[Senate Hearing 113-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-26
FOREST SERVICE BUDGET FOR FY 2014
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FOR THE
FOREST SERVICE
__________
APRIL 16, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-299 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Tidwell, Hon. Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 5
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J., Secretary, Department of Agriculture.... 37
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
FOREST SERVICE BUDGET FOR FY 2014
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
The Chairman. Today the committee will consider the
President's request for the Forest Service's fiscal year 2014
budget. The President's budget was released last Wednesday,
April 10. This will be the first hearing in the Congress on the
fiscal year 2014 budget.
I want to thank the Chief and his staff in particular for
their being so responsive to get up here so quickly. I think
it's understood that these are very difficult budget times,
particularly given sequestration. The Chief knows I am
particularly concerned about a number of the decisions made in
this year's budget, particularly the staggering proposed
reductions to the timber program.
I'm of the view that there is an extraordinary opportunity
to get the harvest up in this country, particularly built
around sensible environmental policies and the collaborative
work, for example, that we're seeing in Eastern Oregon in Grant
County on the Malheur Forest.
Today's budget, however, both in terms of the drastic
decreases in the timber harvest that are proposed and the deep
cuts to the hazardous fuels program with corresponding drops to
the acres proposed to be treated, seems to me to be very
counterproductive to the work the agency must accomplish. In my
view, and the Chief and I have talked about this, I think it
would be a huge blow to the cause of forest health. To me,
healthier forests are going to equal a healthier economy.
Now, clearly, more is going to have to be done as we
address this issue, particularly in terms of looking at all the
benefits of our national forests. That's what multiple use is
all about. Clearly at the county payments hearing that we held
recently, we stressed the need to get the timber cut up.
This budget is not consistent with the agency's restoration
agenda of harvesting 3 billion board feet a year. In fact, it
proposes going in the opposite direction, reducing the harvest
target by 420 million board feet for Fiscal Year 2014. My view
is this will make it tough to get the timber cut up, restore
the forests, and set back the fight against wild fires.
So I am going to work closely with the agency and
colleagues here to see if--as these difficult decisions are
made-tradeoffs can be found to make sure that the critical
programs get the funding that's necessary.
Let me mention the question of the Secure Rural Schools
program that was written in this committee and also to the 3
reiterations of the committee that were written here. The
sequestration issue is going to work a real hardship on this
program. We are hearing that at home.
I just came off a big round of town hall meetings in
Eastern Oregon. It came up consistently there. What the concern
is with respect to this morning is the Forest Service sent
letters to the Governors about the impact of sequestration on
the payments made under the legislation. In the letters, the
Forest Service requested that the States send back 5.1 percent
of Title I and Title III funds that was distributed earlier
this year.
The Forest Service also gave States the option to have this
absorbed from Title II funding, the funding that supports the
important work of the Resource Advisory Committees. I think
it's understood for those who follow this committee that we
consider these Resource Advisory Committees really part of the
bright light in terms of forestry policy, particularly because
it cements the collaborative work that is really the
prerequisite to permanent progress.
So what we've got with these cuts from sequestration is
communities that are already on the edge of bankruptcy,
desperate to do more work in the woods. Get people back to work
in the woods. Get the forest harvest up. What they want is some
predictability from the Federal Government.
In response, the Forest Service has said not only will less
timber be cut, but money needs to be given back. So I'm deeply
concerned about the impacts these cuts are going to have on
rural communities.
What I heard last week, especially, and this came up at
virtually every town hall meeting, were people saying what
about the fact that the Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior cannot even agree on the approach they're going to
take. That seems odd, even by Washington, DC, standards. So
we're going to have to inquire into that.
Now I want to express my appreciation to the Administration
for saying that Secure Rural Schools should be in the budget.
That is certainly constructive. But we understand that we have
to have the budget details in order to have a more thoughtful
discussion about it.
Let me talk briefly about wild land fire funding. Last year
the country experienced a severe fire season with devastating
impacts of wild land fire affecting numerous committees. It's
something Senator Udall of Colorado cares a great deal about.
As we know past emergency borrowing from discretionary
accounts in Congress? rescissions from fire fighting accounts
has left the Forest Service, once again, at risk of running out
of fire fighting funds in the coming season. We are getting a
sense that the coming season could be a record one. When there
isn't enough money for fighting fires, every other program in
the agency's budget suffers at a time, as I've indicated, when
they are already taking a big hit.
On the wild land fire issue, as well, I'd like to note my
ongoing disappointment with the level of funding in the budget
for hazardous fuels treatment and the alarm at the level of
cuts reflected in this budget. The Healthy Forest Restoration
Act authorized $760 million annually for hazardous fuels and
the Administration does not come close to that level in its
request. This budget proposes an extraordinarily large cut,
cutting this line item by more than 30 percent.
Year after year this work has been underfunded. It's
absolutely key to reduce the severity of forest fires. Again,
the budget is moving in the wrong direction.
The result will once again be larger wild fires.
Undoubtedly it will cost more to fight fires in the long run.
Recent studies have confirmed that hazardous fuels treatments
done in the right places lead to substantial reductions in both
wild fire size and suppression cost. Once again, being penny
wise and pound foolish takes its toll.
We intend to explore these issues in more depth. Let me
close with just a couple of last points.
Many of us in this committee support full funding for the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. I was an
original co-sponsor of this program. It has been tremendously
successful in our State. I'm glad to see the strong commitment
made to restoration among a number of the line items in the
budget.
I'm also pleased to see that this year's budget request
includes funding for new air tankers. Senator Murkowski and I
have been very interested in this over the years. Chief, we
have discussed the fleet of air tankers used for fire fighting
continues to approach the end of its life span.
It's my understanding that the Forest Service expects to
make an announcement later this month regarding next generation
air tanker contracts. That is good news to the committee. We
continue to remain concerned about whether the agency is going
to have enough planes to fight fire this summer.
Finally, I'm pleased that the agency has included
legislative proposals to support a number of important
priorities including support for permanent reauthorization of
the stewardship contracting program.
With that, let me yield to my friend and colleague, Senator
Murkowski for any statement she would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good
morning.
Welcome, Chief. Good to see you here.
The Forest Service manages some 22 million acres of
national forest lands in the Southeastern and South Central
part of Alaska. That's more acres than the entire 52 national
forests that are located in the Eastern and the Southern United
States. The Tongass National Forest is 80 percent of the land
base in Southeast. So to say that the management vision and the
decisions made by the Forest Service have an effect on the
health of Alaskan communities is truly an understatement.
Chief, you and I have had plenty of opportunity to sit and
visit. I know that you know the significance of the Tongass and
how management of the Tongass impacts our Southeastern
communities. Right now our communities, particularly in
Southeast, are not healthy. In fact, they are on economic life
support.
I am concerned, Chief, that the vision that the
Administration offers in this budget proposal for forest
management looks more like one that I would expect to be
proposed by the National Park Service than by a multiple use
agency with vast timber resources. Management under this
proposed budget is focused on tourism and recreation and
ecosystem values, such as wildlife habitat. I agree, I agree,
that these are important. But I have to remind you that the
fundamental tenant of multiple use also includes the
development of our natural resources. In Southeast Alaska, and
I know in many rural communities across the West and Oregon,
harvesting timber is still the economic life blood.
I look forward to you giving us some assessment here as to
how this budget will help us to continue to develop our natural
resources and the jobs that are needed to produce them. I'm
looking forward to your comments this morning, in particular
responses to questions because your written testimony doesn't
really speak to timber harvest. It does speak to the other
uses. But again, when we talk about multiple use, it does
include and most certainly includes the management of our
resources.
Now on the issue of timber production this budget proposal
seems to disregard the very commitment that you made to get the
cut up, was the term that you used with Senator Wyden and me,
just a couple weeks ago when you testified before this
committee on Secure Rural Schools. At that hearing you
reiterated that the Forest Service would stay focused on
meeting the 3 billion board foot timber target set for FY'14.
You then said that you recognize the importance of increasing
timber harvest levels to rural communities.
This budget proposal instead proposes a timber target for
FY'14 of 2.38 billion board feet. This is a 15 percent
reduction from FY'13 of 2.8 billion board feet. In terms of
timber funding, I'm not even sure what that corresponds to as I
see that you have again proposed to change the budget structure
to consolidate 6 key budget line items into one entitled the
integrated resource restoration line item. The IRR, as we've
had a discussion in previous sessions here, the IRR makes it
more difficult to figure out how and where funding is spent. So
perhaps you can tell me this morning what those numbers are.
Next, the Forest Service estimates that there are 82
million acres of the National Forest system in need of fuel
treatments but proposes to again, substantially cut funding for
the hazardous fuels program, as the Chairman has noted. Your
proposed cut is 37 percent, its lowest level in the last 5
years. This is significantly below the authorized level of $760
million contained in the bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration
Act.
So, Chief, I do hope that you can explain to us exactly
what's going on here. I understand that budgets are tight. We
all know that. We recognize that.
I would suggest that instead of proposing to increase
funding for programs like land acquisition in the budget
proposal that the Forest Service should fund its core
priorities. The Forest Service has its hands fully managing
what it currently owns. I think the last thing that the service
needs right now is more land to manage. You're simply not able
to manage what it is that you have. So asking for more budget
dollars to purchase more that you can't manage makes no sense.
Managing wild fire--wild land fire accounts for nearly 43
percent of the budget proposal. How the Forest Service
configures its fire fighting aircraft assets and the
modernization of the aging tanker fleet is something that we're
all following closely within the committee. Although there are
proposed increases in this budget for modernizing, no further
details are provided as to how that funding would be spent.
I do understand that the Forest Service has awarded some
legacy air tanker contracts but not the next generation large
air tanker contracts. I do hope that you'll be able to share
with us this morning, today, the agency's plans for
modernization and the timeliness for moving forward.
Now I will also make a similar comment to what Chairman
Wyden has mentioned with regards to the Secure Rural Schools
and the way that the Forest Service handled the sequestration.
For months the Forest Service was aware of the pending
automatic spending reductions that would occur under
sequestration. Yet it appears that the Forest Service did
nothing to inform or prepare States, the counties or the
boroughs, for the possibility that this program would see
reductions.
I hope that you can speak to that. I'm sure that you will.
But more importantly what the status is and how we move
forward.
Mr. Chairman, of course, I will have a number of questions
after we hear from the Chief. But again, very important
discussion this morning as it relates to our forests.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I think the
committee is aware that you and I are very much in agreement on
these kinds of issues.
We have got to get the harvest up. We know we can do it in
compliance with environmental rules. I think this is an area we
heard about when I was up in Alaska where this committee can
find common ground. I very much appreciate your statement.
Chief Tidwell, welcome. Let's go to your prepared remarks
and then you can have some questions.
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tidwell. OK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski,
Senator Barrasso, Senator Johnson, thank you for giving me this
opportunity to discuss the President's 2014 budget request for
the Forest Service. I appreciate the support that this
committee has given the Forest Service over the years. I look
forward to continuing to work with you to be able to deliver,
what I believe, is what Americans want from their National
Forests.
Now the President's budget request reflects our commitment
to strategic investments that are needed to grow the economy
while exercising fiscal restraint. The budget makes some very
difficult tradeoffs between programs while focusing on, where I
believe, we can make that economic growth, especially in rural
America which includes supporting 450,000 jobs that come from
the activities off of National Forests and Grasslands.
Now I know you're going to have some concerns about the
amounts on some of our individual budget line items. But
overall, I believe this budget request is a good investment,
especially when you look at 3 key objectives.
The first is to get back on track with our accelerated
restoration strategy to be able to get back and move forward to
be able to treat more of that 65 to 83 million acres that need
restoration and especially with the over 12 million that need
timber harvest to be able to restore those lands. We're going
to do this through increasing capacity through our requests for
full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Fund, through requesting permanent authorization for
stewardship contracting, to be able to not only restore those
lands, but to provide certainty to private--so private
investment can occur to be able to expand the wood products
industry.
We want to continue to use landscape scale EISs like the
Four Fry in Arizona to address between 750 and a million acres
with one EIS or to do the adaptive EIS that we've done on the
Black Hills where we did one EIS to address 248,000 acres that
allow us to be able to go in there and address wherever the
next insect and disease outbreak occurs without any additional
analysis.
We also want to expand and create new markets. That's why
we're asking for an additional $13 million in our research
funds that's dedicated to increasing markets for wood. It's to
build on USDA's green building initiative, our wood energy
program and also to continue our research and nano technology.
The second key part of our budget deals with funding for
fire suppression. This budget includes a level of preparedness
that will allow us to continue our 98 percent success rate when
we're taking initial attack. It also requests the 10 year
average for suppression which includes $134 million increase
from what we needed in FY'12 to be able to meet the agreement
of the 10-year average. So $134 million had to come from other
programs to be able to meet the 10-year average.
It also does address the threat to wild fire in homes and
communities by reducing hazardous fuels on 685,000 acres. Yes,
we have reduced our request there. But we're focusing those
funds on the wild land urban interface.
We're also requesting an additional $50 million to help
modernize our large air tanker fleet.
Now the third key objective is to work through the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative to support community based
conservation, help Americans reconnect to the outdoors and
provide opportunities for economic expansion to retain and
create jobs. We're going to do this by supporting the
recreational opportunities that not only add the quality to our
lives, but it supports our communities through 205,000 jobs. We
want to help Americans reconnect with the outdoors through
increase in our youth employment authorities.
We also request an increase in LWCF funding that reflects
the need for conservation easements and land acquisition to
protect critical forests and to acquire public access to make
sure that the public can continue to enjoy their national
forests.
It also reduces Administrative costs. Any time we can
eliminate an in holding on our national forests it reduces the
cost when it comes to boundary management. Also gives us more
flexibility to do the restoration work that needs to occur on
these lands.
We also want to encourage the biomass utilization and other
renewable energy opportunities while working on our processes
to issue oil and gas permit applications--to process oil and
gas permit applications in our energy transmission proposals.
We're also going to continue our focus on our operational
efficiencies. Between FY'13 and FY'14 we're going to cut $100
million from our fixed costs by doing a better job with
strategic acquisition and reducing thus our overall, overhead
costs.
We want to continue to offset budget reductions by gaining
efficiencies like with our NEPA and sell preparation with
timber sales. Since 1998 funding has been reduced by $185
million when adjusted to inflation. Staff has been reduced by
49 percent. But during the same time we've had to reduce our
unit costs for a million board--by a thousand board feet by 23
percent. We want to be able to continue to do that work.
Then the last part of our efficiencies is to continue the
work we're doing to use science, our experience and expertise
to reduce the actions that are ineffective when it comes to
fire suppression. Because of that last year, even though with a
record fire season, we reduced our costs by $377 million
because of the techniques that we're using today, the science
that we're using today.
Our goal is to increase our collaborative efforts to
encourage greater public involvement in the management of the
national forests and grasslands. We need to maintain and
restore healthy landscapes. We need to take care of the
ecosystem. But we also need to support healthy, thriving
communities and provide jobs in rural America.
Again, thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to
your questions.
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me here today to testify on the President's Budget request for the
Forest Service for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. I appreciate the support this
subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past, and I look
forward to continuing to work together with Members of the Committee 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 both fiscal restraint and efficient,
cost-effective spending.
Our Nation can and should take steps to make Government more
effective and more efficient in the 21st century. The FY 2014 budget
that the President is proposing reflects the difficult choices we need
to make to reduce spending while investing in long-term economic growth
and job creation. To make the strategic investments needed to grow the
economy while exercising fiscal restraint, this budget makes difficult
tradeoffs between programs. It also reflects efficiency and
improvements to reduce our administrative costs. It is designed to
appropriately fund many of the programs that matter to Americans.
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 mission includes
helping Americans use and enjoy the lands and waters that belong to
them as citizens of the United States. The Forest Service manages a
system of national forests and grasslands on an area almost twice the
size of California-193 million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico.
These lands entrusted to our care provide some of the richest resources
and most breathtaking scenery in the Nation, as well as drinking water
for millions of Americans.
As the Nation's leading forestry organization, we also serve
Americans in other ways. The Forest Service was founded in 1905 to stop
the degradation of watersheds and manage the lands for the benefit of
all Americans. To that end, in addition to the National Forest System,
agency programs support the sustainable stewardship of more than 600
million acres of forest land across the Nation, including 423 million
acres of private forest land, 68 million acres of State forest land, 18
million acres of Tribal forests, and 100 million acres of urban and
community forests.
In addition, we maintain the largest forestry research organization
in the world, with more than a century of discoveries in such areas as
wood and forest products, fire behavior and management, and sustainable
forest management. In an age of global interconnectedness, we also
support the sustainable stewardship of forests around the world; we
have served people in more than 80 countries, which have direct
benefits to the American forestry economy through marketing American
forest products and invasive species prevention.
America's forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral
to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. The
benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include jobs and
economic activity, especially in rural areas where other sources of
employment and economic growth might be few. In FY 2011, for example,
the various activities on the National Forest System contributed over
$36 billion to America's gross domestic product, supporting nearly
450,000 jobs.
The most popular uses of the national forests and grasslands are
associated with outdoor recreation. Our increasingly diverse visitor
population engages in activities such as camping, picnicking,
snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, equestrian use, firewood and forest
product gathering, all-terrain vehicle riding, skiing, snowboarding,
hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, and
visiting cultural sites and visitor centers. The national forests and
grasslands attract about 166 million visits per year, supporting about
205,000 jobs and contributing $13.6 billion to the Nation's gross
domestic product each year. Fifty-five percent of our visitors engage
in a strenuous physical activity, contributing to their health and
well-being.
Noncommercial uses of forest and grasslands also provide vital
benefits to the American people. For example, more than half of our
Nation's freshwater flows from public and private forest land, and
about 60 million Americans rely on drinking water that originates on
the National Forest System. Forest Service land management, combined
with Forest Service assistance to private landowners, helps protect the
single greatest source of drinking water in the Nation.
The Forest Service's creation of jobs and economic opportunities is
not limited to rural areas. Through Job Corps and other programs, we
provide training and employment for America's urban youth, and we help
veterans transition to civilian life. Our Urban and Community Forestry
Program has also provided jobs and career-training opportunities for
underemployed adults and at-risk youth through activities such as tree
care and riparian corridor restoration.
We also engage a wide range of partners who contribute to
investments in land management projects and activities. In FY 2012, we
entered into more than 7,700 grants and agreements with partners who
contributed a total of about $535 million in cash and non-cash (in-
kind) contributions. Combined with our own contribution of nearly $779
million, the total value of these partnerships was over $1.3 billion.
The growing value of grants and agreements demonstrates the increasing
importance of partnerships in fulfilling the Forest Service mission.
Forest landowners of all kinds benefit from our forest-related
research, as does anyone who buys products made from wood. For example,
Forest Service scientists have developed a free software application
that helps people identify invasive plants and provides control
recommendations. Our research and development bring all kinds of
benefits to the American people, improving their quality of life.
More than 50 percent of the Nation's forests-over 420 million
acres-are privately owned. Working with the State Foresters, we help
State forest managers and private forest landowners manage America's
working forests sustainably. Through our Forest Health Management
program, for example, we monitor and assess forest health conditions on
all lands nationwide, both public and private, tracking outbreaks of
insects and disease and providing funds for treating areas at risk.
In February 2011, President Barack Obama launched the America's
Great Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for
conservation and outdoor recreation in the 21st century. The initiative
challenges the American people to work together to find lasting
conservation solutions, based on the premise that protecting America's
natural heritage is a goal shared by all. In tandem with the
President's initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack outlined
an all-lands vision for conservation. He called for partnerships and
collaboration to reach shared goals for restoring healthy, resilient
forested landscapes across all landownerships nationwide.
Our FY 2014 budget request is accordingly designed to help us work
with partners across borders and boundaries to invest in America's
green infrastructure at a landscape scale. Our focus on landscape-scale
conservation dovetails with broader Administration priorities,
including the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative, the
Secretary's ``all-lands'' vision, and the Department of Agriculture's
priority goal of enhancing water resources. Our goal at the Forest
Service is to ensure the ability of our Nation's forests and grasslands
to deliver a full range of jobs and benefits, both now and for
generations to come.
Challenges to Conservation
Our Nation's ability to protect its forest and grassland resources
is now at risk due to drought, invasive species, and
uncharacteristically severe wildfires and outbreaks of insects and
diseases. Such stresses and disturbances are affecting America's
forests, grasslands, and watersheds on an unprecedented scale. Twenty-
seven percent of all forest-associated plants and animals in the United
States, a total of 4,005 species, are at risk of extinction. Habitat
degradation is the main reason-affecting 85 percent of all imperiled
species. Many species are also threatened by nonnative invasive
species, which affect 49 percent of all imperiled species.
Although biodiversity is exceptionally high on the national forests
and grasslands, habitat degradation and invasive species remain serious
threats. We estimate that watershed functionality is impaired or at
risk on 48 percent of the watersheds on National Forest System lands.
Severe outbreaks of western forest pests have affected 32 million acres
on the national forests alone. Between 65 and 82 million acres are in
need of fuels and forest health treatments-up to 42 percent of the
entire National Forest System.
Part of the problem is severe drought, resulting in extreme fire
weather, very large fires and longer fire seasons. Since 2000, at least
10 States have had their largest fires on record, and some have had
their records broken more than once. In 2000, for the first time since
the 1950s, more than seven million acres burned nationwide; and in
2012, more than nine million acres burned.
The spread of homes and communities into areas prone to wildfire is
an increasing management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, we expect to see
substantial increases in housing density on 44 million acres of private
forest land 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 a community wildfire protection plan or an
equivalent plan.
A growing proportion of the Forest Service budget has been needed
for fire-related activities of all kinds. In FY 1991, for example,
fire-related activities accounted for about 13 percent of our total
budget; by FY 2012, it was 40 percent. That has left a smaller amount
of funding for nonfire purposes (watersheds, wildlife, recreation, and
other benefits and services). With increasingly limited funding, we
need to approach our work differently.
Budget Request and Focus Areas
The FY 2014 President's Budget request is designed to meet the
challenges we face. The President's proposed overall budget for
discretionary funding for the Forest Service in FY 2014 is $4.9
billion. It shifts $62 million from key programs to meet the
requirement to fund the 10-year rolling average of fire suppression
costs.
In response to the challenges we face, we are focusing our efforts
on three key areas: restoring ecosystems; strengthening communities
while providing jobs; and managing wildland fires. In these tough
economic times, our proposed budget balances spending on priorities in
each of these three focus areas against measures to decrease costs.
Through strategic partnerships, we will continue to leverage our funds
to accomplish more work, yielding more benefits for the people we serve
while also sustaining forest and grassland ecosystems for future
generations.
Restoring Ecosystems
Our approach to ecological degradation is to accelerate ecological
restoration. The Forest Service is restoring the ability of forest and
grassland ecosystems to resist climate-related stresses, recover from
climate-related disturbances, and continue to deliver the values and
benefits that Americans want and need. Reforestation, habitat
enhancements, invasive species control, hazardous fuels treatments, and
other measures can help to make an ecosystem more resilient and more
capable of delivering benefits, such as protecting water supplies and
supporting native fish and wildlife. Our budget request for FY 2014 is
specifically designed to support integrated restoration efforts across
the Forest Service.
Through Integrated Resource Restoration, land managers are
accelerating the pace of restoration and job creation, in part by using
the Forest Service's Watershed Condition Framework to identify high-
priority watersheds for treatment. Managers use Integrated Resource
Restoration to integrate activities such as hazardous fuels reduction,
road decommissioning, and removal of barriers to fish passage. Outcomes
include reducing risk from fire, insects, and diseases; maintaining
clean drinking water for communities; and supporting more local jobs
and economic opportunities. For example, in FY 2012 through our overall
efforts we treated almost 2.6 million acres to sustain or restore
watershed function and resilience. Under the pilot program, through
restoration activities we treated almost 800,000 acres. We propose
fully implementing Integrated Resource Restoration across the Forest
Service in FY 2014.
The growing need for restoration-related work and investments on
the National Forest System is providing jobs and community benefits.
The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program was created in
2009 to restore high-priority forested landscapes, improve forest
health, promote job stability, create a reliable wood supply, and
reduce firefighting costs across the United States. After the program
was created, the Secretary of Agriculture evaluated collaboratively
developed project proposals, selecting 20 large-scale projects for 10-
year funding, along with three additional high-priority projects for
funding from other sources. They support an array of restoration
activities, including reducing hazardous fuels, restoring watershed
function and resilience, and improving forest vegetation and wildlife
habitat. Continued implementation of these projects is a high priority
in our FY 2014 budget request. For example, the 23 projects under this
program have created or maintained approximately 7,500 jobs over the
last two years and generated almost $272 million in labor income. They
have also reduced the danger of fire on more than 600,000 acres near
communities and enhanced clean water supplies by remediating or
decommissioning 6,000 miles of roads.
The Forest Service is creating partnerships across the country to
help protect water by reducing the risk of fire in municipal watersheds
that provide communities with water for drinking and other uses, such
as irrigation, fisheries, and recreation. To help leverage our funding,
we are proposing a new program for Restoration Partnerships in FY 2014.
The program will foster some of the most advanced public-private
partnership initiatives in the Federal government, leveraging new
outside resources to support the Forest Service's restoration efforts.
Most funding under the new program will go to support cost-share
projects that will be competed for at the national level to attract
matching financial support from partners.
Another Forest Service program with a restoration emphasis is
Forest Health Management. Under the program, we conduct risk mapping
and surveys to identify the areas at greatest risk from insects and
disease, including invasive species such as emerald ash borer and white
pine blister rust. In identifying the areas at greatest risk and
deciding on how to respond, we work with the States, in part by
utilizing the State Forest Action Plans to help inform response
decisions.
The Forest Service is finalizing directives for implementing the
new National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule governing how
land management plans are written for the national forests and
grasslands. Half of all units on the National Forest System have plans
that are more than 15 years old. Successful forest plan revisions are
key to meeting the Forest Service's contemporary land management
challenges. The new 2012 Planning Rule will help land managers focus on
collaborative watershed restoration while promoting jobs and economic
opportunities in rural communities.
In concert with the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
and Secretary Vilsack's all-lands vision for conservation, the Forest
Service has launched an initiative to accelerate restoration across
shared landscapes. The Accelerated Restoration Initiative builds on
Integrated Resource Restoration, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program, the Watershed Condition Framework, the 2012
Planning Rule, and other restoration-related programs and initiatives
to increase the pace of ecological restoration while creating more jobs
in rural communities.
The Forest Service is supporting accelerated restoration through
our programs in Research and Development. We have seven high-priority
research areas, including Watershed Management and Restoration, which
is designed to support our focus on protecting and enhancing water
resources. In our Bioenergy and Biobased Products research area, we are
developing technology to sustainably produce woody biomass and convert
it into liquid fuels, chemicals, and other high-value products. In
partnership with the wood products industry, we are also developing
science to commercialize nanocellulosic technologies to generate new
high-value products such as durable composites and paper that is
stronger and lighter. This will revolutionize technology to create new
jobs and revenues and help restore America's economy through industrial
development and expansion.
We are also pursuing longer term strategic research. For example,
sustainable forest management is predicated on decades of data on
forest conditions collected through our Forest Inventory and Analysis
program. We conduct long-term research in such areas as forest
disturbances, the effects of climate change, fire and fuels, invasive
species, wildlife and fish, and resource management and use to meet
local needs. In all of our research, we are committed to delivering new
knowledge and technologies to support sustainable forest and grassland
management.
Strengthening Communities and Providing Jobs
Our FY 2014 budget request emphasizes the role that communities
play in sustaining the forests and grasslands around them and the
benefits they provide. Working with State and local partners, we are
focusing on landscape-scale outcomes through cross-boundary actions
including forestry projects identified through the State forest Action
Plans. Accordingly, we propose building on our State and Private
Forestry Deputy Area Redesign initiative through a new program called
Landscape Scale Restoration. Our new program will capitalize on the
State Forest Action Plans to target the forested areas most in need of
restoration treatments while leveraging partner funds.
We also work with the States through our Forest Legacy Program to
identify forests critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs. Through
the program, we provide working forests with permanent protection by
purchasing conservation easements from willing private landowners.
In a similar vein, and supporting the President's America's Great
Outdoors initiative, our Land Acquisition program is designed to
protect critical ecosystems and prevent habitat fragmentation by
acquiring inholdings on the National Forest System and other lands
where we can improve public access. We are working in collaboration
with the Department of the Interior to leverage our joint investments
by coordinating our efforts to protect intact, functioning ecosystems
across entire landscapes. We propose transferring $177 million in
discretionary and mandatory funding from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to support these goals.
The Forest Service also engages urban communities in protecting and
restoring America's 100 million acres of urban and community forests.
For example, we are working with 10 other Federal agencies in the Urban
Waters Federal Partnership, designed to restore watersheds in urban
areas. Through our Urban and Community Forestry program, we are
benefiting communities by helping them to plant trees, especially
through demonstration projects. Through our Conservation Education
programs, we are engaging millions of children and their families in
outdoor experiences.
In addition, we are helping communities acquire local landscapes
for public recreation and watershed benefits through our Community
Forestry and Open Space program. Our goal is to help create a Nation of
citizen stewards committed to restoring the forests around them to
health.
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, establishing a 21st
century Conservation Corps will help us to increase the number of work
and training opportunities for young people and veterans through high-
priority conservation and restoration work on public lands. To engage
communities in conserving the lands around them, the Forest Service is
building public-private partnerships that leverage new resources to
support the Forest Service's restoration goals. Our new Restoration
Partnerships program features national competitive grants to support
local restoration projects, with matching funds from partners.
We are also building public-private partnerships through our
Sustainable Recreation Framework. Many economic opportunities and other
community benefits generated on the national forests and grasslands are
associated with outdoor recreation. Through the Sustainable Recreation
Framework, we are engaging communities to protect and increase
recreational access as well as jobs, benefits, and opportunities
associated with outdoor recreation.
Our associated Trails program designates trails for multiple uses,
consistent with our travel management rule, while building partnerships
in trail stewardship. Our Roads program is designed to maintain forest
roads and bridges to protect public safety and water quality while
meeting access needs for both resource stewardship and the recreating
public. Our Facilities program promotes the safe and energy-efficient
use of agency infrastructure while emphasizing cost-effectiveness and a
smaller environmental footprint through the use of green building
techniques and materials.
Managing Wildland Fires
Our restoration efforts are partly in response to growing fire
season severity, one of the greatest challenges facing the Forest
Service. We continue to suppress in initial attack at very small sizes
up to 98 percent of the fires we fight. However, the few fires that
escape initial attack tend to get much larger much faster. Extreme fire
behavior has become far more common. Firefighters are largely limited
to protecting certain points around homes and communities.
In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Land Assistance, Management,
and Enhancement (FLAME) Act, calling on Federal land managers to
develop a joint wildland fire management strategy. Working with the
Department of the Interior, the Forest Service took the opportunity to
involve the entire wildland fire community in developing a joint long-
term National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
This strategy is the product of a collaborative effort between
wildland fire organizations, land managers, and policy making officials
representing Federal, State and local governments, Tribal interests,
and nongovernmental organizations that builds on the successes of the
National Fire Plan and other foundational documents. Phase I was
completed in 2011 and outlines the national strategy to address
wildland fire issues across the Nation. Phase II was completed in 2012
and provides a risk based framework for evaluating local, regional, and
national alternatives for wildfire response and preparedness at a mix
of different temporal and geographic scales.
Our new strategy has three components:
1. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.--More than a thousand
postfire assessments show that fuels and forest health
treatments are effective in reducing wildfire severity.
Accordingly, our fuels treatments have grown; from 2001 to
2011, the Forest Service treated about 27.6 million acres, an
area larger than Virginia. We focus our treatments on high-
priority areas in the wildland/urban interface, particularly
near communities that are taking steps to become safer from
wildfire, such as adopting the national Firewise program or
developing community wildfire protection plans.
2. Building fire-adapted human communities.--With more than
70,000 communities at risk from wildfire, the Forest Service is
working through cross-jurisdictional partnerships to help
communities become safer from wildfires, for example by
developing community wildfire protection plans. Through the
Firewise program, the number of designated Firewise
communities-communities able to survive a wildfire without
outside intervention-rose from 400 in 2008 to more than 700 in
2012.
3. Responding appropriately to wildfire.--Most of America's
landscapes are adapted to fire; wildland fire plays a natural
and beneficial role in many forest types. Where suppression is
needed to protect homes and property, we focus on deploying the
right resources in the right place at the right time. Using
decision support tools, fire managers are making risk-based
assessments to decide when and where to suppress a fire-and
when and where to use fire to achieve management goals for
long-term ecosystem health and resilience.
Hazardous fuels reduction is an important part of protecting
communities and infrastructure in the wildland/urban interface, and the
materials removed can often be utilized as biofuels. Our Hazardous
Fuels program therefore supports grants and other forms of assistance
for wood-to-energy initiatives. We fund business plans and feasibility
studies that help make a project more competitive for other sources of
funding; we provide technical assistance to support project development
or improve air quality, and we help develop financially viable
approaches for building and sustaining facilities that convert wood to
energy.
In FY 2014, the Forest Service will work with municipal water
providers and electrical service utilities to leverage our funds for
fuels and forest health treatments. For example, our new Restoration
Partnerships program will support public-private partnerships for
investing in projects to protect water supplies on the Colorado Front
Range and elsewhere. Our Hazardous Fuels program complements activities
conducted through Integrated Resource Restoration and the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program to reduce fuels, protect
communities, and restore forested landscapes. Contracted services for
fuels reduction provides jobs, as do the forest products and woody
biomass utilization activities that result from fuels reduction and
removal.
Our budget request for FY 2014, taking the Suppression and FLAME
line items together, fully covers the 10-year rolling average of annual
amounts spent on suppression. Taken together with the Preparedness line
item, our budget request reflects our emphasis on assessing strategic
risks and improving operational decision-making for responding to
wildland fires, including using fire, where appropriate, for resource
benefits. Our efforts are expected to result in more effective and
efficient use of Forest Service resources as well as the resources of
our partners.
Airtankers are a critical part of an appropriate response to
wildfire, but the Forest Service's fleet of large airtankers is old,
with an average age of more than 50 years. The cost of maintaining them
is growing, as are the risks associated with using them. The Forest
Service is implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy to
replace our aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our FY 2014
budget request includes $50 million to pay for the increased costs of
modernizing the firefighting airtanker fleet. This is in addition to
the $24 million requested in the FY 2013 budget for a total of $74
million proposed over the last two years to further enhance the
agency's ability to fight wildland fire.
Cost Savings
Since 2011, the Forest Service has conducted more than a thousand
postfire assessments in areas where wildfires burned into previously
treated sites. In 94 percent of the cases, our fuels and forest health
treatments were determined to have changed fire behavior and/or helped
firefighters control the fire.
The Forest Service is also taking steps in other areas to cut our
operating costs. For example:
Taking advantage of new technologies, we have streamlined
and centralized our financial, information technology, and
human resources operations to gain efficiencies and reduce
costs. We will continue to work together with other USDA
agencies under the Blueprint for Stronger Services to develop
strategies for key business areas to provide efficiencies.
For the same reasons, we have integrated work across our
deputy areas for National Forest System, State and Private
Forestry, and Research and Development. For example, all three
deputy areas have collaborated to develop the Southern Forest
Futures project--the first comprehensive analysis of the future
of Southern forests over the next 50 years.
In FY 2012, we began implementing a new Planning Rule that
will reduce the length of time it takes to revise management
plans, saving costs. We are also saving costs by streamlining
our environmental review process under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
We are implementing measures to achieve $100 million in cost
pool savings in FY 2013 and FY 2014 combined.
We have adopted new public-private partnership strategies
for leveraging restoration funding. For example, over 10 years
the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is
expected to leverage $152.3 million in partner funding, about
62 cents for every Federal dollar spent.
We also signed an agreement to use municipal funds to
restore fire-damaged national forest land in the municipal
watershed of Denver, Colorado. Over five years, Denver Water is
matching the Forest Service's own $16.5 million investment in
watershed restoration. We have signed similar agreements with
Santa Fe, New Mexico, and with other cities on the Front Range
in Colorado, including Aurora and Colorado Springs.
We are proposing a number of changes in our budget line
items for FY 2014 to better integrate accomplishments, to
increase efficiencies in administration, and to make our
program delivery more transparent. For example, combing the
State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs under Wildland
Fire Management will improve program management, reduce
administrative complexity, and will assist with improved
performance management.
In accordance with sustainability and efficiency mandates,
we are working to reduce our environmental footprint. We are
acquiring more energy-efficient vehicles and using the latest
technologies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and cut our
electricity and natural gas costs at facilities.
Future Outlook
Our budget request focuses accordingly on America's highest
priorities for restoring ecosystems, strengthening communities and
providing jobs, and managing wildland fire. We are developing a kind of
land and resource management that efficiently and effectively addresses
the growing extent and magnitude of the challenges we face, as well as
the mix of values and benefits that Americans expect from their 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.
The key to future success is to work 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 this approach, we can accomplish more work while also providing
more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of generations to come.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you or the Committee Members have for me.
The Chairman. Chief, thank you. We're very much aware that
you are not the only one involved in preparing these budgets.
Sometimes I always think we ought to bring OMB up here too and
we can rage away at them as well because I think you can tell
there is bipartisan concern up here.
Let me ask you about a question that I think is central to
this debate about getting the harvest up in America. Last week
I was in John Day, Oregon in Grant County, where they have put
together a collaborative for the national forest there, the
Malheur National Forest. Part of this debate, and I gather you
were a part of it a couple of weeks ago in the House, is a
debate about what is most likely to produce an increase in the
harvest in a sustained way.
Is it going to be a collaborative approach, the way they're
doing it in John Day? We've been very involved in the work in
setting it up. Or is it more likely that the harvest will get
up in a sustained way by, in effect, taking Federal lands and
putting them in private ownership? As you know there's talk
about a reserve or something to that nature.
Which of those 2 approaches, in your view, is more likely
to get the harvest up in a sustained way?
Mr. Tidwell. The collaborative approach. I think the record
supports that. We've spent a lot of years in this country
having the dialog, the debate, about how a national forest
should be managed.
Finally in the last few years we've been able to use
collaborative, collaboration, in a way to bring people together
that's actually increased the amount of work, the restoration,
the timber harvest on our national forests. That's why I put
out the accelerated restoration strategy last year, to be able
to show that even with basically a flat, fixed budget that I
believe we can continue to increase the amount of work getting
done in the harvest. We were on pace to be able to do that.
I think with our budget request we can quickly get back on
pace.
The Chairman. Now the sequester, obviously, takes a toll.
Lifting the sequester and coming up with a bipartisan
alternative clearly will help.
Is there any way short of that? Because it's obviously not
going to happen in the next 10 minutes, which is really what we
need so the priorities can be arranged. I think you'd like to
move in the direction of more collaboratives, perhaps more
stewardship contracting. The staff has been going through a
variety of programs, something I am not a big expert in, to
find opportunities such as the cost pools account, for example.
Are there ways in which--even in these constrained
financial times--we can get the priorities changed? Senator
Murkowski made essentially the same point. So we can get more
into the timber harvest account?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, I have used up all my limited
flexibilities to be able to do everything we could to be able
to mitigate the impact of the sequester reductions, especially
when we get those in the middle of the year. I guess we'll have
to wait and see how effective those are going to be. But I'll
tell you I've done everything I can to be able to use our
limited flexibilities.
In addition to that, if we could send a strong signal that
stewardship contracting is going to be reauthorized so that not
only our purchasers, our contractors but our employees can see
that that's going to continue to be a tool that's available
along with timber sale contracts. That will be very, very
important.
The other thing is to show support for collaboration. It
takes a lot of work to keep people at the table, especially
those that in the past have not been supportive of restoration
or timber harvest on the national forests. Any signals that are
sent to those groups that say, hey this isn't the way we're
going to keep working I think is what it's going to do is
discourage those efforts.
So those are a couple of things that we could--I would ask
you to do right now to be able to help us get back on pace with
our accelerated restoration.
The Chairman. Let's do this. I mean, obviously the
collaboratives, I think, are the way to go. It's my
understanding that the reserves that are being talked about are
managed by a private entity under state law. That's what's
being discussed by some. I gather that technically still
provides for Federal ownership.
But you think between collaboratives and that approach,
collaborative is the way to go. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. OK.
Let me ask you one other question then if I might.
On the sequester, where there is so much frustration in
terms of the communities and the Governors. What is the
deadline for the states to return these funds to the
Administration?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, I tell you I regret it, the day
I had to sign those letters and send it out to, you know, to
the Governors. We've asked them to indicate if they want us to
take the sequester out of Title II. We've asked for their
response this month on that.
Then once we receive that, we will then move forward to
send a bill for collection to those states that choose not to
use the Title II funds. Then they'll have a certain amount of
time. It's usually about 30 days before they need to respond to
that bill.
The Chairman. What's going to happen if the states don't
return the funds because I think a lot of these communities
just have no room, just no flexibility. What will happen then?
Mr. Tidwell. I'm not the expert here, but it's my
understanding that if the funds aren't returned the day that
they're due that there will be penalties. There's interest
payments that will occur. But I--we can get back to you as to
exactly what the process is on that.
The Chairman. I would just again encourage you to find a
way to minimize the harm to these communities. I was in them.
This is--they're walking on an economic tightrope now.
I mean, they literally, in a lot of these instances, cannot
fund basic law enforcement. There's discussion about setting up
citizens self-policing kinds of organizations. It is that
serious of a problem.
So I would just encourage you to look for ways to mitigate
the harm, No. 1.
I'd like to ask you to look through all of the accounts
that strike me as having a possibility to have some reductions
in order to help the timber harvest, the cost pool account, the
minerals program, and the land ownership management program.
We'd like you to look at all of those.
On the basic proposition now we've clarified that you think
collaboratives make more sense for the long term than have
something that may be technical Federal ownership, but is
managed by a private entity under state law which is clearly
going to trigger a lot of those battles that we saw in the
past. But we've got to do something now. We're going to have
the debate in terms of what to do for the future.
You've convinced me that the collaborative route is the way
to go. But we've got to get relief to these communities now
otherwise they're not going to be around. They're not going to
be around for us to have this approach with respect to the
longer term kinds of ideas.
So let me--I've gone over my time. I'm going to give
colleagues a little extra time as well.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just add a final comment to the discussion here
about Secure Rural Schools. Chief, it is adding insult to
injury to these communities that, again, I've used the term
there it's an economic disaster for so many of them when they
look at the uncertainty with the Secure Rural Schools funding
and really, the inability to look anywhere else, anywhere else.
In Ketchikan, my birth place, you know, we've had this
conversation before. They live in the middle of the Tongass
National Forest. It's not as if there is developable land
around them. It's .03 percent of the land is available outside
of what the Federal Government holds for them.
So to suggest that not only we're going to claw back the
revenues that we've given you that you anticipated, that you
budgeted for. We're going to claw that back. If you can't
return that money then we're going to ding you with penalties
and fines that they further can't pay. For heaven's sake. We
have got to figure out a better path forward than that.
We have got to figure out a way to avoid that because if
they've got to return the dollars that they don't have because
they have been spent. Now they're being assessed fines and late
fees and penalties by their Federal Government. Wow.
Let me ask a question following on. This relates to how we
get the cut up, as we discussed at the last hearing a couple
weeks ago. You were very clear. I felt you were very clear in
that hearing that what we were going to see was an increase.
So when in fact we are seeing a 15 percent reduction from
year prior that doesn't bode well with the words that you have
used. So how? Why? Why the 15 percent reduction?
Then as you explain to that--explain that to me if you can
explain how this budget and these reductions will affect the
Tongass transition plan and the Tongass integrated plan that
we've been working on. We've got the implementation of several
big sales coming up. The Big Thorne out on Wrangell Island.
Tell me how and what this means for us, not only from the
national perspective, but more local in my home State, where
again, these folks are hanging on by their fingernails.
Mr. Tidwell. The 15 percent reduction in the timber harvest
is reflected on what's happening this year. With having a
reduction that we had this year, especially in the middle of
the year, over half of our, the funds that we have to do timber
sale preparation go to administering the current contracts and
then covering some of the fixed costs that we have no choice.
So we only have 50 percent to be able to work on the next
year's contracts.
So the whole 5 percent plus has to come out of that. So
it's going to result in fewer crews to be out there to be able
to mark the timber. So not only does that impact what we can do
this year, but it also, I expect, it will have a larger impact
in FY'14.
Senator Murkowski. So you're saying that the reductions
will be even greater in 2014.
Mr. Tidwell. That's what I reflect with this current
budget. That was our estimate. That's why you see the reduction
in FY'14 because of what's happening this year.
Now I admit these are conservative estimates because I'd
much rather be able to come in here like we were after FY'12
and say we exceeded the self imposed target that we put out
there. I hope that we can do a better job. We're doing
everything we can to be able to offset this. But as far as when
I have to put out an estimate of what we're going to see in
FY'14, it has to factor in the impact that's occurred, that's
occurring this year.
Now we're taking with the FY'14 budget, we can get back on
track and for instance when you talk about the transition plan.
It continues to be one of our priorities to be able to not only
move forward with the Big Thorne and Wrangell. But at the same
time to move forward with some work in second growth that is so
essential for us to be able to show that in the future the
timber harvest there in Southeast is going to be a mix of some
old growth and also some second growth. Also to be able to move
forward with some of the pellet plants that we're hoping to get
into place to be able to offset those high energy costs.
In addition to that with our limited resources this year we
sent some additional money to do the road work for next year's
sell. So we're doing what we can this year to be positioned to
be able to get that harvest done next year.
So those are the ways that we are approaching to be able to
do what we can to be able to get back on track with our
restoration strategy.
Senator Murkowski. I think we would all agree that whether
it's roads or whether it's a pellet plant, it doesn't do any
good to have the infrastructure if we don't have the timber, if
we don't have the product that can be used for that pellet
plant. You don't need the road if we're not going to be able to
harvest that timber. You and I talk a lot about this transition
to second growth.
But if you can't hang on until that timber is ready to be
harvested you've got a dead or dying industry that cannot be
resuscitated. I look at what you're proposing for the national
sales. I see how that impacts us at the state level.
Then I look at the budget category for land acquisition and
you're telling me that on the one hand because of sequestration
and the funding and the budget, we just can't make it happen.
Yet we're seeing a 72 percent increase in funding for land
acquisition again, with no corresponding increase in staffing
to manage that. So I'm just not seeing how this all balances
out.
I've gone over my time. But hopefully we'll have a moment
for or an opportunity for a second.
The Chairman. We will definitely have a second round.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Following up on the question by Senator
Murkowski, why aren't the replacement of the fire fighting
fonds and activities to combat the pine beetle problem offset
by the land acquisition funds? Why is that not a good idea?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, our request with the land acquisition
and also for our legacy program for conservation easements.
First of all, it reflects from what we're hearing from the
public to acquire these relatively small parcels of land that
are key in holdings, not only to ensure that the public has
access to be able to get up on to the national forest. But it
also just reduces the amount of boundary location we have to
deal with. It eliminates the problem that if we want to go out
and do a timber sell, we no longer have to go out there and
spend a lot of time citing that boundary. We can just go in and
treat the whole area.
So our land acquisition program, almost in every case, it
actually reduces our administration costs. It gives us more
flexibility. Then, as you well know, there's more and more
interest on the national forest for more people to get out
there and recreate.
The private landowners sometimes get tired of those
impacts. So we continue to see more and more private landowners
want to close their lands so that the public can't get to the
national forests. So this program is focused on being able to
also acquire those key access points. This is always from
willing sellers. We have people lined up for both the
acquisition programs and also for the conservation easements.
Senator Johnson. Good.
Chief Tidwell, the reserve accounts established under the
FLAME Act have been operating for several years now with the
goal of preventing the practice of ``fire borrowing'' to cover
costs associated with wild fires. But last year the Forest
Service had to transfer money from non fire accounts to pay for
fire suppression. Are the FLAME reserve accounts not operating
as they were intended? Can we expect to see additional
transfers this year if we experience another high cost fire
season?
Mr. Tidwell. From my view the Flame Act has not had the
success I think we were all hoping for, for a variety of
reasons. So like last year we had to transfer $440 million. To
put that into perspective, over the last 10 years we've
transferred $2.7 billion.
In addition, you know, to that as to what we're looking at
for this fire season and we're predicting a similar fire season
to last year. So in all likelihood we're going to have to end
up transferring, you know, a similar amount of money if we have
the same level fire season. We're hoping that it moderates. But
we're going to be prepared for similar fire season to last
year.
So at this point I can anticipate coming back up here
asking for your approval to be able to transfer the funds.
Senator Johnson. The Forest Service Restoration Strategy
called for increasing the pace and scale of restoration in the
national forests. What specific steps has the Forest Service
taken since the Restoration Strategy was published in February
2012 to increase efficiency of implementing NEPA, timber sales,
and stewardship contracts? To what extent will those increased
efficiencies be able to offset the reduction in funding from
the sequester?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I'll start with using the project
there in the Black Hills with that adaptive EIS that covered
the 248,000 acres, one document that positions that forest to
be able to go forward and do the work. That demonstrates how we
can be more efficient in our NEPA processes.
The second thing that we're going to continue to work on
we've put our new rule out for--with the objection process. So
that we've replaced our old appeals process with an objection
process that I think also provides better opportunity for the
public to be able to participate in, you know, in our project
development. But also it will speed up the decision making on
that.
The other thing, we're working with all of our regions
across the country to be able to maximize efficiencies as to
how we do our sell prep. We used to spend a lot of time, you
know, marking individual trees. We got a lot of parts of this
country today that those trees don't have a lot of value. But
they need to be harvested. So we're changing the way that we do
some of our sell prep to continue to be able to reduce our
costs.
These are the sort of things that we've been working on to
be able to continue to accelerate the pace basically without
asking for more money.
The other thing is stewardship contracting. It is the right
tool, especially when we're dealing with some of our forests
where we need to remove a lot of the smaller diameter material
that doesn't have a lot of value. If we can do that through a
stewardship contract to be able to use the value of the
merchantable material to offset the cost of removing the
smaller diameter stuff. We can't do that with the timber sale
contract.
So a stewardship contract is just another essential way for
us to be able to continue to, you know, accelerate our
restoration.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chief Tidwell.
My time is expired.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso is next.
I'm going to have to be in the Finance Committee. So I
think what we'll do is we'll have Senator Barrasso next.
Senator Udall has arrived. We're very appreciative of the fact
that he can stay a bit and chair.
Senator Udall, I know there's great interest in a second
round with the Chief. So I will try to get back as soon as I
can. So we'll go with Senator Barrasso.
Next Senator Udall for his questions. Senator Murkowski to
begin our second round. Then hopefully I'll be back fairly
shortly. But if you would, let's ensure that at least other
members who want to come and myself can get for their first
round and I can get back for a second round as well.
Alright, Senator Barrasso.
Yes, we can keep talking there's no shortage of that in the
Senate.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note the House and the Senate
have already passed their respective budgets and I appreciate
you being here today. The timing of the Administration's budget
is another example, in my opinion, of the President leading
from behind. I share your concerns.
The concerns I hear from you, from the agency employees and
various stakeholder groups who work with the Forest Service.
The concern is with the overall inability of the Forest Service
to actually manage our forests. Under this Administration the
Forest Service is chasing wilderness designations, climate
change, land acquisition and wildlife management. If our sick
and decaying forests have any hope to recover the Forest
Service really must return to its roots of management and
proactively improving the health of our forests.
Also, this committee led by Senators Wyden and Murkowski
have oversight responsibility. They're working together on
that. As such, I can't support the Administration's integrated
resource restoration of the IRR program until the ability of
Congress to maintain its oversight role is fully addressed.
I have a number of questions. I wanted to start with Good
Neighbor Authority. At this same time, at this same budget
hearing last year we spoke about and agreed upon the useful
tool, the Good Neighbor Authority would be and both for the
states and the Forest Service. My home state of Wyoming needs
and wants the ability to work with the Forest Service and the
Forest Service desperately needs every tool it can get to
actively manage and restore forest health.
Along with Senator Udall, who is here chairing the
committee, and Mike Lee and Tim Johnson, who is here as well
this morning, once again introduce the Good Neighbor Authority
Act. With bipartisan support of this committee it's time, I
believe, for the Administration to fully support this common
sense and much needed legislation. Will you personally commit
to engaging on Good Neighbor Authority?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, yes. In fact, we do support expanding
the Good Neighbor Authority. We do have a few minor technical
adjustments we'd like to work with you on based on our
experience so we can make it even more effective, more
efficient.
But you're exactly right. This is another tool that allows
us to bring more capacity to be able to do the work across
larger landscapes. At the same time, you know, it increases the
cost of our work. So I appreciate your support for helping us
to be able to move forward with this.
Senator Barrasso. I'm glad to hear that because as you know
the Forest Service is going to be testifying on the bill on
April 25th.
I wanted to get to another topic that others have discussed
and it has to do with the Forest Service air tanker
availability. Like many on the committee, I'm concerned with
the current status of air tanker availability to fight wild
fires. We all agree in these times of constrained budgets that
the Forest Service is going to need to get more work
accomplished within the existing budget resources.
So the agency needs to focus on how to effectively and
efficiently deliver the required annual fire retardant in the
most cost effective and safe manner. So I'm going to include an
air tanker related question for the record. I just would ask
that you commit to getting that answer addressed in a timely
manner.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, I will.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
In terms of grazing management the Forest Service budget
proposes additional fees of a dollar per AUM, animal unit month
for family farmers and ranchers to recover the costs associated
with NEPA analysis and issuing grazing permits. You know when I
talked to both ranchers and agency employees back in Wyoming,
they attribute the increase of cost to renew a permit actually
to excessive litigation against the agency. I'm wondering what
percentage of the Forest Service system line item budget is
actually spent on litigation, if you know and you may not know.
Mr. Tidwell. You know, Senator, I can get back to you with
the amount that we spend as far as the legal costs. I can--we
can probably give you an estimate about the time that we spend
on it.
Mr. Tidwell. But it's one of the things why we've been
focused for years to be able to get the NEPA down on our
grazing allotments to alleviate some of that concern from some
litigation.
It's one of the reasons why we had to make some tough
choices in this budget. You know, the idea of increasing the
fees for, you know, for our ranchers, you know. That's a hard
thing.
But without that it's going to be so difficult for us to be
able to do the administration that needs to be done to ensure
so that the opponents to grazing that we have a good response
because we can show we've done the monitoring. We can show that
the range is in good condition. We need to be able to do that.
So that's one of the reasons why we've proposed this idea
to be able to generate some additional money to be able to
really focus on that administration on the monitoring with an
understanding that the NEPA work is going to continue to
probably have to be postponed just like we've been having to do
that for about the last, I'm going to say, 10 years now.
Senator Barrasso. Is the Forest Service doing anything to
recover the costs associated with some of these excessive
lawsuits?
Mr. Tidwell. No, we do not have any authority to recover
those costs.
Senator Barrasso. Do I have time for one more question, Mr.
Chairman? Thanks.
It's on timber management and other Senators have addressed
that the Forest Service announced that a result of the 5
percent sequester cut that timber production would be cut by 15
percent. So, I mean, it just makes me think if Congress
increased funding specifically for timber production by 10
percent, you know, could the Forest Service then increase total
board feet by 30 percent if you've got to use the
proportionality.
So I guess just some clarification.
Does the Forest Service include the areas burned by wild
fires as acres treated when you report those numbers to
Congress? We're just trying to dissect out how the numbers are
all reported.
Mr. Tidwell. When we report the total acres where we've
used fire to restore ecosystems, we do report that. Then we
actually identify how many acres have been treated using fire
and how many acres have been treated by using timber harvest,
mechanical treatments.
Senator Barrasso. OK.
I think I'm going to maybe, submit some written questions
to kind of try to dissect through those numbers to see how that
all works.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall [presiding]. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. That's quite alright.
Senator Udall. Feel free to ask some additional questions
if you'd like.
Chief, I'm going to use my time now. Good to see you. Thank
you for making the trip up to the hill.
I'd like to start out with wild fire questions as well. I
don't have to tell you that we had 2 deadly fires last summer
that gained national attention, the Waldo Canyon and the High
Park fires. They were declared national disasters.
Tens of thousands of people were displaced. About a million
Coloradan's water supplies were threatened. We're still dealing
with the aftermath of that.
In that context and I know this is a theme you've been
hearing a lot today, I've noticed that within the wild land
fire management budget the hazardous fuels sees a 37 percent
cut. That concerns me particularly because the number of people
living in fire prone areas is increasing as are fuel loads. The
importance of mitigation is well documented.
Your own report, Increasing the Pace of Restoration, a job
creation on National Forests, has a goal of treating more
acreage every year. Can you talk about how you plan to meet the
goals and the strategy while protecting the areas most at risk
for wild fire with such a large reduction in funding?
Mr. Tidwell. This budget reflects a reduction in the total
acres that we would treat. However we are going to continue to
treat the highest priority acres around our communities. Our
hazardous fuels funding will be focused on treating only the
wild land urban interface and to be able to work where we--the
communities are working with us.
It's one of the things that we found with our hazardous
fuel treatments is that it's essential that if we're treating
the national forest the ideal situation is that the private,
the adjacent private lands, are also the works being done
there. So it really maximizes the effectiveness. That's how
we're going to, you know, prioritize this work.
In addition to that we'll use our restoration funds, an
integrated resource restoration, to be able to do the hazardous
fuels work in the back country outside of the wild land urban
interface in conjunction with our restoration. So we're still
going to be doing hazardous fuels work out there. It will just
be part of these larger projects.
This money will be focused just on the wild land urban
interface.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification. I'm not
going to continue on and have that conversation with you. But I
hear you saying you're focusing on what we call the red zones
of the WUI, the Wild Urban Interface.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Udall. So thank you for that clarification.
In my State and you heard Senator Murkowski and other of my
colleagues talk about how critical the forest products industry
is in the improving of the health of our forests while
providing jobs. In my State you have rural communities like
Montrose and Delta, who are playing, again, an important role
in that regard. I want to thank you and your team for your
efforts to implement 3 long term stewardship contracts in
Colorado that have already released fuels around communities
while providing valuable forest products such as biomass
electricity in Pagosa Springs and Gypsum, landscaping materials
in Colorado Springs and wood pallets in Pueblo.
Those are good news stories.
But I also want to echo the concerns of my colleagues about
the reduction in timber targets from 2.6 billion to 2.3 billion
as I read it. That's board feet. The effect that could have on
our still struggling timber industry and our capacity to do
more on the ground. So I'm just making that as a statement. You
don't have to respond.
Let me move to air tankers. The effect they have on the
initial attack which means they keep small fires from becoming
catastrophic mega fires and helping our ground crews put those
fires out is well understood. When you fight a fire you're
going to war.
Given we're facing another potentially severe fire season
what can you do to ensure me that we're going to have the next
generation air tankers in the air during this fire season?
Mr. Tidwell. In addition to the legacy air tankers that we
issued the contract for a few weeks ago, in the next few weeks
we'll issue the contract for up to 7 next generation aircraft
that will hopefully be able to work this year. In addition to
that we'll continue to rely on the MAFFS units that we used so
much last year along with the VLATs that we also used and then
also to bring the aircraft down from Canada and Alaska to
ensure that we have the aircraft that we need to be able to
respond to these fires.
As we move forward with the next generation in aircraft and
hopefully with the C27Js, it will reduce the reliance on the
MAFFS units and to be able to ensure that we have that initial
attack capacity with our air tankers.
Senator Udall. On a scale of 1 to 10 how confident are you?
Ten being the most confident that we're going to have the air
assets we need?
Mr. Tidwell. For this year? I'm at a 10 that we'll have
probably 24 to 25 large air tankers available this year with
between the MAFFS and the planes from Alaska and in Canada
along with the contract that we'll have.
Senator Udall. Let me move to some of the discussion about
sequester and the transferring of funds and so on.
Given rising suppression costs and the fact that the agency
spends nearly half of its budget on wild fire management which
I think my colleague, Senator Johnson, alluded to. In so doing
you're transferring funds from other programs. What's the
impact on these other important programs? Obviously fire
response is critical, but it's, I don't have to tell you it's
not the only mission of the Forest Service.
Mr. Tidwell. No, but the sequester had an impact on that
and reduced the suppression funding. It also reduced the
preparedness funding. Now we're going to mitigate that the
impact of preparedness funding, I mean, if you just look at it
it reduces our crews by about 500 firefighters and, you know,
50 to 70 fire engines and less money for aircraft.
But the way we'll offset that is that we'll do more
prepositioning of resources. Then we'll use more call when
needed resources, whether that's contract crews, more contract
helicopters, the call when needed and if we need to call when
needed large air tankers. The problem with that a call when
needed contract runs anywhere from one and a half to 2 times as
much as our exclusive use.
So we'll start off the season with less resources, but
right at the start even with the moderate fire season we're
going to spend more on suppression because of this reduced
level of preparedness to start.
So I wish I could give you a better answer. But because of
sequester, it's probably just going to cost us more money when
it comes to fire suppression. But we will respond. We'll have
the resources that we need.
Now in addition to that we've already talked about the
impacts, you know, to the restoration work, you know, to timber
harvest. We also are going to have to, you know, close some of
the lightly used recreational facilities. These are usually
the--some smaller campgrounds, smaller boat ramps. We're
looking at somewhere around 600 of those facilities, but that's
out of close to 20,000 recreational facilities that we manage.
We're also looking at opportunities to do shortened
seasons. We're getting some good snows out in your country that
will actually shorten the season. So that may help, you know,
impact some of the off--of having to close facilities.
So the folks are working hard. We're also working with
communities to see if there's a way to get a volunteer group or
something to come in and do the minimum maintenance that's
necessary to be able to maintain these facilities. But those
are the impacts that, some of the impacts, that we're dealing
with through the rest of this year because of the shift in the
budget we received.
Senator Udall. Let me ask you one last question and the
bulk of the answer I'd ask you to provide for the record since
I see Senator Franken here. Senator Murkowski has another round
of questions.
But your Rocky Mountain Research Station reviewed 2 other
Colorado fires, the Hayman fire which is unfortunately infamous
in our state. Ten years ago it occurred and the Fourmile Canyon
fire. Both of those reviews showed conclusively that one of the
most critical factors in protecting homes in a wild fire is the
proactive work that homeowners do and the so called HIZ, the
Home Ignition Zone.
Would you, again for the record, but maybe briefly, 30
seconds or so, you could talk about what you've been doing to
support these critical efforts on private property.
Mr. Tidwell. It is part of our cohesive strategy where
we're working with the states and local fire to be able to
inform private landowners, inform county commissions, county
supervisors that the steps that can be taken to make, to help
our landowners understand what they can do on their land can
make all the difference when we get a fire. I'm going to tell
you we have hundreds of thousands of examples of where if a
homeowner has taken the steps to remove the brush, the trees,
from around their homes. The woodpiles away from their homes
and using non flammable materials for decks and that sort of
things, those homes survive when a wild fire comes into a
community
That's the sort of thing we have to continue to work on
along with reducing those fuels on the national forests that
are around our communities.
Senator Udall. Yes, I would note that if you move a propane
tank from close proximity to your home that's a very good idea
for obvious reasons. The studies also show that the most
important tools you can deploy are a weedwacker and a rake. A
chain saw actually is of less use. It's pretty simple things
people can do.
Thank you for being here again today.
Senator Franken is recognized.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
remember that weedwacker and a rake. That's a good thing to
remember.
Thank you, Chief, for being here.
I want to talk to you about the boundary water canoe area
which, as you know, is spectacular wilderness area between
Minnesota and Canada up in Northwestern Minnesota. Now for
historical reasons over 93,000 acres of school trust lands that
belong to the state are enclosed in this Federal wilderness
area which means they cannot contribute to the economic
development which support Minnesota schools. There are a few
possible ways that this problem can be fixed.
The Forest Service can purchase the state lands from
Minnesota or the Forest Service and that money would go into
the trust fund or the Forest Service can take ownership of the
state lands inside the boundary waters and give up ownership of
lands outside the boundary waters in exchange with the State of
Minnesota. A third approach would be a hybrid of those 2.
In fact, Minnesota is working with the Superior National
Forest on this issue. I think your support and attention to
this matter would be important to facilitate a resolution.
Would you commit to meet today to working with me, the State of
Minnesota and the Superior National Forest so we can resolve
this decades old problem?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, you have my commitment. This is a
perfect example of where probably a combination of land
exchange and maybe some acquisition can not only help out the
state to be able--so they can generate additional revenue off
of their land, but at the same time to be able to maintain the
purpose of the boundary waters area. So you have my commitment
to work with you to be able to move forward with this.
Senator Franken. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Chief, you and I in previous hearings have talked about
climate change. You told me your scientists are telling you
that climate change is exacerbating wild fires. Today I want to
ask you about some of the other challenges that climate change
presents to our forests. In particular invasive species like
the bark beetle. Senator Udall has done a lot of work on the
pine beetle in Colorado.
As you know the bark beetle is normally kept in check by
cold winters that kill its larvae. But as winters get warmer
the bark beetle is surviving at higher altitudes and destroying
more forest.
Again Senator Udall has been working on the pine beetle in
some Colorado forest. The warmer weather is causing the
mountain pine beetle to go from reproducing once a year to
reproducing twice a year. In a little over a decade this
mountain pine beetle has killed more than 70,000 square miles
of forest which is equivalent to the entire State of
Washington.
When you develop your budget, Chief, are you taking into
account future climate change impact?
Mr. Tidwell. We do that through the work that the forests
are doing in conjunction with our research and development
branch. We're fortunate to have a group of scientists that have
been studying the effects of a changing climate on vegetation.
So we've already started in factoring that in to our decisions.
To realize that the ecosystems we have today, the mix of
species we have today, may not be what we need to have in the
future. So by understanding how this climate is changing and
how it's affecting the vegetation, we're factoring that into
our decisions so that our forests in the future are going to be
more resilient to be able to handle the stresses of a changing
climate. So we factor that into our planning that we're doing.
It's part of our new planning rule requirement.
Then also our scientists are working directly with our land
managers so that they understand what they need to do
differently. They need to understand that we need to mix up
this even age stand, the lodgepole that we have throughout the
West instead of having millions of acres of basically all
lodgepole that's all the same age. We've got to find ways to
break that up because in the future when we have infestations
usually they just hit the older mature trees and leave the
younger trees. The condition we have out West is that so much
of it's been, you know, just an even age.
We also need to understand the impacts of species like
white bark pine. That in the past we never had to worry about
bark beetle hitting white bark pine because it grows at such
high elevations where it's always been cold enough that the
beetles were never a problem. Today we understand what we need
to do differently with white bark pine to be able to maintain
that species with this changing climate and having to deal with
bark beetles.
The other things going on is with the invasives in the
East. With the emerald ash borer that was introduced to this
country a few decades ago it's on a path to eliminate all ash
trees in the Eastern United States. It's already made it into
Southern Canada. In the past cold winters would have stopped a
species like emerald ash borer, you know, probably where it
didn't get much farther north than, you know, just maybe in
Pennsylvania. But we're actually seeing it now move into
Canada.
We need to continue to do the research so that we
understand what we can do to control, biologic control, of
those types of species. So that we don't end up with ash trees
like we have with the American chestnut. Those are a couple of
things that we're continuing to work on.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
I see my time is up.
I just want to thank you for your help when we had the big
blow that brought down some timber in Northern Minnesota and in
the Chippewa National Forest. I want to thank you for your help
in making it, our timber industry, able to harvest that.
Thank you.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I'd like to just comment on that.
When we talk about the effects of a changing climate one of the
things that we see is more erratic weather, more of these
extreme disturbance events. So your part of the country where
we used to, once in a while, we'd have a big wind storm that
would come through and we'd have to be able to respond to it to
be able to get in there and clean up the down and dead timber.
We now recognize today that we need to plan for that every
year. So that we've actually put it through our program of work
each year for especially that part of the country to be
prepared to set aside funds to be able to respond to the
basically the next impact, the next disaster. So that we have
the resources to quickly get in there and clean up that timber
before it creates another insect and disease problem.
Senator Franken. Thank you for your response during that.
It was good talking.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Franken. Thank you for
including Colorado's situation in your remarks.
Let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Murkowski, for
her second round.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, in discussion going back and forth here about how
the interagency model works with states that mobilize to
provide the resources in when we have wild fire incidents.
Alaska, obviously, plays a key role in all of this particularly
with respect to the air tanker support. You've noted that.
Now for decades it's my understanding that the master
cooperative fire agreement has provided this mechanism, for
among other things, the billing and reimbursement between the
states, the USDA, Forest Service and other Federal agencies to
facilitate the mobilization of these suppression resources.
Under that agreement state resources dispatched out of state,
regardless of jurisdiction, have been submitting their billing
package to Forest Service at the Albuquerque center for
payment. It's my understanding then that beginning this year
the Administration is no longer going to use single point
interstate billing. States will now be forced to figure out how
and who to bill when responding to Federal jurisdictional fire
outside of their own State.
This is news to me. I guess the question to you is why is
the Administration ending a system that, I think, has been
relatively efficient in mobilizing these suppression resources?
I'm going to put out there the concern that I have. We've been
dealing with some of our just aviation support folks up in
Alaska, people that will fly, cruise around, on a contract
basis. The billing system with MDOI has been fouled up to the
point where operators are calling me to try to get paid for
services that they have rendered 9 months prior, 12 months
prior.
So I'm looking at this and all the bells and whistles are
going off saying, is this a good thing? Why are we doing it?
Why are we fixing something that apparently I hadn't heard was
broken?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I'm not aware of that, but I will get
back to you on it. I'll look into it. The points that you've
made that our master agreements work so well so that folks,
whenever they're called they can just respond.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Tidwell. They've always had the confidence that yes,
they'll be reimbursed for their costs. You know, I'll get back
to you. I know we're constantly looking at our processes to be
able to find more efficiencies to be able to save some of the
overhead costs, but then also to be able to pay those bills
faster.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Tidwell. Because those folks, they need their money.
They can't--I hate to hear when you say folks go for months
without getting their payments. So I will look into that and
I'll get back to you on it.
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate it if you would do so
quickly because as we go into the fire season if states aren't
really sure where they submit their billing you would hate to
think that somebody is going to hold back or defer because
they're worried about where their reimbursement is going to
come from.
Mr. Tidwell. Right.
Senator Murkowski. The timeliness of that. So if you can
address that, I would appreciate it.
A couple more parochial matters here.
I'm going to be going to Ketchikan in a couple weeks and
sitting down with some of the air taxi operators that are
there. What I'm hearing from folks there is that the Forest
Service is reducing the permit allocations in the Misty Fjords
National Monument and Trader's Cove. What they're doing is
they're reducing the number of allocations that would allow for
landings within Misty Fjords by 20 to 30 percent for each air
operator.
Now you've sat here this morning and told us that hey, it's
all about, you know, the tourism dollars that come in. Iin
Ketchikan, as you well know, this is a timber community that is
no longer a timber community. They're trying to find something
else so they're turning to tourism. Yet, now the National--the
Forest Service is limiting the opportunities for tourism for
these taxi operators.
As you know, the monument is accessible only by water or by
air. So again, I'm going to be meeting with these folks in a
couple weeks. I would like to know that you can give me a
commitment that the Forest Service is going to reconsider this
decision that would reduce these allocation numbers.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we need to diversify the economy
there in Southeast Alaska. I know you've been supportive of
that. We need to get the integrated wood products industry back
to be part of that diversification. But as you've mentioned
yes, tourism is a big part of it.
This is when I apologize, but I'll have to look into this
and get back to you. I'll make sure that we do that this week.
Senator Murkowski. Great.
Mr. Tidwell. So you have our response and what we possibly
can do as we go forward with this.
Senator Murkowski. That would be important to me if I can
get that information and your review of that prior to, I think,
it's like the 24th of April there.
Senator Murkowski. Then one last. This is also an effort
for me to reduce the volume of mail that comes to me from
constituents. This relates to an area outside of Wrangell,
Alaska on its Stikine River. There is an area known as Anan
Creek which has premier bear viewing opportunities.
Again, Wrangell, a community that, you know, I use the
expression all the time these communities are hanging on by
their fingernails. I'm not sure Wrangell has any fingernails
left. So they're looking also for their tourism opportunities.
The bear viewing area there at Anan Creek is again, pretty
phenomenal. The problem that exists is that boaters who want to
go up the Anan Creek Trail can't tie up anywhere because there
is no float. There is no docking. Apparently it's a little bit
of a hazard.
I know that we're dealing with budgets. I know that things
are tight all over. But again, if what you're trying to tell me
here is that we're going to where we're not going to be
focusing as much on the multiple use. We're going to see timber
harvest to continue to drop at the same time we're going to
increase tourism opportunities.
I think that the Forest Service needs to look at how you
might be able to allow for tiny slivers with minimal impact.
Anan Creek, I think, is clearly one of those. I don't know
whether you've had an opportunity to be briefed on this. If not
I would understand that, but would ask also that you have your
folks take a look at this.
Mr. Tidwell. It's my understanding that yeah, if you tie up
there your boat gets beat up in the rocks pretty easily. It's
an area that I want to work with you. I know the region will
want to work to be able to find a way to be able to put a dock
in there. I understand it would have to be one that would be
taken out each year. But we do that in a lot of places.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Tidwell. There's systems in place now that you can
retract a dock and then put it back out. So it's one of the
things that I'll contact the region to see what we could do to
maybe, be able to move forward with, you know, putting a dock
there.
Senator Murkowski. OK, well I would appreciate that. Then
again, if you can get back with me on the Misty Fjords issue.
I've got one more quick question, Mr. Chairman. Then I'm
wrapped up if you're OK.
The Chairman [presiding]. I have additional questions.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
The Chairman. I want you to go ahead first.
Senator Murkowski. Alright. This is the last one for you.
This relates to the inventoried road less.
As you know the U.S. Court of Appeals trucked down the
decision to exempt the Tongass from the national road less
decision. This is going to remove some 9 million acres in
Southeast out of the state's timber base. But in addition to
that, as troubling as that is, it causes me concern because it
really does complicate efforts to build electrical transmission
lines. As you know, all of Southeast is predominately powered
by hydropower but you've got to be able to put those
transmission lines in.
The response that I get back is well, the road less rule
doesn't prohibit you from putting in this transmission lines.
You just have to do it by helicopter. Anybody that's tried to
put in a transmission line by helicopter in Southeastern Alaska
knows that you have now made it effectively cost prohibitive.
So it limits our ability with energy, renewable energy
development, access to mineral areas. You know the impact to
the economy. So my question to you is how much does it cost the
Forest Service to--and this, I guess, in both in time and in
staff to deal with the administrative demands of implementing
the inventory road less within Southeast Alaska? We have any
idea?
Mr. Tidwell. You know, I don't have a figure off the top of
my head, you know, Senator. But it's, you know, the reason we
have, you know. I'll go back to 2001 road less areas that these
were areas for the most part had never been developed. It
hadn't had--it didn't have a lot of roads, hardly any roads in
them. They were places that we heard from the public that there
was strong interest to be able to maintain these intact
ecosystems.
With that being said the rule does allow, you know,
flexibility. Where I have not worked in Southeast Alaska I've
worked in a lot of other parts of the country where we've built
power lines using helicopters. Often it becomes the best way to
be able to put in, especially, the larger towers.
So I'd like to for us to be able to get some analysis done
to be able to really look at what is--is it truly cost
prohibitive or is it just some additional cost. But to be able
to do it in a way that we can expand, you know, the energy
transmission up there in Southeast Alaska. Because that's such
a key part of our transition strategy to be able to reduce the
energy costs that we need to be able to find a way to transmit
that electricity.
So that's what I'd like to focus on is how we can find a
way to be able to do that but at the same time to be able to
protect the road less characteristics of those lands.
Senator Murkowski. Chief, I would invite you up anytime. In
fact, I'd like to take you on some of these trips. I'd like to
take you out to Angoon where they're paying 51 cents a
kilowatt/hour.
I'd like to take you over to some of these communities that
can practically see where the transmission lines are but they
can't get to the next community. So they are paying double,
triple, quadruple what the next village is paying for their
renewable, hydropower electricity that is generated and to fly
over these areas.
It's one thing to put, to utilize, a helicopter to put a
transmission line in in a place like Wyoming or a place like
Oregon. But the Tongass National Forest is pretty much, you
find me a flat piece of land, you find me an area that's not a
mountainside where you're blasting into rock. The only place
that I can think of is out there on the beaches.
It is a very unique terrain. The beauty of being able to
provide energy to the people there in Southeast is we've got
abundant hydro resource. But you've got to be able to put in a
transmission line.
So I would ask you on this issue do not make the assumption
that because you can utilize a helicopter in other parts of the
country to put a transmission line in that's the same operation
in Southeastern Alaska. It just belies the geography. It belies
the topography.
So if you're thinking that this is reasonable. I need to
take you on a field trip. I will promise to do so. I think the
folks that work for you up there know how extraordinarily
difficult this is.
If we can't get around that our communities will be choked
off. We've already been choked off from our timber harvest and
now we will be choked off because we cannot afford the energy
and the power. They cannot afford the power in these
communities.
We've got to be able to build these transmission lines.
We've got to have some help around the road less that is
strangling our opportunity economic development. The tourists
want to come, but if there's no lights for your hotel they're
not going to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Chief, I can tell you that the Murkowski excursions to
Alaska are very educational. I would encourage that.
I want to ask you about 2 other areas that I haven't
touched on today relating to getting the harvest up, Chief. One
is what came up constantly during my swing through Eastern
Oregon a week ago. That is the National Environmental Policy
Act.
What I understand from the agency is that one of the
reasons that the timber target went down is the agency
implemented many of the projects for which NEPA and planning
had been done and planning hasn't been completed for new
projects. So what the concern was, as I was making my way
through Eastern Oregon, is why the agency can't implement
projects and also continue to plan for new projects in future
years.
So my question really is is there some way to accelerate
NEPA efforts or to streamline the program? In other words,
you've heard me say repeatedly, I want to keep our key
environmental priorities. I think we can do that consistent
with getting the harvest up. But is there a way to accelerate
or streamline the NEPA efforts beginning right away so the
agency can meet that target of 3 billion board feet in fiscal
year 2014?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we've been working on those efforts.
It's first of all to take a look at the entire landscape so
that we do an environmental assessment or an EIS for much
larger acres to get away from the 5 to 10 thousand acres and
look at these hundreds of thousands of acres and do one
document.
The other key part is through the collaborative efforts
like you have there in the Blues there in Eastern Oregon and
they're at Malheur. Because of that work we can reduce the
amount of the number of alternatives that need to be considered
because people work together and come to agreement about the
type of work that needs to be done. Then we build the necessary
mix of alternatives to be able to go forward and be able to
address the impacts and make the decision.
So by taking this landscape scale approach, using our
collaboratives to address a lot of the issues as we move
forward with doing the analysis. That's the way that we're
going to be able to get more work done.
The other thing is through our stewardship contracts. So
that when we issue a contract to someone for 10 years they can
rely that they're either going to have the work to do, the jobs
are going to be created or that the Forest Service is going to
have to then reimburse them. Because under that 10-year
contract we're required to get our part of the job done so that
they can get their work done and the jobs are delivered.
So those are the ways that we're moving forward. Yes, we've
had to slow down a little bit this year with less resources,
less crews. You know, this summer it will be out, you know,
marking some of the sells. But the real NEPA efficiencies that
we've been putting into place, they're just now starting to
come onboard. That's why that I have the confidence that we can
get back on track with our restoration strategy and actually do
what the work that needs to be done.
There in your State, in Eastern Oregon, my folks tell me
that to really get on top of what we need to do we probably
need to double the number of acres that we're currently
treating there. That through these collaboratives there's
support to be able to do that. That's what it will take to
actually restore those systems so that there's less impact from
the large fires that we've had in the past.
I can go on. There's other states where we have this level
of support to be able to do the work. That's what we have
available for us today.
If we can just stay the course on this collaborative
approach to be able to actually restore these forests in the
way we're there. There is strong support for it. At the same
time it's producing tens of thousands of jobs.
The Chairman. I'm going to direct the staff and, of course,
work very closely with Senator Murkowski on this so we can
start looking at ways to accelerate this kind of NEPA
streamlining and ways in which we can protect the environmental
laws and get the harvest up. I heard it again and again
throughout these small timber towns in Eastern Oregon. They
keep saying there's got to be a way for the agency to be able
to implement projects and plan for new projects in future
years.
So we're going to follow that up with you. I can tell you
it will be a bipartisan concern in the committee.
Let me connect the dots on the hazardous fuels issue and
see if we can walk through the implications. You've got the
prospect of steep cuts to hazardous fuels and timber harvest.
That's what Senators have been saying. I gather that was a
significant topic when I was out.
You've got an inadequate number of planes to fight fires in
the coming summer. You've got proposed cuts to personnel to
fight fires. Now that looks, bad pun, like a pretty combustible
mix.
What is the agency going to do to try to achieve those trio
of objectives, given the fact that in the 3 areas the numbers
are not moving in a direction that is favorable to us?
Mr. Tidwell. The first with our preparedness resources
we're going to mitigate that impact by using call when needed
resources that we can charge to suppression which just
increases the cost of suppression which will increase the need
to transfer funds. But at least we'll be able to continue to
respond.
With the hazardous fuels, that money is focused on the wild
land urban interface. We're going to focus that 685,000 acres
of work where we feel we can have the biggest return to help
protect, you know, communities. At the same time with our
integrated resource restoration proposal that's the funds that
we will use to be able to do the hazardous fuels work in
conjunction with the restoration work, you know, outside of the
wild land urban interface.
So that's our/their approach. There's no question that
there's more work that needs to be done. But I'll tell you
it's, as everyone knows, we're in tough economic times right
now. We had to make some tough choices.
But that's why when you look at our budget you need to look
at all pieces of the request to see how it fits together, to be
able to respond for us, to be able to move past where we are
today and be able to move forward in FY 2014.
The Chairman. Let's just, by way of wrapping up, walk
through where we are. I think you could hear the concern on the
committee with Senators again and again coming back to the need
to get the harvest up and our view that it can be done without
ravaging the environmental laws. You have said, and it's
something I surely agree with, that the collaborative approach,
the kind of thing I saw again last week in John Day and Grant
County, is the preferred way to go. We appreciate that
approach.
On the stewardship issue I think you'll see significant
support for that. The counties are so desperate now. There are
some questions about how it ought to unfold. But there is
strong support for that as well.
As you heard me say we're going to have the staff go back
with you to try to find ways with the cost pools account, the
minerals program, the land ownership program, to see if it's
possible to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze some more in all of
those areas in order to get more dollars for the timber
harvest.
You heard me walk through, I think, the urgency of looking
at ways to accelerate and streamline NEPA to try to respond to
community concerns and figure out how with the hazardous fuels
numbers that I just walked through with you that we can get
through this fiscal 2014 fire season, which I am very concerned
about given sort of the conflation of those 3 trends that
strike me as very ominous.
This committee has always worked on these issues in a
bipartisan way. We are going to continue to do it. We
understand that for the short term we're going to have to have
a renewal of Secure Rural Schools for at least a year as we try
to put together a fresh approach in this area. But we must have
that fresh approach.
Senator Murkowski, you know, said when people are hanging
by their fingernails and they're out of, you know, fingernails.
That's what we're seeing all over the rural West. These are
communities that really see themselves if there isn't some bold
action, you know, taken to bring more balance to our natural
resource policies which I think the collaboratives let us do,
the lights are going out. They're going to become sacrifice
zones. They're, in effect, going to become ghost towns.
What Senator Murkowski and I have said on our watch is
we're not going to let that happen. This is too important to
the people we represent to let that happen. So I understand
that all these budget matters are not solely within your
domain. You, as usual, are pretty diplomatic because I know
that if you were writing budgets you'd write them a little
differently.
But the urgency of this is what we're concerned about. So
we'll follow up in the areas that we talked about.
Senator Murkowski, anything you would like to add at this
point? Last word for you?
Senator Murkowski. Oh, probably not, Mr. Chairman, because
you give me too much time to reflect. I want to join you though
in your commitment to working on a way forward with the Secure
Rural Schools and those communities that we do represent.
I guess what I'm mulling right now and we should always
know better than to speak what's on our mind, but I guess I'm
looking at your testimony, Chief, and listening to what you've
said in the discussions here. I'm just so concerned that within
the agency, within the Forest Service we've, kind of, lost the,
we lost the initial focus of the Forest Service.
I think when most people think about the Forest Service
they think of management of the forests. When they think of
management of the forest you think about how you harvest it.
When we think of management of our fisheries it's how we make
sure that we've got sustainable fisheries for the years to
come.
But I mentioned in my opening comments that this budget
looks like it's more appropriate for within the National Park
Service where there is no harvesting of timber because so much
of what you're focusing on seems to be these other aspects of
the forest and jobs for the communities around the forest, not
necessarily in harvesting, but in tourism and recreation. As I
mentioned that's not a bad thing, but that is one aspect of it.
There's been some discussion within our staff about maybe
the Forest Service has kind of outlived its purpose. Maybe we
need to look at this and take it out of U.S., excuse me, out of
the Department of Agriculture and put it within the Department
of Interior. You have certain aspects of it in terms of
management of our lands like how BLM manages our public lands.
The fire fighting aspect of it when you look at it from a
budget perspective clearly about half your budget goes toward
fire fighting. I mean is that something that goes into Homeland
Security. I'm not so keen with that idea.
Again, I'm just, kind of, talking off the top here. But I
just feel like we have moved so far away from what the original
intent, the mission of the Forest Service is. It's the
communities, the former timber communities, that I represent
say this to me all the time. They say we're not really quite
sure what the Forest Service does here anymore.
There's lots of Forest Service employees. We see a lot of
them around and they are our friends and our neighbors and the
coaches of our kid's teams. But we're not cutting any trees
anymore. We're not seeing those timber related jobs.
So what is the purpose of the Forest Service? I always take
them back to its multiple use. But if I can't confirm to them
that that multiple use also contains a focus on harvesting of
our timber they're having a tough time believing that multiple
use is really what it once used to be.
I don't want us to get to the point where this term
multiple use is thrown around like we talk about an all of the
above energy policy or all of the above except the things that
I don't want to include. Multiple use except the things that I
don't want to encourage.
So I'd just like us to think about this, Mr. Chairman, as
we move forward. Again, you represent some communities that
have kind of gone through some of this transition over the
years. But it's something for us to think about it. I know,
Chief, you probably give a lot of thought to that as well.
So thank you for allowing me to ruminate a bit.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
I think, Chief, you heard the 2 magical words in this
debate that go right to the heart of what this committee wants
to do. It is consistent with this collaborative approach. That
you have really, you know, championed.
I mean what our communities, the small rural communities in
the West get up in the morning and say, we've worked together.
This is what the Resource Advisory Committees are all about; we
come together with this kind of clear mission that it's all
about multiple use. What's happened over the years is it seems
that instead of forestry and biologists and people, timber
industry, environmental folks all come together to practice
multiple use it feels like we're running a lawyers full
employment program where we just cannot consummate this kind of
vision.
So when Senator Murkowski says the 2 magical words,
multiple use, that's what the West wants. We think it's
consistent with the kind of collaborative approach that you're
talking about. Now what we've got to do is we've got to get
into some of the specifics which is why I stressed accelerating
and streamlining NEPA as one clear route to this kind of
multiple use approach.
I suspect you'd like to have a chance to say something at
this point. We're glad to let you have the last word.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski,
thank you.
It is multiple use. That is what we strive to do, you know,
based on what the public wants. We've spent a lot of time
talking with our publics to find that balance within multiple
use so that we can do it all.
We're right up there with the number of recreational
visitors that come to the national forest as the Park Service
has. That's always been a big part of the national forest. But
it's also the management of these lands whether it's the
mineral resources, whether it's the timber production, whether
it's the energy production.
I mean that's part of the national forest and grasslands.
We do it all. That's the difference.
When I look at where we are today from where we've been and
I've been at this now for 35 years. I see for once in my career
that there is an understanding of a need for us to restore
these forests. Yes, I've identified over 12 million acres that
we need to do timber harvest on to be able to get that work
done.
We also need to maintain the timber industry and whether
that's in Southeast Alaska for the jobs that are needed up
there or if it's in the Chairman's State. There is a
recognition of that to be able to find the balance to be able
to do the amount of work that we need to restore the forest and
be able to maintain industry so there's somebody to be able to
do the work because otherwise there's no way the public is
going to be able to pay for it. The costs would just be too
high.
So for once we finally, to my view, have reached a place
where we can really make a difference. If we can just move
forward with the work that we're doing and to be able to get
the budget like we're requesting in 2014 to be able to support
that.
When I look back on what's happened, the other day I was
looking at since 1998 our national forest system, the employees
that are our foresters, our engineers, our folks that work in
recreation, our staffing has gone down by 35 percent in all of
those. Then when it comes to timber management it's gone down
49 percent. But at the same time we're producing about the same
as what we were doing in 1998. The timber production is down a
little bit, but if we get back on accelerated restoration we'll
be right there.
Those are the efficiencies that we've gained. But those
have been big shifts, you know, to the agency. This has gone to
the fire. There's just no question. I mean, that's been
something that has had an impact on this agency because at the
same time our staffing in fire has gone up 110 percent. We need
to be able to do that to respond to the fire seasons that we're
having today that are so different than when I was a fire
fighter and through the majority of my/our career.
Those are the sort of things that we need your help and
support on to be able to define some ways to move forward. But
I'll tell you I really do believe that we have the best chance
to be able to just reframe this debate around natural resource
management and our national forests once and for all with the
level of interest, the level of understanding that exists in
our communities today. When I go out there and I can see
environmental groups that will stand up with us in a court of
law supporting a timber sale. Five years ago there's no way I
would ever have thought that would happen.
But today that's the change. The idea that when it comes to
species management like the spotted owl that for so many years
it was like no, timber harvest impacted owl habitat. Today the
Fish and Wildlife service acknowledges that in our dry forest
type we need to get out there and restore those forests because
fire is the No. 1 impact to spotted owl habitat.
Those are the change conditions that we have today if we
can just take advantage of it.
So you've been very gracious with your time. I appreciate
the opportunity. I cannot wait to continue to work with you.
The Chairman. Chief, thanks very much. I remember when you
told me that the Fish and Wildlife service, in your view, was
advocating a higher harvest in order to protect the owl. I was
just trying to imagine how in rural Oregon people would fathom
something like that.
So there will be plenty to talk about in the days ahead.
Senator Murkowski, we're going to work on these issues
together.
Chief, we'll be following up in the areas that we talked
about. Thank you as always for your response. This is the first
hearing on the budget and you made it possible because you were
so willing to come together quickly and we appreciate it.
With that the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Western Governors' Association,
Washington, DC, April 16, 2013.
Hon. Thomas J. Vilsack,
Department of Agriculture, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
We have been concerned for some time that federal forest lands
throughout the West are experiencing serious environmental stresses
that affect the health and vitality of these ecosystems. They are
overgrown; they exhibit all the symptoms of an unhealthy ecosystem; and
they demand urgent attention. Now is the time for the U.S. Forest
Service to accelerate its efforts to promote sound forest management
policies that maintain ecological balance.
As you know, millions of acres in states throughout the West have
fallen victim to bark beetles and other insect and disease plights.
These epidemics, an overgrowth of vegetation, and the persistent
drought have increased the number and complexity of wildfires, leading
to exponentially higher suppression costs. The workload and costs to
restore these forests and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires
is staggering and necessitates an immediate commitment of financial and
other resources. Western Governors have passed numerous policies
acknowledging the extent and severity of our forest health crisis. We
have met with you and your staff on many occasions and shared our
concerns, yet we remain dissatisfied with the pace of response.
It is our understanding that in 2010 only about 30 percent of the
total U.S. Forest Service budget was allocated to manage our national
forests. In the mid-1980s, that number was closer to 70 percent. Most
of the agency's budget is spent on fire suppression, administrative
support, research, and other programs. The current approach to resource
allocation results in fewer funds available to manage the more than 193
million acres of national forests for forest health and fuels
reduction. To that end, we request a specific accounting of the areas
in which these funds have been spent. We further request that the U.S.
Forest Service work to put the private sector to work on vegetative
management activities on National Forest lands throughout the West.
We support the goals of the U.S. Forest Service's Restoration
Strategy, which will increase restoration acres while utilizing the
wood produced by these efforts. Achieving the goals of this strategy
will require developing and implementing new, more efficient ways of
doing business and forest products industries are an integral part of
this effort. We request that the U.S. Forest Service provide state-by-
state specifics on how many additional acres it plans to treat through
the Restoration Strategy over the next five years, including how much
biomass, board feet, and other forest health and restoration projects
are envisioned. We would also like to work with you to convene a forest
industry task group to identify ways that the timber industry can
assist with forest management. Private sector forest professionals are
a cost- effective tool that the U.S. Forest Service can utilize to
handle this immense workload. They stand ready and willing to do so.
By improving forest management through the use of the private
sector, we also help support our declining forest industry and
suffering rural economies. Our forest industries are already faced with
low margins and limited markets; if we lose these industries, any
restoration efforts will suffer a significant blow. As Governors, we
support the type of proactive forest management that leads to healthy
rural communities, improved forest conditions and increased utilization
of wood products as outlined in the U.S. Forest Service Restoration
Strategy. In addition, we are committed to successful implementation of
the Western Regional Action Plan--National Cohesive Wildland Fire
Management Strategy. We support efforts to fully utilize existing
mechanisms and provide additional authorities to the U.S. Forest
Service, including Stewardship End-Result Contracting, grants,
agreements, local labor force, opportunities to increase biomass
utilization, and Good Neighbor policies.
With continued uncertainty due to sequestration and the potential
for further federal budget cuts, we recognize the financial challenges
involved in such an endeavor, but believe that engaging the forest
products industry as a partner can help alleviate some of these
challenges. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gary R. Herbert,
Governor, State of Utah, Chairman, WGA.
John Hickenlooper,
Governor, State of Colorado, Vice Chairman, WGA.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 1. At the hearing, you indicated that the Forest Service
has reduced the unit cost of generating a million board feet of timber
by 23%. Can you please provide further information about that and how
have those cost reductions been brought about?
Answer. When adjusted for inflation, funding for timber production
has been reduced by over $185 million since 1998 and there has been a
reduction of 3,171 full-time equivalents working in forest management.
During this same time, the agency's unit costs for producing timber
decreased by 23 percent from $203/MBF (thousand board feet) to $157/
MBF, adjusting for inflation.
The Forest Service is becoming more efficient through improvements
in our National Environmental Policy Act analyses and timber sale
preparation program, an all-lands restoration approach, and
collaboration with partners, agencies, and Tribes. The Forest Service
continues to build on these efficiency gains and seeks further
improvement through the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot program,
stewardship contracting, and collaborative landscape scale restoration.
Question 2. We all know the present airtanker fleet is in bad
shape-to say it lightly. I appreciate you're requesting additional
funding to modernize these important resources, but your proposal to
modernize the fleet still remains vague. What models and quantity of
planes would comprise, regardless of budget, an ideal fleet?
Now given, that the Agency operates within budget constraints, can
you tell us what models and quantities of planes you are considering?
Have you narrowed down some of your options since the release of the
Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy?
Answer. In an ideal fleet, the Forest Service would focus on an
aircraft designed and built for the airtanker mission in the wildland
firefighting environment. This would be a large airtanker that is
designed for the maneuver load impacts of the airtanker mission or
similar missions, that is turbine (turbo-prop or turbo-fan) powered,
and that can cruise at a speed at or greater than 300 knots (345 miles
per hour). The aircraft should have a minimum retardant capacity of at
least 2,000 gallons; 3,000 gallons or more is preferred.
The agency continues to evaluate models of aircraft suitable for
large airtankers as part of the Next Generation airtanker contracting
process-based on capability, effectiveness of the retardant delivery
system, and cost. Models of aircraft that are being and have been
evaluated under the Next Generation contracts include the BAE-146, the
MD-87, the C-130J and the DC-10.
Response of Tom Tidwell to Question From Senator Landrieu
Question 1. A few years ago, you made an announcement that USDA
would promote wood products in building construction and would prefer
wood in your own buildings. How many buildings have been built that
have used wood since this announcement? How many buildings do you have
in the pipeline and are there plans to use wood? Will these buildings
use the LEED rating system-which discourages the use of wood products?
Answer. The Forest Service uses wood products frequently in
construction and we estimate that wood makes up approximately two
thirds of all building materials used for new facilities and large
scale renovation projects. In December 2011, the Forest Products
Laboratory published ``Science Supporting the Economic and
Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green
Building Construction.'' This report summarizes the scientific findings
that support the environmental and economic benefits of using wood and
wood products in green building construction. The publication
recognizes that wood is a renewable resource, helps mitigate climate
change, promotes healthy forests, and is a green construction material.
Since 2011, when the USDA policy on utilizing wood was formally
directed, the following new buildings have been built:
Angeles National Forest Supervisor Office, CA
Camino Real Ranger Station, Carson National Forest, NM
Corvallis Forest Science Laboratory and Siuslaw National
Forest HQ Office, OR
Arcata Lab, CA
Juneau Lab, AK
Wood Products Insect Laboratory, MS
White Mt. Forest Supervisor's Office, NH
Francis Marion Ranger District Office, SC
Deschutes Forest Supervisor's Office, OR
Appalachian Ranger District Office, NC
Walker Ranger District Office, MN
We have an estimated five buildings planned. All of these buildings
will use wood. The facilities currently in design that will be going
for Green Globes certification are:
Research Triangle Park Forestry Science & Assessment Center,
NC
Enoree Ranger District Office, SC
Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab Renovation and Addition, MT
McCall Administrative Site Consolidation (Payette Forest
Supervisor's Office & Ranger District Office), ID
Clinch Ranger District Office, VA
While the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certification does give points for the use
of wood, we prefer to use the Green Globes certification. New Forest
Service building construction projects for regional offices,
supervisor's offices, district offices, visitor centers, and research
offices or laboratories where the building is 10,000 gross square feet
or greater in size must be registered and certified using either the
LEED rating system (minimum Silver certification), Green Globes
(minimum Two Green Globes certification), or other third-party
certification system. All other buildings, whether new or major
renovations, must be designed to incorporate sustainable principles
into the systems and components appropriate to the building type and
project scope. This requirement applies to buildings on an individual
basis, and the most recently issued version of the third-party
certification system must be used. We encourage construction projects
to be designed and constructed with domestically harvested wood
products, ideally locally sourced, and from National Forest System
lands, whenever practicable and feasible.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Some of my constituents have raised concerns about the
implementation of the Small Business Administration's 30-70 rule on
set-aside sales that requires not more than 30 percent of the timber
volume be resold to large interests. It is my understanding that when
the Forest Service offers a timber sale, it appraises the sale for its
potential market value and sets the minimum bid that it will accept
based on that appraisal. And one factor in the appraisal is the cost
that the purchaser (small or large) will absorb to bring the timber to
a manufacturing facility. Higher haul-cost results in lower profits for
the purchaser. Appraisals are made to the nearest mill, which in most
instances is a large mill because the number of small business mills
has declined. Why does the Forest Service not appraise these set-aside
sales to the nearest small business mill that would more accurately
reflect the actual cost? Small businesses will not bid on set-aside
sales if the cost for hauling the timber to a small business mill is
not feasible.
Answer. The Forest Service Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside
Program, developed in cooperation with the Small Business
Administration, is designed to ensure that qualifying small businesses
have the opportunity to purchase a ``fair share'' of National Forest
System (NFS) sawtimber offered for sale.
The Forest Service recognizes that changing the appraisal point for
set-aside sales may better reflect the transportation costs for some
small business sawmills and independent loggers, allowing them to bid
on more sales.
With the number of mill closures over the last few years, we need
to evaluate our current policy to see if we need to adjust our
appraisal process to factor in the loss of small business mills. If we
determine a need for change, we will conduct a public review and
comment process before any changes are made.
Question 2. Timber sales must be set aside for small business when
its participation falls below a certain threshold. The Forest Service
calculates this participation level based on small business
participation in full and open sales over the previous five year
period. The Forest Service, however, does not count the timber volume
on Stewardship contracts, which impact the future market share
calculation for conventional timber sales. It is my understanding that
stewardship timber sales have grown in every region each year; and some
market areas only have Stewardship sales, resulting in a continuous
small business timber purchase deficit. Why does the Forest Service not
count the timber volume purchases by small business on Stewardship
Timber contracts when it calculates the small business set-aside?
Answer. The Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Forest
Service agreed not to include volume from stewardship contracts or
Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC) in the Set-Aside Program
when stewardship contracting was initially authorized. SBA and the
Forest Service also agreed to track the volume of sawtimber sold
through IRTCs. The use of IRTCs has increased to the extent that, in
some market areas, 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. SBA has requested inclusion of the Stewardship Integrated
Resource Timber Contracts in the Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside
Program.
We plan on beginning the public review and comment process to
consider adding IRTC to our SBA Set-Aside Program as soon as
stewardship contracting is reauthorized.
Question 3. Trails on national forest lands serve the recreational
needs of about 50 million hikers, cross country skiers, horseback
riders, off-road vehicles, bicycles and other recreationists every
year. These trails improve health and fitness, provide access to
natural areas and beauty, and increase community pride. They are also
an economic driver. According to the Outdoor Industry Association,
trail-based recreation supports 768,000 jobs, and contributes $80.6
billion to the nation's economy annually.
Unfortunately, the condition of these trails is, in some cases, not
very good. Currently, only one-third of all National Forest trails are
maintained at a minimum standard condition. This has resulted in a
range of impacts, including unsafe trails, ecological degradation and
loss of access.
One of the main reasons for trails being in poor condition is that
funding for trails maintenance has not kept up with demand. In 1980,
the Forest Service budget contained $793 in maintenance funding per
mile of trail. However, in 2013 we will spend only about $491 per mile
of trail with sequestration--a 38% decrease in trail funding despite
continued growth in trail length and visitor hours. The result is a
trail maintenance backlog that has grown steadily during the last
decade and now stands at $314 million.
What is your strategy for addressing the trail maintenance backlog,
and will this budget provide you with the resources to reduce the
backlog in 2014?
Answer. The FY 2014 President's Budget proposes $82,531,000 for
Trails. Constrained budget authority, including the sequestration, will
necessitate prioritization of available resources between all of the
critical programs that the Forest Service delivers including the Trails
program. We continue to strengthen partnerships in trail stewardship,
particularly those that help deliver youth programs. We will also
continue to focus on management and protection of the National Scenic
and Historic Trails.
We propose funding in FY 2014 to maintain and repair approximately
48,784 trail miles, including repair and reconstruction of bridges and
trails damaged by natural disasters. Approximately 20 percent of this
work will be accomplished through the use of volunteers. In FY 2014,
the agency will address approximately 20 percent of the total trail
system miles through a unified program of work; however, it will not
reduce the backlog of trail maintenance.
In FY 2012, we maintained 59,274 miles of system trails, out of a
total of over 158,000 miles. When trails receive adequate maintenance,
we can provide a higher quality experience for visitors to the national
forest.
Question 4. The Legacy Roads and Trails Program has been in
existence for five years, and there is a new report by two
environmental groups that says the program has been a huge success and
is moving the Forest Service's restoration agenda forward. The
President's FY 2014 budget request proposes to subsume the Legacy Roads
and Trails Program into the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)
program.
Question 4a. Can you discuss the Legacy Roads and Trails role in
the overall restoration agenda of the Forest Service and the agency's
plans for ensuring this road and trail work continues to remain a top
priority moving forward?
Question 4b. Despite the program's five-year record of successful
accomplishments, it seems the President's budget is essentially a
proposal to cut or eliminate Legacy Roads and Trails by subsuming it
into the IRR. What benefits would there be if this program was kept
independent, as a complementary program to the IRR, similar to the
current process for the CFLRP?
Answer 4a. The Legacy Road & Trail program has played an important
role in the agency's overall restoration efforts by concentrating funds
on the repair and maintenance of National Forest System (NFS) Roads and
Trails that are contributing to watershed degradation, and on the
decommissioning of roads and trails that are not needed for the
management or enjoyment of NFS lands.
As we move this program into the Integrated Resource Restoration
(IRR) program, these funds will continue to be focused on important
resource restoration work, while allowing local line officers to direct
funding to the most urgent restoration needs.
Answer 4b. Activities previously accomplished under the Legacy
Roads and Trails activity would continue under the IRR, including
urgently needed road and trail decommissioning, long-term road storage,
repair, and maintenance and associated activities. Road and trail
repairs required due to storm disturbances in local communities that
are urgently needed to protect community water resources are also an
important consideration for funding within IRR.
We will continue to examine the benefits of the Legacy Roads and
Trail budget line item by monitoring the performance of road and trail
related restoration work completed with all funding sources. The agency
will compare past accomplishments with Legacy Road and Trail funds to
current and future accomplishments with IRR funds.
Question 5. I am also interested in how IRR would be implemented in
the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska. Over the past five
years, the Forest Service has invested $7.9 million annually in tourism
and recreation, a billion dollar industry that employs 10,200 people.
The Forest Service has invested $8.6 million annually in fishing,
another billion dollar industry that employs 7,200 southeast Alaskans.
And the Forest Service invested $23.4 million annually in timber and
roads, a money-losing industry that only employs 107 people. That
translates to spending $775 per year per tourism job, $1,194 per year
per fishing job, and $218,692 per year per timber job.
Question 5a. How would this funding allocation change if IRR is
implemented nationally?
Question 5b. Because IRR is designed to prioritize restoration and
fire resiliency (and fire is not an issue in the Tongass), how do you
anticipate the effects of IRR in the Tongass? Do you anticipate that
funding will leave the Tongass for other forests?
Question 5c. Do you anticipate that the Forest Service would use
its discretion to increase funding for fish, wildlife and tourism,
which support the region's economy?
Answer. Funding for forest products, legacy roads and trails,
wildlife and fisheries habitat management, vegetation and watershed
management, and hazardous fuels in non-Wildland Urban Interfaces (non-
WUI) contribute to restoration on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
With national Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) authority,
allocations would reflect priority needs for landscape and watershed
restoration that meet the social, ecological, and economic aspects of
managing the NFS. Under IRR, instead of funds being specifically
allocated through individual budget line items, these activities would
be funded through the single budget line item for IRR. Line officers
would now have the flexibility to fund work that is concentrated where
a combination of restoration issues can be addressed, and with the
blend of activities necessary to sustain, maintain, and restore
ecological integrity. Through the pilot authority, the agency is
working to allocate IRR funds to meet restoration needs, and no longer
allocating funds in the traditional budget line items. With a nation-
wide IRR appropriation, the agency would however, continue to fund and
support core and historical operations and management functions to
prevent the decline in the health and condition of the national forest
and grassland ecosystems.
IRR is a budget consolidation tool designed to help promote
restoration activities on NFS lands. Management of the non-WUI is
included along with several other activities in IRR. The regions will
be allocated funds based on restoration work that can be accomplished.
The regions will determine what mix of activities must be implemented
to achieve high priority work, as not all restoration activities are
applicable in every location. Management of non-WUI areas is just one
way to achieve restoration goals. On the Tongass National Forest, the
current budget emphasizes the forest programs for which continued
viability and growth will be critical in the transition effort
including visitor services, timber, restoration, and fisheries. In
order to further build on recent restoration success, such as the
Harris River restoration project, the Region and the Tongass National
Forest are also aggressively pursuing outside partnership support to
increase the level of restoration work. Due to the critical importance
of salmon populations to the economic health of southeast Alaska, the
Tongass National Forest has worked with a number of partners to develop
a detailed Tongass five-year Watershed/Fish Restoration Plan, for
pursuing restoration of several important salmon bearing streams.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Schatz
Question 1. Hawaii's forests are home to more than 10,000 native
species including over 60 endangered avian species that rely upon these
tropical forested areas. Still, Hawai`i is one of eight states without
a National Forest.
Can you please speak to the value of tropical forest conservation
for all Americans? Further, could you please discuss the importance of
programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund in helping to
protect more tropical forest lands?
Answer. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of tropical
forest conservation and continues to work in Hawaii through its
Research and Development and State and Private Forestry Programs. In
2012 the Forest Legacy Program, which is funded by the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), provided a $2 million grant for the purchase
of a conservation easement to protect over 3,000 acres on the Hamakua
Coast on the Big Island.
Question 2. Since 2007, the Forest Service has maintained the
Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest (HETF), one of the few U.S.
research sites dedicated to enhancing our understanding of conservation
biology and tropical forest management. The research at HETF is
essential to advancing our understanding of the impact of environmental
change on our tropical forests, combating the effects of invasive
species, and preserving and protecting Hawai`i's delicate environment.
How does the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget prioritize and
support the U.S. Forest Service's tropical forestry research, including
activities at the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest?
Answer. The President's Budget supports tropical forestry research
in Hawaii and the Asia-Pacific region at the same level as FY 2013,
including efforts to (1) determine the potential impacts of and
possible mitigations for climate change on terrestrial, riparian,
aquatic, and near-shore marine ecosystems of high and low-lying
islands, (2) develop improved practices and decision support tools to
better manage at-risk species and landscapes, (3) increase the capacity
of local agencies and governments to effectively deal with resource
management challenges, and (4) enhance understanding of cultural
knowledge and practices and their integration into research and
management.
Our Facilities Program priorities for FY 2014 are to support the
safety and health of all users of our existing infrastructure and to
judiciously defer all new construction, including phased projects that
include new construction to subsequent years. The development of the
Pu'u Wa'awa'a research area infrastructure is a phased project
including site development, utilities and buildings. The site survey
was completed in FY 2013 and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) analysis is in progress. This site remains a priority but
further construction is deferred in FY 2014.
Question 3. Hawaii's pioneering research on tropical forestry also
provides the United States with the knowledge and expertise about
tropical forest management that it can share with its partners around
the world to help them improve their conservation and management
practices. This research is particularly important as the United States
seeks greater engagement with countries in the Asia Pacific, including
Indonesia and the Philippines, and could be used to broaden and deepen
our foreign relations with countries in the region around tropical
forest conservation and restoration.
How does the U.S. Forest Service leverage its tropical forestry
research, including the research developed at the Institute of Pacific
Islands Forestry, to help America's partners be better stewards of
their tropical forests? What authorities might improve the U.S. Forest
Service's ability to share its research and cooperate with other
countries?
Answer. The Forest Service seeks to enable its Pacific Basin
partners by hands-on mentoring and capacity building. Staff from the
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry:
Work with and provide mentoring to island foresters in the
design, execution, analysis, and interpretation of research
studies aimed at answering real-world resource management
questions asked by local managers. Forest Service scientists
assist foresters with integrating research findings into
management plans.
Conduct introductory and field sampling workshops to engage
host countries in the Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and
Mitigation Program. It is designed to provide policy makers in
the Asia/Pacific region with credible scientific information
needed to make sound decisions related to the role of tropical
wetlands in climate change adaptation and mitigation
strategies. It is a collaborative effort of the Forest Service,
the Center for International Forestry Research (Indonesia), and
Oregon State University with support from the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
Engage in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) research
funded by DOD in Hawaii to understand issues of fire management
and invasive species. Since Hawaii is home to so many life
zones and ecosystems representative of other tropical
locations, Forest Service researchers use findings to interact
with a broad range of tropical land managers and researchers
from the Asia-Pacific region and new world tropics.
Use Hawaii's model ecosystems to understand how warming and
drying affect ecosystem processes. This research is leveraging
participation in international climate change discussions about
managing not just tropical forests but forests in general in
response to changing climate.
The Pacific Southwest Region's State & Private Forestry and the
Washington Office's International Programs established a program for
Professional Internships in Pacific Terrestrial Island Ecosystem
Management. The focus is twofold: (1) provide low-cost, on-island
continuing education courses in resource management and related
subjects and (2) provide intensive professional internships.
The Forest Service needs no additional authorities to share its
research and cooperate with other countries.
Question 4. Hawaii's tropical forests are important natural and
cultural resources, and Native Hawaiians have employed conservation
practices that can be very informative in the context of modern
forestry management and science. Can you speak towards the importance
of outreach to native communities and outline some particularly helpful
programs or initiatives in this regard?
Answer. Outreach to native communities is essential to understand
and, where possible, integrate into modern management the cultural
practices that supported sustainable use of natural resources before
European colonization, and to develop the next generation of native
natural resource managers. The Forest Service is an active partner or
participant in multiple educational and outreach ventures in Hawaii,
including the following:
The Hawaii Youth Conservation Corps is supported in part by
Forest Service dollars ($51,000 in 2012), with non-Federal
matching funds provided by Kupu, the local non-profit
organization that administers the Hawaii YCC program.
Scientists with the Pacific Southwest Research Station's
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry provide AmeriCorps
interns with mentoring and hands-on experiences in forestry
research and education.
Forest Service scientists and professionals mentor 10 to 15
undergraduate students each summer in partnership with the
University of Hawaii at Hilo's Pacific Internship Programs for
Exploring Science.
Over 700 Hawaii K-12 children have participated in the
Forest Service's More Kids in the Woods-Starts with a Seed
program, which is aimed at increasing their outdoor experiences
and environmental literacy.
Over 200 K-12 kids at the Laupahoehoe Community Public
Charter School participated in the GreenSchools! Program
through a grant from the USDA Forest Service, including energy
audits of the school and learning about high efficiency
alternatives for the school.
The Forest Service co-sponsors Project Learning Tree
workshops for educators with a focus on native forest ecology
and restoration.
Forest Service staff, in partnership with Na Pua Noeau, a
University of Hawaii Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented
Program, lead two-week summer courses focused on topics such as
climate change, human impact on the environment, natural
resource management, ahupua`a land management systems, and the
importance of preservation, conservation, and restoration.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Udall
Question 1. Chief Tidwell, please clarify how you intend to meet
the goals of treating more acres as stated in the Forest Service's
report, Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on National
Forests, especially in the wildland urban interface, with a 37%
reduction in funding in the hazardous fuels program?
Answer. Restoration work is accomplished with a number of funding
sources, including Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) as well as
Hazardous Fuels. The President's Budget continues to propose full
implementation of IRR as a way of improving efficient delivery of many
National Forest System programs throughout the Nation. The reduction in
fuels funding will result in fewer acres of hazardous fuels treated,
but still allows us to treat 685,000 of the highest priority acres.
This reduction is just one of many difficult tradeoffs that had to be
made, while fulfilling our commitment to request funding for the 10-
year average for suppression funding.
Question 2. Chief Tidwell, thank you for such a strong commitment
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy
Program in the 2014 budget. As you know, LWCF and Forest Legacy are
critical tools that allow for the strategic acquisition of parcels
within National Forest boundaries. By connecting landscapes, these
parcels will provide management efficiency, protect water quality, and
make it easier to fight and contain wildfires. How can we ensure that
the three Colorado projects on the FY 14 budget list-the Uncompahgre
National Forest, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the
Sawtooth Mountain Ranch Forest Legacy Project-will be funded and
completed this year so we can better manage our forests?
Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) acquisition
projects proposed in the FY 2014 President's Budget are the highest
priorities for the Forest Service for FY 2014. The Forest Service is
prepared to proceed with the field work necessary to complete a Federal
acquisition of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail project and
the Ophir Valley project on the Uncompahgre National Forest. The Forest
Service and the State of Colorado stand ready to complete these
acquisitions as soon as an appropriation is made available.
The Forest Legacy project list published in the FY 2014 President's
Budget is in priority order, with the Sawtooth Mountain Ranch project
ranked 19 out of 28 projects. Ultimately, the number of Forest Legacy
projects that receive funding will be dependent upon the amount of
money that is appropriated for the fiscal year in question. The Forest
Legacy grants provided to the States are for an initial period of two
years. Therefore, if the Sawtooth Mountain Ranch project receives
funding in FY 2014, we do not expect that it would close in the same
fiscal year. However, we will provide whatever assistance possible to
help Colorado close as quickly as is possible if this project receives
funding.
Question 3. Chief Tidwell, I am concerned, as I'm sure you are,
about the chronic underfunding of LWCF, whose Outer Continental Shelf
revenues are deposited into the U.S. Treasury each year but are
unfortunately spent in unrelated ways. How will you work with me and my
colleagues to ensure that these dollars go where they belong to
conserve the places we need protected?
Answer. The FY 2014 President's Budget proposes $177 million in
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funding for the Forest Service,
with $84.8 million for the Forest Legacy program and $92.3 million for
the Land Acquisition program. Of the $177 million total, $118 million
would be discretionary funding and $59 million is a new proposal for
mandatory funding to be transferred from the Department of the Interior
(DOI).
Mandatory funding will allow the Agency to engage in a multi-year
planning process that will strengthen local and community partnerships
in conservation and optimize valuable investments by leveraging other
Federal and non-Federal funds. Mandatory funding will provide the
financial certainty that will keep the interest of partners and
landowners which would otherwise be lost to multi-year delays and more
attractive offers from developers.
The increased funding of LWCF is a key component of the President's
America's Great Outdoor (AGO) Initiative. AGO also emphasizes increased
coordination across Federal agencies and with State and local
governments to ensure the most important areas are conserved. To
promote increased coordination, the FY 2014 President's Budget proposes
that $57 million of the Forest Service's $177 million LWCF funding
support Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) projects. Through CLP,
the Forest Service is working with DOI and its bureaus to identify
landscapes where the agencies can collaboratively respond to locally
supported planning efforts to protect critical ecosystems before
fragmentation occurs.
Conserving large-scale landscapes provides multiple resource and
economic benefits to the public, including cleaner drinking water,
recreational opportunities, reduced wildfire risk, protected habitat
for at-risk and game species, and jobs generated on and off forests and
grasslands. Acquiring these lands will reduce expenditures associated
with boundary management and fire suppression for the Forest Service
and surrounding communities and will increase public access to and
enjoyment of public lands.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please explain how sequestration and the budget
rescission will impact your equipment purchases, contracting of
aircraft and helicopters, and the number of firefighters you will have
available this fire season. Is the agency adequately prepared to handle
another fire season, like the one it faced in 2012, why or why not?
Answer. The sequestration of funds will directly impact our ability
to maintain existing firefighting capability. Specifically,
firefighting resources could be reduced by 500 firefighters, and 50 to
70 engines. We will ensure adequate aerial firefighting and other
resources during 2013 by using additional call-when-needed (CWN)
aircraft, engines, and crews, which can be charged to suppression. CWN
resources average 150 to 200 percent of the cost of exclusive use
resources, thus potentially increasing our suppression costs for FY
2013. In addition, suppression is funded below the 10-year average,
increasing the chances that we will need to transfer funds from other
accounts to pay for firefighting.
Question 2. Modernizing the firefighting fleet is important to
ensuring the agency has the capacity to fight wildland fire. This
committee has been very concerned about whether the Forest Service has
a viable, cost-effective strategy for replacing the legacy fire air-
tankers. I do want to recognize that you have included a request for
$50 million for air-tanker modernization and I commend you for
including that. If it does get funded, how will those funds be
expended?
Answer. The additional funding will be used to cover a portion of
the increased costs of the next generation large airtanker contract
costs as well as some of the costs of converting the seven C-27Js from
a military mission to the airtanker mission.
Question 3. In your budget justification, the Forest Service
includes a table outlining the potential maximum number of firefighting
aircraft resources that may be contracted. Included in this table are
C27Js which you have characterized as a medium airtanker that would
have a different operational mission than the large airtankers. If you
are able to obtain the C27Js from the Department of Defense, what
mission would these aircraft fulfill? How many of those aircraft would
be utilized to drop retardant and how many would be utilized to deliver
firefighters (smokejumpers) to fires? How much would it cost the Forest
Service to bring these C27Js online to fight fires? How would the
Forest Service operate and maintain these aircraft? What are the
expected operation and maintenance costs of C27Js?
Answer. The seven C-27Js would be operated as medium airtankers (as
a component of the overall airtanker fleet) and carry the same
retardant load as our legacy P2s. The C-27J aircraft provides a modern
(2 years old or newer) aircraft capable of multiple wildland fire
missions including aerial application of fire retardant, smokejumper
deployment, cargo delivery for fire crews, and transport of incident
management teams. We are still working to develop cost estimates for
these aircraft.
Question 4. In 2009, Congress enacted the FLAME Act to establish a
reserve fund in the treasury to provide a mechanism to address the
escalating costs of emergency fire suppression. The idea was to allow
the agencies to fight major fires without taking the drastic step of
transferring funds from other essential non-fire programs. The FLAME
fund was supposed to be funded in addition to the suppression account
which has been funded using the 10-year rolling average. In this
budget, however, you propose to take the suppression account and FLAME
together to fund the 10-year rolling average of suppression costs. Why
is the Forest Service including the FLAME Fund to fund the 10-year
average of fire suppression costs?
In your testimony at the hearing you stated that: ``the FLAME Act
has not had the success we had hoped for.'' What did you mean by this
statement? Please explain.
Answer. Using the 10-year average for funding fire suppression is
based on long-standing practice and an agreement between the
Administration and Congress, and is in line with other types of
calculations done to predict funding needs for similar types of
programs. However, the Administration recognizes the increasing
instance of severe fires and the budget impacts that have resulted from
the cost of suppressing those fires. Other methodologies for
calculating fire suppression funding are being explored. We will
continue to work with the Office of Management and Budget and Congress
to identify appropriate ways to budget for the increasing costs of
wildfire suppression and preparedness.
The FLAME funds were designed to pay for the cost of large and
complex fires and as a reserve when suppression funds in Wildland Fire
Management are exhausted. The FLAME Act indicates that the request for
a FLAME fund should be based on an estimate of the amount needed for
fires that meet the size and severity criteria in the Act. The FY 2012
request for FLAME was based on previously designated FLAME fires and
subsequent requests were based on this level.
Question 5. I understand that turning the Stewardship Contracting
authority into a permanent authority is a top priority of the agency.
The data for FY 2012 suggests that fully 25 percent of all of the saw
timber volume offered by the Forest Service was through stewardship
contracting. Back in 2006 your agency published draft regulations to
ensure that sawtimber volume offered through stewardship contracting
would count towards the Small Business Set-Aside program and that you
would eliminate the Structural Change Re-computations in the existing
Small Business Timber Sale Set-aside Program.
Now that more than a quarter of the saw timber offered by the
Forest Service is transacted through stewardship contracts and you are
seeking to make this a permanent authority; when are you going to
publish the final Stewardship/Small Business Set-aside regulation? Will
you commit to me that these regulations will published in the Federal
Register within the next 60 days in a manner that reflects the proposal
released in 2006?
Answer. The Forest Service published a Proposed Directive and
request for public comment on August 1, 2006, regarding proposed
changes to its Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program (Set-Aside
Program) direction. The proposed changes included removing the
structural change recomputation requirements, and subjecting
Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC's) to the Set-
Aside Program procedures except for the Small Business Administration's
(SBA) 30/70 rule requirements. Per SBA's regulations, no more than 30
percent of the included sawtimber volume on a set-aside sale may be
delivered to other than small business. Comments to the proposed
changes were generally split along industry size class. Since that
time, new issues have arisen, such as appraisal point (i.e. appraising
all set-aside sales to the nearest small business mill versus
appraising them, per current policy, to the nearest mill regardless of
size class). While the agency cannot commit to a specific time frame,
these new issues are being considered.
Question 6. The Committee has been informed that challenges still
remain and future actions at the federal level may be necessary to
better coordinate the approval process for the continued operation of
existing hydropower projects and support for growth of new hydropower.
Specifically, I have been informed by hydropower owners and operators
that federal agencies, including the Forest Service, continue to assert
and exercise mandatory conditioning authority over lands outside of
their jurisdiction and without a connection to the project.
Furthermore, there are cases where two or more federal agencies,
contained within different departments, regulate the same activity
under the relicensing process for a single hydropower project. Often,
this results in conflicting requirements on the owner/operator that
increase both delays and project costs.
What steps can the Forest Service take to promote greater
efficiency, predictability and balance in the process for relicensing
hydropower projects--both within the agency and in coordination with
other agencies?
Answer. The Forest Service continues to coordinate with other
Federal and State agencies to provide predictable information to
support the delivery of an efficient and predictable process for
relicensing hydropower projects and to support negotiations towards
multi-party settlement agreements.
Nationally, we are taking steps with the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to share energy program staff and to increase efficiency and
communication between agencies. In FY 2014, we are proposing to add a
second energy position in the headquarters staff to increase efficiency
at processing. With BLM, we train our agency energy coordinators
together. We are attending energy conferences to enhance our
understanding and relationships with project applicants, and we work
with them closely when processing their applications. We also work with
applicants to determine what is necessary for efficient construction
and maintenance of proposed energy projects, including the use of
helicopters, or road construction.
The Forest Service Alaska Region (R10) is processing over 30 hydro-
electric projects, of which 26 are Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
proposals. We have maintained our R10 energy staff to facilitate
processing of these proposals. We have participated in the State's
effort to develop an Integrated Resource Plan for energy development in
southeast Alaska, and have sponsored the Energy Cluster in the
Southeast Alaska Economic Development as part of our Transition
Framework.
Question 7. At the hearing, you were asked by Senator Wyden about
administrative management models and what type of management model
would be more likely to increase the timber harvest levels on the
national forest system-collaboration with continued direct Federal
administration or turning over administrative management responsibility
to the private sector (i.e. trust land model). You answered the
collaborative approach. The trust land management model is our Nation's
most ancient and durable resource policy. There are numerous examples
across the West of the successes of this management model in producing
sustainable timber harvests and revenue. Please provide the data that
demonstrates that collaboration on the national forest system as a
management model is more successful in increasing sustainable timber
harvest levels than trust land management.
Answer. The statutes and regulations that govern trust lands are
different from those for Federal timber sales. Most States are mandated
to generate revenue for schools from their State trust lands. This
usually results in States selecting the larger and more valuable trees
to harvest resulting in higher volumes per acre and lower unit costs.
Federal timber sales are integrated with other resource objectives
under the multiple use mandate. Developing integrated restoration
projects, which benefit a range of uses, is best achieved through
collaboration, which reduces the potential for appeals and litigation.
The White Mountain Stewardship 10-year contract (nearing completion)
and the ``4FRI'' projects in northern Arizona are examples of the
success of collaboration accelerating the acres and volume being
treated on National Forest System lands.
The Forest Service continues to explore ways in which it can be
more efficient and effective and accomplish more restoration
activities. As a result, the Forest Service has decreased costs for
preparing and implementing timber sales by 23 percent over the last 15
years, reducing the unit costs for producing timber from $203/MBF
(thousand board feet) to $157/MBF, adjusting for inflation. The agency
has achieved some of these efficiency gains through collaboration in
our National Environmental Policy Act analyses and planning as well as
improvements in the timber sale preparation program and using an all-
lands restoration approach.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. The Forest Service budget proposes additional fees of
$1 per A-U-M for family farmers and ranchers to recover the costs
associated with NEPA analysis and issuing grazing permits. However,
when I talk to both ranchers and agency employees back in Wyoming they
attribute the increase of costs to renew a permit to excessive
litigation against the agency.
What percent of the Forest Service System line item budget is spent
on litigation?
Answer. The direct costs of litigation are the fee payments that
the Forest Service makes under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
The Forest Service paid EAJA fees in the amount of $565,000 in FY 2012,
$1,472,000 in FY 2011, and $113,000 in FY 2010. In FY 2012 the EAJA
fees paid were less than 0.036 percent of National Forest System (NFS)
total discretionary appropriations (EAJA can be paid by any Forest
Service budget line item) and did not have an appreciable effect on
program funding for the agency as a whole. Individual units of the NFS,
however, may experience significant funding impacts from specific
court-ordered EAJA awards. Similarly in FY 2011, EAJA fees paid were
less than 0.01 percent of NFS appropriations and did not have an
appreciable effect on nation-wide program funding. Refer to the EAJA
Special Exhibit, pp.14-34 to 14-37 in the FY 2014 Budget Justification
for a detailed listing of these cases.
Indirect costs associated with litigation, such as staff time spent
responding to litigation and the cost of project delays due to
litigation, are not tracked within the Forest Service. Our accounting
system does not allow for an easy or efficient way of keeping indirect
litigation cost information separate from other expenses associated
with a project's development, such as the project's initial design,
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
project implementation. Costs, including staff time and resources
associated with litigation, are charged to the appropriation that funds
a project (e.g., vegetation management, wildlife habitat improvement,
recreation management), as are other costs associated with its
implementation.
Question 2. The Forest Service announced that as a result of the 5%
sequester cut, timber production would be cut by 15%.
If Congress increased funding specifically for timber production by
10% can the Forest Service increase total board feet by 30%?
Answer. Approximately 51 percent of the funding for Forest Products
is directed at preparing, offering and selling new timber sales, which
is the basis for the output of timber volume sold. The remaining
funding pays for administering the harvest of timber sales already
under contract and handling walk-in business from citizens for firewood
permits and special forest products. The agency is contractually
obligated to administer existing contracts and we will continue to
provide personal use permits for people to have access to firewood and
other special forest products. Thus, a 5 percent reduction in the total
Forest Products program is actually a 10 percent reduction in the funds
available to prepare and sell new timber volume.
Increases in Forest Products funding are directed to preparing and
offering new timber sales with an expected increase in timber volume
sold in the first year of the increase. As timber volume sold increases
the need for additional funds in contract administration increases in
subsequent years. The existing contracts for timber sold are a
requirement for the Forest Service to fund, including the recently sold
sales in FY 2012's accomplishment. The Agency would also continue its
public fuel wood and personal forest products program. After meeting
these two obligations, any additional funding would be applied to
preparing new timber sales. The Forest Service would not be able to
achieve a 30 percent increase in its timber sales offerings with a 10
percent funding increase.
Question 3. We spoke about the way the Forest Service counts acres
burned by wildfires as acres treated when these number are reported to
Congress.
Will you provide me with how many acres the Forest Service treated
in 2012 not including those acres burned by wildfires?
During 2012, what was the cost per acre treated when the wildfires
acres are removed?
Answer. The total number of acres treated to reduce hazardous
fuels, other than those by wildfire, on lands administered by the
Forest Service in 2012 was 1,897,802.
The treatment cost per acre varies widely, due to the type of
treatment, the part of the country, the accessibility of the site, and
numerous other factors. In general, mechanical treatment of hazardous
fuels ranges from $50/acre to more than $4,000 per acre. Prescribed
fire treatment of hazardous fuels ranges from $30/acre to $1,900/acre.
Question 4. Does the Forest Service count personal use firewood in
its board feet sold total?
If yes, will you also provide me with the total board feet sold by
the Forest Service in 2012 including only sawtimber, pulpwood, and
useable biomass? Will you provide me the prices received for these same
materials?
Answer. Yes, fuelwood (firewood) volume is included in the overall
timber volume sold. The table below displays the Sold Volume and Sold
Value (in thousands of dollars) for FY 2012.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 5. During the hearing you mentioned in response to Senator
Johnson's question about land acquisitions that the agency needed to
buy land to improve border management efficiencies.
Please provide me data and examples of how managing a border with
private or state land is more expensive than the cost of the private or
state land.
Answer. Forest Service land and resource management activities,
occurring at or near National Forest System land (NFS) boundaries,
require that Forest Service boundary lines be surveyed and marked. This
requirement is in part to protect neighboring landowners from
encroachment by NFS activities, and in part to ensure that Federal
lands are protected and maintained.
Land acquisitions that result in a reduction of NFS boundary
mileage result in a reduction the costs of Forest Service survey,
boundary line marking and maintenance, and activities at or near NFS
boundaries, including timber sales and fuels treatments. In designated
areas-for example, in wilderness areas-the cost of a boundary line
survey could exceed the property cost of an inholding, especially in
remote terrains where use of non-motorized tools might be required.
Savings are not limited to acquisitions of inholdings. Any land
acquisition that results in a reduction of NFS boundary miles, could
result in a decrease of Forest Service costs. Some examples of proposed
land acquisition projects that are expected to reduce Forest Service
costs include:
Montana Legacy Completion Project--Consolidation of a checkerboard
pattern of lands, and thereby a large reduction of boundary miles,
could reduce Forest Service survey costs by $336,000 per maintenance
cycle (approximately every 10 years).
Florida Longleaf Initiative--A reduction of approximately five
miles of boundary line could reduce Forest Service survey costs by
$80,000, at approximately $16,000 per mile.
Question 6. You stated the importance of the timber industry to
achieving the management needed on the National Forests as the same
work left to the agency would be cost prohibitive. I agree with your
assessment. Yet the budget proposes reducing timber and fuels funding.
Help me understand this contradiction?
Answer. As a result of the national effort to reduce Federal budget
levels, the agency's funding request for restoration, timber harvest,
and hazardous fuels treatments has been reduced from the FY 2013
President's Budget level to $756,788,000 for Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) and $201,228,000 for hazardous fuels treatments.
Funding for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program was kept
level. As a result, the restoration funding level proposed for FY 2014
is estimated to yield 2.38 billion board feet of timber volume sold,
and the hazardous fuels funding level proposed is estimated to yield
685,000 acres treated in the Wildland Urban Interface. The Forest
Service recognizes that maintaining a strong forest industry through
selling timber is integral to helping accomplish forest restoration
work and continues to identify and implement efficiencies in all
aspects of forest restoration and hazardous fuels work.
Question 7. The Executive Summary of the 2012 ``Large Air Tanker
Modernization Strategy,'' page 2, second paragraph, states, ``In
response to this wildfire activity, the Forest Service's airtanker
fleet has flown an average of 4,500 flight hours, dropping almost 20
million gallons of retardant annually in the last ten years.''
Were the average gallons dropped last year approximately the same
as the average for the past 10 years?
Was the average number of fire commander requests for large air
tankers for this past fire season greater than the 10-year average?
For the past two fire seasons, what was the average number of
requests for large air tankers that the National Interagency
Coordination Center (NICC) had to deny for lack of tanker resources?
When awarded this year, will the next generation air tanker
solicitation provide the forecast number of needed large air tankers
within the next five years to meet the 10-year average gallons of
retardant delivered without the need for additional solicitations in
the next five years?
Answer. There were 26.7 million gallons of retardant dropped by the
airtanker fleet in 2012, which is above the 10 year average.
In 2012, the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC)
responded to 851 requests for large airtankers. We have not collected
this type of information at the national level prior to 2012, so we are
not able to compare the number of requests for large airtankers in the
past fire season to a 10-year average.
An average of 25 to 30 percent of the airtanker requests were not
filled by the NICC in the past two fire seasons. Airtanker requests are
prioritized based on values at risk. Informed decisions were made by
fire managers to prioritize airtankers on initial attack and incidents
with threat to life, property, critical infrastructure, and natural
resource values versus fires with low values at risk.
The next generation large airtanker contract, as well as potential
agency-owned airtankers (C-27Js), will provide the 18 to 28 next
generation large airtankers the Forest Service believes will maintain
airtanker response and capability identified in the ``Large Airtanker
Modernization Strategy.''
Question 8. The Forest Service has a commendable goal of
controlling all wildfires that utilize fixed-wing air tankers within a
so-called ``initial attack.''
In a successful large air tanker ``initial attack,'' how many large
air tanker missions are normally flown?
What is the USFS goal, as a per cent of initial attack actions, for
initial attack success?
What was the average success rate in the past two fire seasons?
How does that compare with the 10-year average for initial attack
success?
When initial attack was not successful, on average, how many large
air tanker missions are flown on those fires?
Answer. The agency does not have data at the level of specificity
needed to answer the first part of this question. The number of large
airtankers used, and the number of large airtanker missions flown,
varies greatly on initial attack, depending on resources available, the
conditions on the fire, and the location of the fire-among numerous
other factors.
We strive for a 98 percent success rate with initial attack. In the
past two fire seasons, our success rate for initial attack was 96.8
percent, which is 1.1 percent less than the 10-year average.
The agency does not have data at the level of specificity needed to
determine how many airtankers were flown on fires when the initial
attack was not successful. The number of airtanker missions flown
varies greatly on initial attack, depending on resources available, the
conditions on the fire, and the location of the fire--among numerous
other factors.
Question 9. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has
utilized the Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT) for delivery of large
quantities of retardant in last couple fire seasons. The ``Large Air
Tanker Modernization Strategy'' and your comments at the hearing
indicate that the VLAT should continuously be in the mix of available
airtanker assets. Does the Forest Service annual budget request for
fixed wing air tankers include funding for VLAT assets?
If not, how are the VLAT air tankers funded?
Does the funding process enable VLATs to be available for the
foreseeable future as part of the needed mix of air tankers?
Answer. That is correct. The Forest Service believes the VLAT is
part of the firefighting aircraft fleet, and it is considered a
specialty airtanker. The President's Budget request for Wildland Fire
Management (WFM) covers the aviation needs for the agency. The VLAT
assets are considered part of the available contractor provided
aviation assets. The funding process does enable VLATs to be available
for the foreseeable future as part of the needed mix of airtankers.
Question 10. The Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) C-130
firefighting capabilities are stated to be ``surge'' assets. Under the
Economy Act, when these DOD assets are utilized by the Forest Service,
the Service must provide complete cost reimbursement to DOD.
When C-130 units are activated, are they funded from annual
appropriations, or are they funded from supplemental budget requests
under the Flame Act.
Prior to activating C-130 MAFFS units, does the Forest Service
first determine if other air tanker assets that have equivalent or
greater capability are reasonably available, including those on ``Call
When Needed'' arrangements?
Answer. The C-130 units are funded out of the Wildland Fire
Management, Suppression account annual appropriations. FLAME Act funds
may be used in years in which the Suppression account is fully
depleted.
Yes, MAFFS resources are used when contractor and cooperator
resources are fully committed, not reasonably available, or activity is
expected to peak and/or be sustained at a high level for a period of
time.
Question 11. The Forest Service gains access to needed fixed-wing
aerial firefighting aircraft through ``Call When Needed'' (CWN)
contracts. Are these CWN aircraft funded as part of the USFS annual
budget, or do they also get funded through supplemental funding under
the Flame Act?
Answer. Call-when-needed assets are funded through the Wildland
Fire Management, Suppression account annual appropriations. FLAME Act
funds may be used in years in which the Suppression account is fully
depleted.
FLAME funding is transferred to the Suppression account after a
declaration is approved by the Secretary and used in the same manner as
funds appropriated to Suppression. FLAME funding is not
``supplemental.'' It is used to cover the costs of large fire events
that meet criteria for a Secretarial declaration.
Question 12. Current plans call for the Forest Service to take
possession of a certain number of C-27 aircraft that have been declared
excess to DOD needs.
How many C-27 aircraft does the Forest Service require to meet its
long-term plans?
If the Forest Service assumes the responsibility for C-27 aircraft,
what will be the role of those aircraft within authorized Forest
Service responsibilities?
Will the Forest Service operate C-27 aircraft with its own
employees?
What is the Forest Service life-cycle cost estimate for operation
and maintenance of the C-27?
If the Forest Service utilizes C-27 aircraft for air tanker
operations, will the current MAFFS I or MAFFS II units function in the
C-27?
If the current MAFFS II units will function in the C-27, will the
Forest Service assign first priority for use of those MAFFS II units to
the C-27, or will the Department of Defense (DOD) C-130s have priority
for utilization of MAFFS II units?
Answer. The Forest Service is ready to take seven C-27Js as
outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act. Long-term plans
will depend on interest from the U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal
agencies in the C-27J. The C-27Js will be used as medium airtankers.
The Forest Service will not operate C-27J aircraft with its own
employees; the agency intends to contract for operation and maintenance
of the aircraft. The Forest Service is developing the life cycle cost
estimates.
The Mobile Aerial Firefighting System I (MAFFS I) never met
retardant delivery requirements. MAFFS I units are no longer maintained
and refurbishment would be cost prohibitive. MAFFS II, even if scaled
in size for the C-27J, would severely restrict the C-27J's payload. The
Forest Service intends to contract for a new retardant delivery system
for the C-27J that optimizes the aircraft's payload. The MAFFS II units
will not fit in the C-27J, so there will be no conflict with the DOD
MAFFS C-130s.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Heller
Question 1. The State of Nevada has been asked by the Forest
Service to repay $239,000 in payments made under the Secure Rural
Schools program. These funds were paid to the state and subsequently
distributed to counties according to state law prior to the
implementation of sequestration. Can you please provide the legal
justification for the request to return these funds?
Answer. All government funds apportioned in FY 2013 are subject to
sequestration. There are only a few exceptions. While funding for
Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments is based on the level of FY 2012
receipts, section 102(e) of the SRS Act directs that the funds be paid
after the end of the fiscal year and therefore it is budget authority
for FY 2013 and subject to sequestration. The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), as amended, requires
that sequestration be taken at the budget account level, and applied
equally to each program, project, and activity (PPA) in those accounts.
In the case of SRS, the relevant account is the Forest Service
Permanent Appropriations account, which includes two PPAs for SRS: one
comprising the FY 2013 budget authority from receipts in FY 2012 (the
``receipts PPA''), and the other comprising additional FY 2013 budget
authority provided from Treasury to cover the shortfall in receipts
necessary to make the full SRS payments (the ``Treasury payments
PPA''). In calculating the sequestered amount, BBEDCA repeatedly refers
to the amounts for a ``fiscal year'' or ``that year'' (2 U.S.C. 901a).
Thus, consistent with the application of sequestration across all USDA
programs, and across the government as a whole, the amount of the
sequestration is based upon the full budgetary authority in the
receipts PPA and the Treasury payments PPA for the entire fiscal year,
not on the amount remaining available on March 1, 2013, the date of the
sequestration order.
Question 2. Nevada, the Forest Service is home to both the Bi-state
and Greater sage grouse populations. An Endangered Species listing of
the sage grouse would have a devastating impact on the economy and way
of life in every county in Nevada. As I am sure you are aware, one of
the biggest threats the biggest threat to sage grouse habitat on public
lands is wildfire, particularly in overcrowded pinyon-juniper
woodlands. What steps are the Forest Service taking to protect sage
grouse habitat and to prevent an ESA listing for the bird?
Answer. In considering the Forest Service role in sage grouse
conservation it is important to note that the Forest Service only has 8
percent of existing sage grouse habitat. (The Bureau of Land Management
has 51 percent of existing habitat, private landowners have 30 percent,
and other ownerships make up the remaining 11 percent.) National Forest
System (NFS) lands in the Intermountain Region, which includes Nevada,
Utah, northwestern Wyoming, and southern Idaho, have 70 percent of the
Forest Service portion of high priority sage grouse habitat.
The Forest Service is working cooperatively with our Federal,
State, and interested non-governmental partners to address Bi-State and
Greater sage grouse conservation needs. The Forest Service participated
in the development of a Near-Term Greater Sage-grouse Conservation
Action Plan as a member of the Range-wide Interagency Sage-grouse
Conservation Team.
Currently, the Forest Service is engaged in a planning process that
includes National Environmental Policy Act disclosure and public input,
to determine whether to amend 20 Land and Resource Management Plans to
incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures, with a target decision
date of September 2014. The goals of this planning process are to:
ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place; to reduce
risks to sage-grouse and its habitat; maintain ecosystems on which
sage-grouse depend; and to conserve habitat necessary to sustain sage-
grouse populations to an extent that precludes the need for its listing
under the Endangered Species Act.
While the Forest Service is engaged in the planning process, we
have developed interim conservation recommendations based upon the
following principles:
1) Protect remaining expanses of unfragmented habitat.
2) Minimize further loss of fragmented habitat.
3) Enhance and restore habitat conditions to meet sage-grouse
life history needs.
These recommendations supplement the recommendations for sage-
grouse contained in the Chief's letter to Regional Foresters in Regions
1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation (July, 1,
2010). Another goal of the interim recommendations is to enhance
consistency in management of activities on National Forest System land
with the BLM Instructional Memorandum (IM) No. 2012-043: Greater Sage-
grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (Dec. 22, 2011). The
Forest Service also completed interim conservation recommendations
(Fall 2012) accompanying a list of 2011 and 2012 NFS projects for
Greater Sage-grouse and their habitats.
The Forest Service would not characterize wildfire as the greatest
threat to sage grouse habitat on public lands, particularly in
overcrowded pin-on-juniper woodlands. Pin-on-juniper encroachment into
adjacent sage brush habitat is a significant issue relative to the loss
of sage brush habitats. This is primarily due to the lack of
disturbance processes in those habitats. The wildfire threat is more
relevant to the invasion of exotic annual grasses into sage brush
stands (e.g. cheatgrass), and resulting frequent, uncharacteristic
wildfires that convert sage brush to annual grassland communities. Most
of this occurs on lower elevation BLM lands. The processes resulting in
the loss of sage brush habitats due to pin-on-juniper encroachment and
annual grassland invasion are distinct and different processes.
Question 3. Does the Forest Service recognize the State of Nevada's
primacy when it comes to water allocation and water law in Nevada?
Answer. The Forest Service respects the rights of States, including
Nevada, to appropriate water, and the role of States in administering
water rights. The agency actively participates in State water right
adjudications and other proceedings.
The Forest Service claims reserved water rights for consumptive or
nonconsumptive needs on reserved lands directly related to securing
favorable conditions of water flow or to furnish a continuous supply of
timber under on the Organic Administration Act of 1897 authority
including:
Domestic water needed for Ranger Stations, fire stations,
work centers, housing, and other facilities constructed and
maintained for administering National Forest System (NFS)
programs for watershed protection and timber production.
Water needed for fire protection and control.
Water needed for constructing and maintaining access roads
for timber production and watershed protection activities.
Water needed for irrigation of tree nurseries, seed
orchards, and other facilities devoted primarily to the supply
of timber or watershed protection.
Water needed for maintaining Forest Service riding and pack
stock used in the administration of the NFS timber resources
and for watershed protection.
Water needed in connection with special uses where the user
is engaged in activities carried out for watershed protection
or timber production on the NFS.
Water needed in the form of instream flows sufficient to
maintain the stability of stream channels for favorable
conditions of water flow and protection against the loss of
productive timber lands adjacent to the stream channels. This
includes the volume and timing of flows required for adequate
sediment transport, maintenance of streambank stability, and
proper management of riparian vegetation.
The Forest Service claims prior appropriation water rights from the
State for other Forest Service water uses and permitted programs under
the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960: ``It is the policy of the
Congress that the national forests are established and shall be
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and
wildlife, and fish purposes.'' These uses would include water rights
for campgrounds, ski area snowmaking, livestock water, and in-stream
fish flows.
Question 4. Can you please provide the reasoning behind incidents
where the Forest Service has required water from permittees prior to
issuing permits?
Answer. The Forest Service mission is ``to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations.'' Fulfilling this
mission means sustaining water, as well as soil, vegetation, fish,
wildlife, and other resources, all while providing outdoor recreation
and local economic opportunities such as permitted programs like
grazing and ski areas.
Forest Service policy is to claim possessory interest in water
rights in the name of the United States for water uses on National
Forest System (NFS) lands as follows:
Claim water rights for water used directly by the Forest
Service and by the general public on the NFS.
Claim water rights for water used by permittees,
contractors, and other authorized users of the NFS, to carry
out activities related to multiple use objectives. Make these
claims if both water use and water development are on the NFS
and one or more of the following situations exists: (1)
National Forest management alternatives or efficiency will be
limited if another party holds the water right; and (2) Forest
Service programs or activities will continue after the current
permittee, contractors, or other authorized user discontinues
operations.
Question 5. Since this is a hearing on the FY14 budget, including
the Recreation Program budget, I understand that in building external
partner support for the program and the program budget, that the Ski
Area Recreational Enhancement Act was passed in 2011 but is awaiting
full implementation based on the need for the specific policies and
regulations. Since these investments in activities by our external
partners will help build capacity in your program in the upcoming
fiscal year, (not to mention creating additional jobs in our rural
communities), can you give me a status on where the implementing regs
are in the process and when you expect to have them ready for approval?
Answer. The Forest Service will be implementing the Ski Area
Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (SAROEA) through four
regulatory and directive revisions:
A Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7330 amendment for Aerial
Adventure Courses to provide technical standards for design,
construction, and operation of zip lines, rope courses, and
similar facilities. We anticipate issuing this amendment by
June 2013.
A direct final rule to change the definition of a ski area
to conform to the SAROEA amendment. A Federal Register Notice
has been drafted and is under review.
An amendment to FSM 2340 to implement nondiscretionary
elements of the SAROEA. The amendment is being drafted and
should be issued by June 2013.
A proposed amendment to FSM 2340 with additional guidance on
implementation of SAROEA. A Federal Register Notice explaining
the proposed amendment has been drafted and publication for
public notice and comment is anticipated in summer 2013.
Responses of Tom Tidwell to Questions From Senator Flake
Question 1. On page 10 of the budget justification, the Forest
Service notes, ``More than 70,000 communities are now at risk from
wildfire, and less than 15,000 have a community wildfire protection
plan or an equivalent plan.'' What's more, experts predict worsening
fire seasons, as evidenced by the more than 9 million acres burned in
2012. Yet, the Forest Service is proposing a reduction in the Hazardous
Fuels line item and a $38.5 million increase in funding for land
acquisition. Why is the Forest Service more focused on acquiring
additional lands, as opposed to better management of the lands under
its authority?
Answer. Effective land management, including reducing hazardous
fuels, is accomplished through a variety of means. Land acquisition can
help reduce management costs by consolidating landownership, avoiding
further fragmented development within forest boundaries which can
exacerbate fire, insect, and disease management challenges. Land
acquisition is one tool we have to promote the long-term health and
sustainability of the national forests and grasslands and thereby
protect taxpayer investments in National Forest System lands.
Integrated Resource Restoration, an integrated approach to land
management, will further sustain, maintain, and make landscapes more
resilient and thus protect communities. We are working through the
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy to increase the
number of Community Wildfire Protection Plans and implement several
other measures to restore and maintain resilient landscapes, create
fire-adapted communities, and respond to wildfires.
Question 2. Instead of increasing land acquisition funding, would
it be a more prudent expenditure of funds to prioritize funding for
wildfire protection thereby conserving additional lands that might
otherwise be destroyed by wildfires?
Answer. Funding to support land acquisition that can help reduce
management costs by consolidating landownership and avoiding further
fragmented development within forest boundaries is prudent as it helps
to reduce fire dangers and assists with management of insects and
disease. Through the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management
Strategy, we are promoting measures to restore and maintain resilient
landscapes, create fire-adapted communities, and respond to wildfires.
Continued funding of land acquisition can assist in promoting these
measures by avoiding further fragmented development within forest
boundaries which can exacerbate wildfire.
Question 3. As you know, the State of Arizona's recent experience
with historically significant wildfires has impacted forest ecosystems,
including watersheds for much of the rest of the State, and upended the
lives of many residing near national forest system lands. The Schultz
Fire in June 2010 consumed 15,000 acres on the Peaks in the Coconino
National Forest. The following fire season, 2011, was extraordinarily
destructive, as the Wallow Fire, the Horseshoe Two, and the Monument
Fire, among others, burned in the State. The Wallow Fire encompassed
538,000 acres and surpassed the Rodeo-Chediski Fire as Arizona's
largest. The Horseshoe Two, Monument, and Murphy Fires damaged another
300,000 acres, and destroyed more than 60 homes, in southern Arizona.
The August 2011 Wallow Fire Rapid Assessment Team (RAT) report
attempted to quantify anticipated recovery effort expenditures. The
costs across the various categories summed to more than $101 million.
Approximately $34 million was expended in the initial Burn Area
Emergency Rehabilitation efforts. While the RAT product was an early
review, the conclusions provide a meaningful reference in evaluating
the status of the rehabilitation and mitigation measures. What were the
contemplated expenses, and actual expenditures to date, for the
following categories referenced in the RAT document: roads and
infrastructure; watersheds; fires and fuels; range resources; forest
vegetation; fisheries; and recreation trails and facilities?
Answer. The Wallow Fire Rapid Assessment Team identified
approximately $100 million of needed rehabilitation projects in the
burned area through FY 2018. To date, the Forest has received over $6.0
million for recovery efforts. The table below displays contemplated and
actual expenditures through FY 2012 for Wallow Fire recovery efforts
(dollars presented are in thousands).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 4. I have been informed the Coronado National Forest,
after the Horseshoe Two, Monument, and Murphy Fires, received $2.5
million in 2011, $1.4 million in 2012, and $123,000 in 2013, in
recovery funding. Has an attempt been made to qualify and quantify the
post-fire exigencies? If so, what is the difference between the
anticipated and actual expenditures?
Answer. We have quantified the post fire needs for those fires,
which we anticipated to be $4.8 million. The difference between the
anticipated need and expenditures to date is roughly $800,000.
Question 5. What is the status of the Schultz Fire recovery effort?
Answer. Coconino National Forest (CNF) signed an Environmental
Assessment last summer on the Forest efforts, which includes up to 462
acres of treatments on the Forest in 15 miles of channels to reduce
sediment transport. Concurrent work on CNF and private property will
begin this spring.
All Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation treatments were completed
in 2011, which included five rounds of rehabilitation efforts
implemented by the Forest Service at a cost of about $4.1 million.
Treatments included mulching, seeding, berm construction, and other
emergency measures to protect life, property, and sensitive natural
resources. Long-term rehabilitation projects continue, including over
$1 million invested in road and trail reconstruction, recreation site
repair, noxious weed treatments, hazard tree removal, reforestation,
and similar recovery efforts.
Question 6. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) on March 9,
2013, approved a resolution expressing strong objections to the
implementation of the travel management rule (TMR). Likewise, the
Western States Sheriff's Association (WSSA) unanimously enacted a
resolution on March 21 declaring opposition to the application of the
TMR by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management.
The AGFD policy states, in part, ``it is unacceptable for a federal
multiple use land management agency to establish regulations that the
public cannot understand; that the federal land manager cannot
effectively enforce; or that the land manager imposed upon state and
local enforcement authorities an unreasonable and unenforceable mandate
that denies reasonable and sufficient access to citizens.'' The WSSA
requests ``an immediate cessation of further implementation of the
Travel Management Plan on all public lands until a comprehensive review
of its impact to counties, and the residents and visitors therein, can
be conducted..'' The WSSA further resolved to encourage your agency to
``enter into meaningful discussions with the leadership of the nation's
western counties in an effort to form agreements that will ensure
Sheriffs retain adequate and appropriate access to public lands in
order to provide service and the public is not restricted from historic
and traditional uses of public lands.''
Will the AGFD, the WSSA, other agencies and organizations, and
individual citizens, be provided opportunities to further contribute to
the planning and implementation of the TMR, including in those USFS
units with published motor vehicle use maps?
Answer. Yes, we will offer ongoing opportunities for contributions
to the planning and implementation of the Travel Management Rule. In
Arizona approximately 30 percent of the Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUMs)
are complete, allowing for initial input on the vast majority of MVUMs
in the State. Furthermore, 36 CFR 212.54 states, ``Designations of
National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas on National
Forest System lands pursuant to Sec. 212.51 may be revised as needed
to meet changing conditions. Revisions of designations shall be made in
accordance with the requirements for public involvement in Sec.
212.52, the requirements for coordination with governmental entities in
Sec. 212.53, and the criteria in Sec. 212.55, and shall be reflected
on a motor vehicle use map pursuant to Sec. 212.56.''
The Forest Service will also continue to provide opportunities for
Federal, State, county, and other local governmental entities, Tribal
governments, and the public to contribute to the planning and
implementation of the Travel Management Rule, as is required per the
regulations noted below.
The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) was developed using an open
and public process to follow the direction in Executive Order 11644
(Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands) and the later Executive
Order 11989 (Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands). The Forest Service has
completed travel management under Subpart B on over 80 percent of NFS
lands, creating a MVUM as the legal document to inform the public and
for law enforcement. Law enforcement vehicles and uses are exempted
under 36 CFR 212.51.
With regard to new MVUMs, 36 CFR 212.52 states in part, ``The
public shall be allowed to participate in the designation of NFS roads,
NFS trails and area on National Forest System lands and revising those
designations pursuant to this subject. Advanced notice shall be given
to allow for public comment, consistent with agency procedures under
the National Environmental Policy Act on proposed designations and
revisions.''
Additionally, 36 CFR 212.53 states, ``The responsible official
shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, county, and other
local governmental entities and Tribal governments when designating
National Forest System roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands
pursuant to this subpart.''
Question 7. Your testimony and the Forest Service budget
justification heavily focus on restoration, namely ``restoring
ecosystems.'' To that end, the budget justification highlights, among
other things, the importance of forest health, the resiliency of forest
landscapes, the need to restore fire-damaged forest, and to reduce the
risk of wildfires. The Forest Service further elaborated stating, ``By
restoration, we mean restoring the functions and processes
characteristic of healthier, more resistant, more resilient ecosystems,
even if they are not exactly the same systems as before.'' What are the
characteristics of a healthier, more resistant, more resilient
ecosystem that the Forest Service is trying to achieve?
Answer. The Forest Service is trying to achieve healthy and
resilient ecosystems that will have greater capacity to absorb natural
disturbances and large scale threats to sustainability, especially
under changing and uncertain future environmental conditions, such as
those driven by climate change and increasing human uses.
Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Creating a
forest ecosystem which is healthier, more resistant, and more resilient
involves mimicking the process found in a natural ecosystem which is
capable of overcoming stressors or disturbance events. By using
restoration strategies, forest stands can be developed to be more
diverse, in age and species, and better able to withstand stressors.
For example, a forest consisting of a single tree species, a
monoculture, and little age difference is susceptible to a complete
loss should an insect or pathogen succeed in exploiting that forest
structure. Added to this risk would be other stressors which might
equally affect all of the trees. Increasing the diversity of age and
species of forests has the additional benefits of: increasing habitat
diversity, increasing resistance to invasive species, and improved
ability for regeneration of the forest. In addition to forests, the
National Forest System contains millions of acres of grasslands which
require restoration to ensure ecosystem resiliency.
In forested areas where fire is a natural process this involves
using fire to maintain the forest type and structure. In many
ecosystems, removing smaller trees to reduce the likelihood of crown
fires, thinning mature vegetation to reduce the spread of fire from
tree to tree, and removal of material on the forest floor through
prescribed fire or mechanical means is necessary to ensure that the
important components of the ecosystem survive a wildfire by reducing
the intensity of the wildfire. In ecosystems that have long fire return
intervals that may function ecologically post wildfire through self-
regeneration, treatment may still be necessary to protect communities
or other values at risk. These treatments are often similar to the
treatments in forest types that had more frequent fire.
Question 8. Has the National Forest System exhibited the
characteristics of a healthy, more resistant, more resilient ecosystem
in the past? If so, when did the Forest System exhibit those
characteristics?
Answer. Overall, our national forests were healthier, more
resistant, and more resilient when they were originally established as
Forest Reserves in the late 1800s. These lands (later to become
National Forests) were set aside for timber production, watershed
protection, and forest protection. A series of catastrophic forest
fires that occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s led to
efforts to suppress wildfires. Specifically, the Weeks Law of 1911 and
the Clark-McNary Act of 1924 led to improved fire suppression by States
and the Federal government. However, by removing fire from fire-
dependent ecosystems, the trajectory of forest development was altered.
Beginning in 1990, the effective suppression of fire ignitions
combined with a large reduction in timber harvested led to an overall
increase in forest biomass and fuel loads. Many of our National Forests
are now more susceptible to fire, less resilient, and less resistant to
threats. In addition to fire, forests face a suite of stressors,
including: climate impacts, increased human population in and around
forests, and increased threats from invasive species.
The history of eastern National Forests differs from western
National Forests. The Weeks Law of 1911 gave the Federal government
authority to acquire land to protect watersheds and navigable streams.
Many of the eastern National Forests-acquired mostly in the early 20th
century-were areas in very poor condition. Through the restoration
efforts of the Forest Service and others, these lands were reforested
and saw a dramatic improvement in their ecosystem health. Like the
western National Forests, the eastern National Forests face increased
stresses/threats from climate change, human populations, and invasive
species.
In many cases, our forests and watersheds are well-functioning and
resilient. In a significant portion of our national forests, however, a
history of fire suppression or other legacy conditions necessitate that
the Forest Service take a more active management approach to restore
conditions and functions, to protect communities and their drinking
water, and to sustain other values including recreation and wildlife.
This can be accomplished in part through increasing the scale and
effectiveness of treatments, and over time, accelerating the pace of
projects to treat more acres and employ more people in the work of
restoring the national forests.
Question 9. On page 10 of the budget justification, the Forest
Service notes that during the fire seasons in the 1930s ``more than 30
million acres burned on average each year.'' In the 1940s that number
remained high at approximately 12 to 15 million acres-a level some
experts predict we could see in the near future. Yet, the budget
justification also notes that from the 1960s through the 1980s, when
``the Forest Service furnished up to a quarter of the Nation's supply
of wood,'' the average annual acres burned were well under 5 million
per year, approaching a relatively paltry 2.983 million acres in the
1980s. How do these fire statistics factor into the Forest Service's
restoration efforts? What decade is the Forest Service trying to
emulate with its restoration efforts?
Answer. The relatively low annual acres burned of the 1960s and
1970s correlates with the cooler climate as well as landscape
conditions (following a period of fire activity) that enabled the
agency to be more successful in suppressing fires during that time
frame. The majority of timber harvest in the 1960s to 1980s occurred in
OR, WA, and southeast AK, where fire occurrence is historically low.
The agency's current focus is on vegetation treatment to protect
communities and other values at risk and to improve landscape
resiliency with wood as a byproduct.
Forest Service restoration focuses on re-establishing the
composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to
facilitate sustainability, resilience, and health under current and
future conditions rather than a point in the past. It would be
difficult to achieve a condition from the past because human settlement
patterns and a changing climate have already altered the landscape. The
Forest Service is focused on the future and has prioritized the
Wildland Urban Interface and the priority watersheds for treatment that
collectively will aid in the management and suppression of the current
and large fires.
Question 10. In the budget justification overview, the Forest
Service explains, ``Over the course of the FY 2012 fire season, our
average suppression cost fell from the 5-year average of $448 per acre
to $312 per acre, saving about $377 million.'' Please explain how 5-
year suppression costs fell, when 2012 saw one of the worst fire
seasons with more than 9 million acres burned?
Answer. The overall costs of suppressing wildfires have increased,
but we did see a decrease in costs per acre of suppressing large
wildfires. This is an indicator of how our risk-based approach in
deciding how to manage individual fires is successful in not only
minimizing the exposure to our firefighters but reducing costs. Without
these changes, the 2012 fire season would have been even more
expensive.
Question 11. On page 2 of the budget justification, the Forest
Service claims, ``The Forest Service was founded in 1905 to help spread
the spirit of conservation across the land.'' The Forest Service
website, however, explains:
Unlike the national parks, which were created primarily to preserve
natural beauty and unique outdoor recreation opportunities, the
founders of early national forests envisioned them as working forests
with multiple objectives. The Organic Administration Act of 1897, under
which most national forests were established, states: `No national
forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest
within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable
conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber
for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States . . . '
Why did the Forest Service use its budget justification to describe
its historic mission as one of spreading the ``spirit of
conservation,'' when that description (according to the Forest Service
website) more appropriately describes the historic mission of the
National Parks Service?
Answer. The phrase ``spread the spirit of conservation,'' was meant
to communicate the Forest Service's multiple use mandate.
Traditionally, the term ``conservation'' has referred to sustainable
use of resources and has been associated with the Forest Service,
whereas the term ``preservation'' has encompassed the Park Service
mission of preserving natural beauty and unique outdoor recreational
activities.
Question 12. Has the Forest Service's core mission shifted to land
management and conservation in way that more accurately aligns it with
the mission of agencies under the Department of the Interior, as
opposed to the Department of Agriculture?
Answer. The Forest Service mission is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations and has not changed.
As it has for over a century, the Forest Service can successfully
fulfill its multi-faceted mission housed within the Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
As the Nation's leading forestry organization, we also serve
Americans in other ways that are in alignment with the USDA mission-
which is to provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources,
rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public
policy, the best available science, and efficient management. The USDA
Strategic Plan FY 2010-2015 provides important information on how USDA
and the Forest Service work together and play a pivotal role in
protecting and restoring America's forests, farms, ranches, and
grasslands while making them more resilient to threats and enhancing
natural resources. As public land stewards, USDA and the Forest Service
work together to conserve and restore 193 million acres of national
forests and grasslands in the National Forest System.
Question 13. The Forest Service's lack of preparation for
sequestration this year has caused considerable unrest in rural
communities that face penalties and interest payments for failing to
return payments to the Forest Service. How does the Forest Service
intend to work with local communities to address this situation?
Answer. The Forest Service is committed to assisting rural
communities. To fulfill our commitment, payments to States were made in
early January 2013 while the sequestration debate continued in
Congress. In March of 2013, to comply with the law, we were required to
ask each State to return the sequestered amount mandated by the Budget
Control Act. We understand the hardship created by the impact of
sequestration on payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act. States
have the option to either pay back the sequestered amounts from their
Title I and Title III money, or reduce the Title II allocations by the
requisite amount, provided funds are available in Title II. We
sincerely regret having to take this action but we have no other
options under sequestration.
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued its opinion on costs to
be included in cancellation ceiling determinations for multiyear
stewardship contracts on March 1, 2011. Key points from the OGC opinion
are below.
1) Cancellation ceiling costs are for nonrecurring costs,
such as start-up costs.
2) Contractor costs of providing services under a multiyear
stewardship contract should only be a factor in the
cancellation ceiling determination if the costs are allocable
to the contract. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
31.201-4, ``A cost is allocable if it is assignable to one or
more cost objectives on the basis of relative benefit received
or other equitable relationship.'' For qualifying contractor
investments, the costs may be included in the cancellation
charge only to the extent that the multiyear stewardship
contract benefits.
3) When the Agency sells forest products and requires
removal, but does not specify where the material is to be
removed or what manufacturing is to be done, then the post-
removal manufacturing costs are not applicable to the items or
services to be furnished under the multiyear contract
requirements. For this reason, those cost s would not be
included in the cancellation ceiling calculation.
4) The Agency is not liable under FAR 52.217-2, Cancellation
under Multiyear Contracts, if it terminates a multiyear
contract for reasons other than lack of funding. Instead, it is
liable under the termination for the convenience clause.
5) The costs to be included in any cancellation charge for an
Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC) are limited to
those contract required costs the contractor reasonably must
incur to provide a service to the Forest Service. If a cost
cannot be tied to a service contract requirement, it may not be
included in any cancellation charge and, therefore, should not
be a factor in the cancellation ceiling determination.
6) Examples of costs to be included in a cancellation ceiling
because the work is related to a service being performed
include but are not limited to the following.
i) Logging equipment to the extent the costs are
allocable to the contract.
ii) Slash treatment equipment, such as a mastication
machine, to the extent the costs are allocable to the
contract.
7) Examples of costs not to be included in a cancellation
ceiling because the work is not related to the service being
performed include but are not limited to the following.
i) Log trucks or chip vans if the contract does not
require products to be removed from national forest
land.
ii) Facilities to manufacture the products removed
since manufacturing is not a service provided under the
contract.
8) The determination of allocable costs will be specific to
each contract.
The above items should be taken into consideration for contract
development and cancellation ceiling determinations. If you have any
questions regarding cancellation under multiyear contracts, contact Ron
Schilz, Procurement Analyst, Policy Branch, Acquisition Management.
Question 14. To avoid repeating this next year, how does the Forest
Service intend to address sequestration in upcoming years?
Answer. We will continue to work to implement the requirements of
sequestration and mitigate impacts on rural communities and public
interests as much as possible, while complying with the laws passed by
Congress.
Question 15. The Forest Service's recent report, ``Increasing the
Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests,'' set a
FY14 timber target of 3 billion board feet. Chief Tidwell similarly
supported the 3 billion board feet goal. Nevertheless, the budget
justification proposes a timber target of 2.38 billion board feet. If
the report and the Forest Chief support a 3 billion board feet target,
why does the budget justification include a reduced amount?
Answer. As outlined in the Forest Service report ``Increasing the
Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests,'' the
agency intended to take action over the next three years to increase
the number of acres being mechanically treated by 20 percent. The
agency was on track selling over 2.6 billion board feet of timber in FY
2012.
Approximately 51 percent of the funding for Forest Products is
directed at preparing, offering, and selling new timber sales, which is
the basis for the output of timber volume sold. The remaining funding
pays for administering the harvest of timber sales already under
contract and handling walk-in business from citizens for firewood
permits and special forest products. The agency is contractually
obligated to administer existing contracts and we will continue to
provide personal use permits for people to have access to firewood and
other special forest products. Thus, a percent reduction in the total
Forest Products program is actually a 10 percent reduction in the funds
available to prepare and sell new timber volume. As a result of the
national effort to reduce Federal budget levels, the agency's funding
request for restoration and timber harvest has been reduced from the FY
2013 President's Budget level. As a result, the restoration funding
level proposed for FY 2014 is estimated to yield 2.4 billion board feet
of timber volume sold.
Question 16. In the budget justification, the Forest Service
proposed permanently extending stewardship contracting authority, which
expires at the end of FY13. This program has proven successful in
Arizona, and a number of constituents have expressed support in favor
of reauthorizing this authority. There are, however, a couple of minor
modifications that could improve the program. One of these is achieving
parity between the fire liability provisions in timber contracts and
Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSC) for stewardship. Please
provide the statutory or regulatory citation for the timber contract
provision. Why is there a distinction between the timber contract
provision and the IRSC stewardship contract provision?
Answer. The Integrated Resource Timber Contract (IRTC) is based on
the provisions of the Forest Service timber sale contract, which was
verified through the National Forest Management Act. The Integrated
Resource Service Contract (IRSC) is tiered to the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR) as expressed through the Forest Service's service
contracts (FAR 452.236-77, Emergency Response). Thus, the IRTC follows
the fire liability procedures in the agency's timber sale contract, and
the IRSC follows the fire liability clause included in the agency's
service contracts.
Question 17. What efforts has the Forest Service undertaken to make
the fire liability provision in the IRSC stewardship contract
commensurate with the timber contract provision? If none, please
explain why it has not undertaken those efforts
Answer. As explained above, the fire liability provisions of the
IRTC and IRSC are the same as the contracts from which they tier.
Therefore, the IRTC follows the fire liability procedures in the
agency's timber sale contract and the IRSC follows the fire liability
clause included in the agency's service contracts. We are aware that
the difference between the IRTC and IRSC is a concern for potential
contractors and are further exploring this concern.
Question 18. In light of the Forest Service's increasing reliance
on stewardship contracts instead of timber sale contracts, what efforts
has the Forest Service undertaken to establish a local cost share from
stewardship contract receipts? If none, please explain why it has not
undertaken those efforts.
Answer. Forest land managed through timber harvest will continue to
play a critical role in restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of
national forests and grasslands. Both the traditional timber sale
contract and stewardship contracts will serve a vital role where
appropriate. While counties do not receive payments from a stewardship
contract, the receipts generated from the timber under a stewardship
contract pay for restoration activities in the sale area, generating
more work on the ground with an increased opportunity for local jobs.
Question 19. In March 2011, the Office of General Counsel issued an
opinion on the costs that should be included when the Forest Service
makes a cancellation ceiling determination. Can you provide a copy of
that opinion?
Answer. Agency legal opinions are privileged information. However,
we have attached a copy of the October 13, 2011, letter sent to the
Regional Foresters that outlines the key points of the OGC opinion and
clarifies the costs that should be included in a cancellation ceiling
determination.
Question 20. What efforts has the Forest Service undertaken to
reduce its upfront costs for cancellation ceilings? If none, please
explain why it has not undertaken those efforts.
Answer. The Forest Service issued a letter to the Regional
Foresters on October 13, 2011, that clarifies the costs that should be
included in the cancellation ceiling determination for stewardship
contracts. A copy of this letter is attached.
Question 21. In his testimony, Chief Tidwell explained that the
Forest Service is attempting to cut operating costs ``by streamlining
[the Forest Service's] environmental review process under the National
Environmental Policy Act.'' Specifically, what is the Forest Service
doing to streamline the NEPA review process?
Answer. The Forest Service is continuously improving the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Current efforts include
technology applications to speed public comment analysis, project file
management, publishing environmental documents to the internet, and
managing mailing lists. We have focused our NEPA training on key skills
for managing the process, including team management and decision
making. We have also established a learning network on adaptive
management, focused environmental assessments, and iterative
environmental impact statements (EIS) to examine the effectiveness of
larger-scale NEPA analysis existing policies and practices. As an
example, recently an EIS was prepared on the Black Hills National
Forest to make a decision on treating bark beetles on over 250,000
acres (three to six times larger than projects covered by typical EISs
on the Black Hills National Forest). Lessons learned are being shared
throughout the agency.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality recognized Forest
Service efforts to modernize the NEPA by selecting Forest Service
proposals for two of their five NEPA Pilot projects that employ
innovative approaches to completing environmental reviews more
efficiently and effectively. Forest Service electronic management of
NEPA and two landscape level projects, Four Forest Restoration
Initiative, and 5-Mile Bell, were chosen as examples to share with NEPA
practitioners in other Federal agencies.
Question 22. Do those streamlining efforts extend to grazing
permits, timber contracts, and stewardship contracts?
Answer. Yes, the Forest Service is continuously improving the
National Environmental Policy Act process for all of our programs.
Question 23. How does the Forest Service plan on working with or
otherwise collaborating with the Ecological Restoration Institute
during FY14?
Answer. The Forest Service will continue to work with the
Ecological Restoration Institutes (ERI) to promote the use of adaptive
ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires and restore the
health of fire adapted ecosystems of the interior West. The ERI will
continue to (1) develop, research and promote restoration-based
hazardous fuel reduction treatments to reduce the risk of severe
wildfires and improve the health of dry forest and woodland ecosystems
in the interior West, (2) synthesize and adapt scientific findings from
conventional research to implement restoration-based hazardous fuel
reduction treatments on a landscape scale using an adaptive ecosystem
management framework, (3) transfer to affected entities any scientific
and interdisciplinary knowledge about restoration-based hazardous fuel
reduction treatments, (4) assist affected entities with the design of
adaptive management approaches (including monitoring) for the
implementation of restoration-based hazardous fuel reduction
treatments, and (5) provide peer-reviewed annual reports.
Question 24. Under the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013
(``NDAA''), Congress authorized the transfer of excess U.S. Air Force
(USAF) aircraft to the Forest Service for wildfire fighting activities
(Section 1090, P.L. 112-239). The legislation gives Forest Service the
opportunity to recapitalize a portion of the government-owned fleet
without the added cost of purchasing new aircraft. In March 2013, USAF
identified the C-27J Spartan as a platform ideal for divestment. What
steps is Forest Service taking to utilize the transfer authority in
NDAA, and is the Forest Service working with DoD in the development of
the USAF C-27J Divestment Plan which could be released as early as
June?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture has sent a letter to the
Secretary of Defense stating that the Forest Service would accept these
aircraft and that they are acceptable for the firefighting mission. The
Forest Service is in discussions with the Department of Defense
regarding the divesture of the C-27Js. The Forest Service has a working
group established to develop the needed contracts, establish program
management, and work with the Department of Defense, the manufacturer,
and other organizations necessary for C-27J transfer, conversion, and
operation.
Question 25. How does the Forest Service's budget proposal support
the Four Forest Restoration Initiative through the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration program?
Answer. The President's FY 2014 Budget requests $39,851,000 for the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). The
proposed FY 2014 President's Budget will continue to support
implementation of the 20 CFLRP projects selected in FY 2010 and FY
2012, which includes the Four Forest Restoration Initiative.
Question 26. What is the status of the Four Forest Restoration
Initiative?
Answer. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative is located on the
Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National Forests. In May
2012, the Forest Service signed the largest stewardship contract in its
history. Under the contract, Pioneer Forest Products will thin 300,000
acres in the next 10 years. The Forest Service will receive about $22
per acre, exchanging the value of the trees for the work. The first
task order under that contract was issued in early April of 2013.
In addition, the project published a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) on March 29, 2013. It proposes habitat enhancement,
thinning, and prescribed burning on one million acres of the Kaibab and
Coconino national forests in the next 20 years. The DEIS is currently
under a 60-day public comment period.