. The use of 
IRTCs has increased to the extent that, on some market areas (outside 
of Alaska), only stewardship sales are being offered; thus, no sales 
are available to be set-aside for preferential bidding by small 
businesses when the Set-Aside Program is initiated (``triggered'') on a 
market area.
    Question. Does the administration plan to move forward with a small 
business set-aside program for stewardship contracting?
    If so, when do you expect this to occur?
    Answer. Based upon direction from Congress, any changes in Small 
Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program policy or manual direction are 
required to go through a public review and comment process. The Forest 
Service plans to publish a Proposed Directive in the Federal Register 
for public review and comment which includes adding sawtimber volumes 
sold via IRTCs in the volumes used to calculate market shares under the 
Set-Aside Program and evaluating sawtimber volumes sold via IRSCs and 
their effect upon the Set-Aside Program at the end of the current 5-
year recomputation period (10/1/2010-9/30/2015). The Proposed Directive 
is currently being prepared for Agency and Departmental clearance.
                          secure rural schools
    Question. Your agency's proposal includes a 5-year reauthorization 
of Secure Rural Schools (SRS). It is the same proposal that has 
appeared in the last couple of budgets. What we really need is a long-
term solution that gets the cut up across our forests so that we have 
both revenue and jobs.
    Approximately how much revenue does the Forest Service expect to 
collect and use to offset the SRS program cost of $251 million for 
fiscal year 2015?
    Answer. The proposal for the fiscal year 2015 Secure Rural Schools 
program includes $115 million in collections to offset the total cost 
of $251 million.
    Question. Does the agency have any suggested ``pay for's'' 
(Offsets) to cover the mandatory spending proposed for this program?
    Answer. The proposal is offset within the President's budget.
                           aviation questions
    Question. Please provide a table with the description of each of 
the Next Generation tankers that you expect to be on the line fighting 
fire this year. In the table please include the name of the contractor, 
a description of the asset, and status of each contract.

    Answer. Next Generation Airtankers Fiscal Year 2014:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    # of       Estimated Start
                    Vendor                                   Type                 Aircraft           Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Tanker....................................  DC-10..........................            1             05/05/14
10-Tanker (additional equipment clause)......  DC-10..........................            1             05/19/14
10-Tanker (additional equipment clause)......  DC-10..........................            1             07/01/14
Aero Air.....................................  MD-87..........................            2   06/05 and 06/10/14
Aero Air (additional equipment clause).......  MD-87..........................            1             07/01/14
Aero Flite...................................  RJ-85..........................            2   06/20 and 06/30/14
Aero Flite (additional equipment clause).....  RJ-85..........................            1             07/01/14
Coulson......................................  C-130Q.........................            1             05/13/14
Minden.......................................  BAe-146........................            1   Missed 04/25 Start
Neptune (additional equipment clause)........  BAe-146........................            1             05/16/14
Neptune (additional equipment clause)........  BAe-146........................            1             05/16/14
Neptune (additional equipment clause)........  BAe-146........................            1             06/01/14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. As a result of last year's military appropriations bill 
you were to receive seven older C-130 H models from the Coast Guard. 
When will those seven C-130's be tanked, certified, and on the line 
fighting fire?
    Please provide a list of each aircraft, what work remains to be 
accomplished and the earliest and latest date that those individual 
aircraft will be available for firefighting.
    Answer. We expect the first aircraft to be transferred in late 2014 
or early 2015 and be available for limited operations in 2015 with a 
Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) II system. This aircraft 
would be fitted with the gravity tank sometime in fiscal year 2016. The 
C-130H aircraft will be Forest Service owned and contractor operated 
and maintained. We expect three additional aircraft to be transferred 
in fiscal year 2017 and the remaining three to be transferred in fiscal 
year 2018.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal  Fiscal  Fiscal
           Aircraft              Year     Year     Year    Year    Year
                                 2014     2015     2016    2017    2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1708.........................  CWR,     Deliver  RDS      ......  ......
                                PDM,     ed to
                                OWR      USFS,
                                         2nd
                                         Quarte
                                         r
 
1719.........................  .......   CWR, PDM, OWR,   Delive
                                               RDS         red
                                                           to
                                                           USFS,
                                                           1st
                                                           Quart
                                                           er
 
1706.........................  .......  .......  PDM,     Delive
                                                  OWR,     red
                                                  RDS      to
                                                           USFS,
                                                           3rd
                                                           Quart
                                                           er
 
1721.........................  .......  .......  PDM,     Delive
                                                  RDS      red
                                                           to
                                                           USFS,
                                                           4th
                                                           Quart
                                                           er
 
1713.........................  .......  .......  .......  CWR,    Delive
                                                           PDM,    red
                                                           OWR,    to
                                                           RDS     USFS,
                                                                   1st
                                                                   Quart
                                                                   er
 
1709.........................  .......  .......  .......  CWR,    Delive
                                                           PDM,    red
                                                           OWR,    to
                                                           RDS     USFS,
                                                                   2nd
                                                                   Quart
                                                                   er
 
1714.........................  .......  .......  .......  PDM,    Delive
                                                           OWR,    red
                                                           RDS     to
                                                                   USFS,
                                                                   4th
                                                                   Quart
                                                                   er
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWR--Center Wing Box Replacement
OWR--Outer Wing Box Replacement
PDM--Programmed Depot Maintenance
RDS--Retardant Delivery System Install

    Question. As part of the Farm Bill you receive authorization to 
contract for up to five new C-130 J models through a leasing scheme.
    What steps have to be undertaken before you will have those 
aircraft available to fight fires?
    Answer. The Forest Service is planning on posting a Request for 
Information (RFI) in Fed Biz Opps to allow vendors to explore 
innovative options for meeting the intent of the Farm Bill 
authorization.
    Once the Forest Service receives results from the RFI we will 
evaluate how to move forward in exploring use of this authority. 
Depending on vendor options provided, fleet needs, and other contracted 
and owned aircraft already obtained, we may pursue an RFP.
    Question. What is the estimated cost of leasing, converting, and 
finding private contractors to fly and maintain those aircraft?
    Answer. Until the proposals are evaluated from the Request for 
Information, the costs and availability of contractors cannot be 
determined.
    Question. When will each of those aircraft be on the line to fight 
fires?
    Answer. Until the proposals from a solicitation are evaluated, 
options and timelines are speculative.
    Question. During a late March Aerial Fire Fighting Conference in 
Sacramento, California the commander of the Channel Island Air National 
Guard base that operates several of the C-130's they provide the Forest 
Service for firefighting indicated that the Air National Guard and the 
Forest Service and other would be undertaking a redesign of the MAFF II 
units because the current units were considered substandard. He went on 
to explain that the current units only lay-down a slurry line that is 
about 60 yards wide, far less than the 220 yard wide slurry line that 
is called for.
    Why is it that this information has not been provided to Congress 
by the Forest Service?
    Answer. The MAFFS II systems meet the minimum standards for 
retardant delivery systems established by the Interagency Airtanker 
Board. The MAFFS II line is narrower than the line produced by 
commercial large airtankers, but produces a more contiguous pattern. 
This refinement of MAFFS II will improve performance of the system. The 
MAFFS II design is over a decade old and new technology and refinement 
of the existing system may improve coverage levels, effectiveness and 
reduce overall weight of the system. MAFFS 2.5 will also take advantage 
of the additional capabilities of the C-130J aircraft based at Channel 
Island.
    Question. What will the expected cost of the redesign be?
    Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act 2013 identified $16 
million in MAFFS funding. The Forest Service has already contributed 
over $1 million toward the MAFFS 2.5 refinement.
    Question. When will the new slurry MAFF III units be ready for use?
    Answer. The estimated delivery is 3 years. Once the first system is 
produced it will have to undergo extensive testing, field evaluation 
and Air Force review.
    Question. Are you concerned about greater risks to ground fire 
fighters because of this defect?
    Answer. No. The MAFFS II systems have performed well since being 
implemented and continue to be an important surge capacity.
                 collaborative forest landscape program
    Question. The Budget request includes a proposal to expand the 
Collaborative Forest Landscape Program by increasing the funding from 
the currently authorized level of $40 million per year to $60 million 
per year. Currently that $40 million supports 23 projects with each 
approved project eligible for up to $4 million per year for up to 10 
years. This program is heavily geared to restoration in fire adapted 
ecosystems and is supposed to have as its focus bringing down fire 
suppression costs by working collaboratively and strategically to bring 
fire suppression costs down. I am becoming concerned that this program 
is becoming simply another budget line item to fund collaborative 
forest restoration work that could otherwise be accomplished through 
other budget line items outside of the program. There are many 
opportunities outside of CFLR to expand management nationwide.
    What assurances can you give me that the current and future 
projects selected will be projects suited for this program specifically 
that meet all its criteria and are not simply work that could be 
accomplished outside the program umbrella?
    Answer. Proposals will be prepared in response to a Request for 
Proposals that specifically calls for collaborative teams to address 
how their project meets the purposes of the Act. In addition, proposals 
will be reviewed by an interdisciplinary Federal Advisory Committee 
that will recommend projects for funding to the Secretary. This 
Advisory Committee will specifically be looking for projects that meet 
the criteria of the Act.
    Question. The CFLR program requires matching funds for projects 
approved under the program. I am receiving reports from regions with 
CFLR projects that CFLR funds are not supplementing but are actually 
supplanting or displacing regular funds for national forest system 
units that have projects. To your knowledge, is this occurring?
    Answer. Regions and Forests have prioritized the funding of CLFR 
projects against other initiatives or priorities. In many cases, CFLR 
is the primary program of work or a major part of their program of 
work. The matching funds for the program utilize appropriated Agency 
funds, in-kind and partner contribution as well as funds provided 
through the legislation.
    Question. What assurances can you give me that the CFLR funds are 
truly supplemental to regular unit funds and that concrete financial 
matching is occurring at the regions?
    Answer. We keep detailed records on the funding spent for each 
project. In fiscal year 2012, projects spent $26.2 million in CFLR 
funds and over $59 million in other funds, including $12.4 million in 
partner contributions.
    Question. What significant results can you report on today from the 
projects funded through the program that would justify a 50 percent 
increase in funding at this time?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2014, we have 23 projects funded through 
CFLR. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, these 23 projects 
have generated more than 838 million board feet (mmbf) of timber, 
established or improved forest vegetation on 191,000 acres, restored or 
enhance 936,000 acres of terrestrial habitat, and enhanced community 
safety through the treatment of hazardous fuels on more than 661,200 
acres. Additionally, in fiscal year 2013 alone these projects created 
or maintained more than 5,307 jobs and generated more than $195 million 
in labor income, supporting rural economies in 14 States.
    Note that these accomplishments are larger than what was reported 
in the fiscal year 2015 Budget Justification because they include the 
three additional projects added in fiscal year 2013, whereas the Budget 
Justification only reported on the accomplishments of the 20 projects 
that existed as of 2012.
    Question. If the program authorization were increased and funded at 
$60 million, outline specifically what/how the Forest Service would 
spend that additional funding?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget would expand the 
authority of the 23 existing projects and also permit the investment in 
up to 10 new CFLRP projects. New CFLRP projects will be submitted by 
Forest Service Regions and reviewed by the Advisory Committee. The 
Advisory Committee will then submit recommendations for funding 
projects to the Secretary of Agriculture, who will make a final 
decision regarding which projects will receive CFLRP funds. The 
Secretary may select up to 10 new projects for funding in fiscal year 
2015. As the new projects are selected and begin to implement 
treatments on the ground, we expect outputs to increase. The increases 
are primarily expected in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
    Question. Please provide the list of current projects and how much 
each project has received to date, and would be expected to receive in 
fiscal year 2015 if funded at the $40 million level? If funded at the 
$60 million level?
    Answer. The table below displays the funding to date by project and 
planned project funding for fiscal year 2015 at the $40 and $60 million 
levels. We plan to allocate approximately $13.4 million of the 
additional $20 million requested in fiscal year 2015 to existing 
projects and use the remaining to begin work on new projects that would 
be identified and selected in fiscal year 2015.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Total Funds  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year
                                                                             (Fiscal     2015 CFLRP   2015 CFLRP
              Project Name                Reg.          Forest(s)           Year 2010    funded at    funded at
                                                                            to Fiscal   $40 million  $60 million
                                                                            Year 2014)     level        level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Crown of the Continent....      1  Lolo, Flathead, Helena...  $16,366,292   $2,996,206   $4,000,000
Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater Project..      1  Nez Perce, Clearwater....   16,209,079    2,996,206    4,000,000
Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative....      1  Idaho Panhandle..........    2,004,265    1,002,125    1,337,859
Uncompahgre Plateau....................      2  Uncompahgre..............    4,279,120      849,724    1,134,400
Colorado Front Range...................      2  Arapaho, Roosevelt, Pike,   16,339,017    2,996,206    4,000,000
                                                 San Isabel.
4 Forest Restoration Initiative........      3  Apache-Sitgreaves,          17,337,007    2,996,206    4,000,000
                                                 Kaibab, Coconino, Tonto.
Southwest Jemez Mountains..............      3  Santa Fe/Valles Caldera     14,118,012    2,996,206    4,000,000
                                                 Trust & National
                                                 Preserve.
Zuni Mountain CFLRP....................      3  Cibola...................    1,965,501      599,241      800,000
Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters CFLRP..      4  Payette..................    9,694,537    2,883,848    3,850,000
Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project...      5  Sierra...................    5,105,832      940,074    1,255,019
Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project........      5  Lassen...................    2,746,110    1,057,144    1,411,310
Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group             5  Eldorado and Stanislaus..    3,794,317    1,208,515    1,613,394
 Cornerstone Project.
Tapash.................................      6  Okanagan-Wenatchee.......   10,364,010      310,247      414,187
Deschutes Skyline......................      6  Deschutes................    4,783,687    1,007,100    1,344,500
Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Proposal.....      6  Fremont-Winema...........   10,229,507    2,172,249    2,900,000
Southern Blues Restoration Coalition...      6  Malheur..................    7,393,067    1,872,629    2,500,000
Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020      6  Colville.................    5,767,003    2,713,952    3,623,185
Accelerating Longleaf Pine Restoration       8  Florida/Osceola..........    7,090,863    1,336,439    1,784,175
 in Northeast Florida.
Shortleaf-Bluestem Community...........      8  Ouachita.................    5,097,110    1,789,858    2,389,500
Grandfather Restoration Project........      8  Pisgah...................    1,588,596      359,345      479,733
Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration..      8  Ozark-St. Francis........    5,079,472    1,613,629    2,154,230
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and      8  De Soto..................    8,161,331    2,247,154    3,000,000
 Hazardous Fuels Reduction.
Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration      9  Mark Twain...............    2,525,831    1,055,697    1,409,379
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................  .....  .........................  178,039,566   40,000,000   53,400,871
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. The Forest Service is scheduled to report to Congress on 
the program at the five year mark to determine whether it is meeting 
the program goals. Are you on schedule to complete this report? When 
can Congress expect to receive it?
    Answer. We are on track to meet this request. In 2011, we began a 
collaborative process with project groups and interested partners to 
develop indicators to feed this required report. Project teams are 
poised to report out on these indicators at the close of the fiscal 
year. This information will be supplemented with data gathered through 
our annual reporting cycle. We are working with internal experts, 
partner groups, and collaborative projects to develop a template to 
best report project progress with the goal of completing the report in 
March 2015.
                        wildfire cap adjustment
    Question. If budgeting and requesting 100 percent of the 10-year 
average isn't working, and your suppression costs are exceeding those 
levels, has the Forest Service considered using any different method to 
determine your budget request that might be more accurate?
    Answer. Using the 10-year average is a viable method for 
determining funding need, as is the case with wildfire suppression. The 
fiscal year 2015 President's budget recognizes that catastrophic fires 
should be considered disasters, and includes a proposed cap adjustment 
that is designed to budget for the likely worst case scenario.
    Question. Instead of requesting 100 percent of the 10-year rolling 
average, your budget proposal requests just 70 percent of it. This 
departs from the longstanding practice of the agency requesting the 10-
year average and this committee providing that amount. How did you 
arrive at the 70 percent number?
    Answer. We are requesting 70 percent of the 10-year average because 
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior analysis has shown 
that 1 percent of fires represent 30 percent of Suppression costs. 
These are the most difficult, most costly fires--truly outside the norm 
and akin to ``disasters.'' The other 70 percent represent costs of 99 
percent of fires--those ``normal'' fires that should be paid for within 
the agencies' budgets. The remaining 30 percent and anything above the 
10-year average would be paid for like Congress pays for other 
disasters--through a cap adjustment.
    Question. Is it the position of the Forest Service that simply 
exceeding 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average of suppression 
costs equals an emergency or as you are calling it a ``disaster?'' 
Please explain.
    Answer. No. The administration recommends that funds within the 
budget cap adjustment be accessible only for wildland fire suppression 
operations if one or more of the following criteria are met and a 
declaration has been issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (or the 
Department of the Interior):
  --a fire has required an emergency Federal response based on 
        significant complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire 
        to human life, property, or resources; or
  --the fire covers 1,000 acres or more; or
  --the fire is within 10 miles of a major urban area (defined as 
        50,000 inhabitants or more); and
  --the cumulative costs of wildfire suppression operations will exceed 
        all of the amounts previously appropriated within 30 days.
    Question. One of the arguments being made in support of this 
proposal is that it will allow the agencies to fund in its program 
budget more fire prevention activities including hazardous fuel 
reduction and forest restoration, because now you must only ask for 70 
percent of the 10-year average instead of 100 percent? Can you outline 
for me specifically how much of these newly freed up funds have been 
made available to the Forest Service through the cap adjustment and how 
you intend to spend it?
    Answer. Compared to the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, over $160 
million would be ``freed up'' in the Forest Service to invest in 
prevention and preparedness programs with this proposal. Those funds 
would go towards Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR), Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLRP), Integrated Resource Restoration 
(IRR), Hazardous Fuels, Suppression and Preparedness in fiscal year 
2015 (the fiscal year 2015 Forest Service proposed budget is $125 
million less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, due to continued 
efforts to reduce the deficit). When the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request was being prepared, the fiscal year 2014 budget was not 
enacted. As such, comparisons were made to the fiscal year 2014 
President's budget. When doing so, over $300 million in additional 
funding was allocated to LSR, CFLRP, IRR, Hazardous Fuels, Suppression, 
Preparedness, and State and Volunteer Fire Assistance.
    Question. What is your legislative strategy to enact the cap 
adjustment?
    Answer. The Administration is working with Congress and 
stakeholders to support and explain this proposal, especially the 
effects the fire funding problem is having on the Forest Service and 
the Department of the Interior programs. Given that a similar approach 
was proposed in bi-partisan bills in both the Senate and House, the 
administration is looking forward to working with congressional leaders 
in both Chambers to educate fellow members and encourage support, 
especially in the Budget Committees.
                             roadless rule
    Question. Last month's Ninth Circuit Court Decision upheld the 
rulemaking by which the USDA promulgated the 2003 Tongass Exemption. In 
promulgating the 2003 Exemption rule the USDA relied upon the 2000 
Roadless Rule Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The case was 
remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska 
to decide whether or not a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
(SEIS) should have been prepared to support the 2003 Exemption rule. If 
the District Court determines that a Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (SEIS) should have been prepared will the Forest Service 
prepare an SEIS in support of the 2003 rulemaking?
    Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the 
District Court's judgment at the time that it is issued.
    Question. If the District Court determines that a SEIS was not 
required will the Forest Service appeal that decision to the 9th 
Circuit.
    Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the 
District Court's judgment at the time that it is issued.
    Question. If the District Court determines that a SEIS was not 
required and an appeal, if any, agrees that a SEIS is not required will 
the USDA engage in new rulemaking to extinguish the 2003 Exemption?
    Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the 
District Court's judgment at the time that it is issued.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
    Question. As you mention in your testimony, one of the three key 
areas the President's fiscal year 2015 budget focuses on is managing 
wildland fires. As you know, wildfires have always been common and 
widespread in North Dakota. On a broader scale, there are more than 
70,000 communities that we know are at risk from wildfire.
    Specifically, the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire 
Assistance Programs are primary Federal programs that assist 
communities to prepare for, and States and local fire departments to 
respond to, wildfires. We know that State and local resources are often 
the first to arrive at wildland fires, regardless of where they start--
national forests, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), private or State 
lands. How is your department focusing on helping communities prepare 
for wildfires in advance and bolstering state and local initial attack 
resources to help keep unwanted fires, and their costs, as low as 
possible?
    Answer. Our Cooperative Fire programs--State and Volunteer Fire 
Assistance--provide funding for training and equipping State and local 
firefighters, to build capacity to provide effective initial attack 
response to wildfire. These State and local firefighters are often the 
Nation's first line of defense against wildland fires--almost 75 
percent of wildland fires are first responded to by State and local 
fire departments. We will continue to provide funding that is level 
with fiscal year 2014 amounts in the fiscal year 2015 budget for these 
important programs. We are also focusing our hazardous fuels treatments 
in and around communities to help reduce the risk of wildfires. In 
particular the fiscal year 2015 President's budget contains a proposal 
to provide $38 million in competitive funding for projects that reduce 
the risk to communities, targeted to areas of high risk near 
communities actively working on becoming fire adapted.
    Question. As you know, I was a member of the Senate and House 
conference committee which worked to pass a long-term Farm Bill. 
Included in the bill are several important authorities for the Forest 
Service which I hope will help reduce the cost of managing forests. 
Specifically, we included authority for stewardship contracting, the 
Good Neighbor Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation 
provision.
    Can you speak to the role of each of these authorities in helping 
the Forest Service get more work done on the ground, work that is 
urgently needed to ensure long-term ecological, economic and social 
health of our forests, communities, and economies?
    Answer. The Forest Service expects that the authorities included in 
the Farm Bill--permanent reauthorization for stewardship contracting, 
the Good Neighbor Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation 
provision will help us to more effectively restore our national forests 
while also benefiting local communities.
    Stewardship contracting helps the Forest Service achieve land and 
natural resource management goals while promoting closer public-private 
working relationships by using the value of forest products to offset 
the cost of services. Improved economic conditions and expanded markets 
for products have contributed to the expanded use of this tool. 
Overall, during the past 6 fiscal years, stewardship contracting 
acreage has nearly tripled. In addition to improved economic 
conditions, a better understanding of how to best use the tool has led 
to the increased size of projects. In fiscal year 2013 the Forest 
Service: established over 3,300 acres of forest vegetation, improved 
over 72,000 acres of wildlife habitat, treated over 130,000 acres of 
hazardous fuels, and treated over 2,700 acres of noxious weeds and 
invasive plants through stewardship contracting.
    The Forest Service is very interested in the recently expanded Good 
Neighbor Authority. We believe it will provide an important new tool to 
allow us to work more effectively with States implementing needed 
watershed restoration activities.
    The Farm Bill provided the opportunity for Governors to request 
areas to be designated in their State that are experiencing, or at risk 
of an insect or disease epidemic. Based on the Governor's 
recommendations, the Forest Service has designated over 45 million 
acres of National Forest System lands across 94 national forests in 35 
States to address insect and disease threats. The Forest Service will 
collaboratively work with States, tribes, partners, stakeholders and 
the public to implement landscape scale restoration projects within 
these designated areas that reduce the risk of insect and disease 
infestations. The ability to use the expedited National Environmental 
Policy Act procedures found in section 104 of the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act for environmental analyses along with the new 
categorical exclusion to implement collaborative restoration projects 
within these designated areas will help to provide for more efficient 
decisionmaking and project implementation.
    Question. Could you please provide me with an update on the science 
you are using for the determination of management practices for the 
grasslands? Specifically, what science was used to develop the Draft 
Record of Decision (ROD) for the North Billings County Allotment 
Management Plan Revisions?
    Answer. After signing the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan in 2002, 
the Regional Forester empanelled an independent group of scientists to 
review the parts of the plan related to livestock grazing. The 
resulting Scientific Review Team (SRT) consisted of eight members. Team 
members were selected based on recommendations of the North Dakota 
Governor's office, conservation and industry groups, state and Federal 
natural resource agencies, and county representatives. Recommendations 
from the SRT were incorporated into the Draft Record of Decision. The 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and North Dakota State 
University (NDSU) also contributed numerous data.
    Question. When will the Forest Service formalize the final 
document?
    Answer. The North Billings County Allotment Management Plan 
Revisions are subject to the new pre-decisional objection process for 
NEPA decisions. Review of the eight objections received from seven 
Objectors began in May 2014. Objection resolution meetings were held on 
June 2, 2015 and objection letters were signed on June 10, 2014. A 
final decision is expected after June 12, 2014.

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

    Senator Reed. And with that, and with no further business, 
I will adjourn the hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, the 
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]